Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I don't mean to pick on Eric here because he's hardly the only or even the worst offender, but there is a huge tendency among boomers here to believe, "The theory means things have to turn out the way I want them to!" But it doesn't. Even the calm Bob Butler is guilty of this, in effect--he isn't satisfied with what has happened so far, and he wouldn't even be satisfied with undoing Reaganism. Neither am I, but Reaganism will not be undone any time soon. Eric thinks Bush I was "business as usual" because he dislikes imperialism and this was just more imperialism. But it was a qualitatively different change both in ends and means and it soaked up resources (financial) on a scale undreamed of since Vietnam. And add that to two or three rounds of tax cuts, and you've changed the US for many decades.

You, on the other hand, take the view that the 4T began earlier, and will end soon, because you are disillusioned with the way our 4T is going. Bush I was business as usual because it was, not because I don't like imperialism. I didn't like imperialism during all the previous wars either. Imperialism IS business as usual; whether I like it or not is irrelevant. The Bush wars were waged more incompetently than any previous war since 1812. That does not make it a 4T war, but quite the opposite. Mismanagement of tax and spending policies does not mean we have entered a 4T. It means that these were 3T policies that led us into the crisis. That's what happens in 3Ts. They are unravellings. Things are neglected that lead to crisis. There could be no more typical example than Bush's refusal to pursue prudent financial policies, not only leaving the wars unfunded, but reducing taxes on top of that. The result is the 4T crisis we face, which we entered into with the financial collapse of 2008 and the worst economic crisis since the previous 4T began in exactly the same way.

Gang, we just aren't capable of much of a 4T any more. Personal satisfaction is in, organization and sacrifice are out. More importantly, using rational thought to improve our society is out--it gets in the way of profit.

We are in the 1850s redux. In those times we tried to ignore and compromise our way out of the Crisis instead of facing the fact that we were divided against ourselves. That is exactly what we are doing now. In the mid-2020s, things will come to a head in our red/blue divide, which is why we can do nothing now to improve our society. There is NO other reason why we can't.

Who's getting ready for a big crusade right now?

Occupy Wall Street, and American Dream Movement, move-on.org, change.org, etc.

It is nice to see many of the younger folk slowly coming around.

No they aren't. It doesn't matter. As always, events will prove my predictions correct.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

2026 at the absolute latest. 2023 or 2024 is more likely IMO.

~Chas'88

Count on it: not before 2028. Remember, the crystal ball I have is more clear on this than about anything else.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

We're agreeing on S&H here, if not politics, but I think there is more to this than you're seeing.

The "red/blue" thing is central to the entire saeculum. It's not a 3T phenomenon. It has caused the Crisis, not through direct effect, but by rendering the country inoperable to the point where problems are not dealt with until they become crises. A resolution of it is what's required to solve the problems facing us. So the question is, what is the "red/blue" divide really?

I couldn't agree more, JPT.

It's something that a Millenial would not understand, and something that many others have lost sight of. The "red/blue" divide manifested itself right from the start of the 2T. It was an internal proxy for the Cold War. The Soviet Union fell in 1989, and since then it's been all but forgotten (not entirely by accident -- the left wants to pretend it never existed, and they don't teach Millenials much truth about it in school). But communism and the Cold War were the central issues of the current saeculum, and the residue of that conflict is still with us in the form of "red/blue" Boomers.

This is what happened in the 2T:

On one side ("red", never a worse misnomer), you had this: Ronald Reagan 1964, "A Time for Choosing"

Calling Reagan a 3T figure is completely wrong. He was a major public figure from the start of the 2T through the end of it. The term "conservative movement" is a new term that emerged in this saeculum, and Ronald Reagan was at the forefront of it. He grew up a New Deal Democrat and became president of the SAG union in Hollywood, but after seeing up close what the Left was really about, he ended up dedicating his life to fighting socialism and communism, at home and abroad. The above speech is virtually indistinguishable from what we've heard at Tea Party rallies in the last few years. The stasis of the High broke in two, and this stuff was one half of what emerged from it.

Totally correct so far.

On the other side ("blue") you had the emergence of the New Left and the SDS around the same time, at the start of (or just before) the 2T. These were Marxist groups that spearheaded, organized and instigated the 1960s "counter culture" movement, primarily on college campuses, where young Boomers were seized upon, converted and indoctrinated.

Here you exaggerate of course. This is anti-communist conspiracy theory. McCarthyism was wrong then, and you are wrong now. The Left arose because of what people were concerned about, and because they were inspired by new visions of what our society could be. It is true that there was a small minority of Marxists who were leading some of the New Left movements by the late 1960s.

This is the fundamental story of this entire saeculum, starting immediately after the end of WWII. The Soviet Union was defeated, but the internal conflict, embodied by and deeply ingrained in the Baby Boom generation, has never ended.

I've said many times that if you take the two sides above and add them together, allowing some of their qualities to cancel out and others to be doubled, what you end up with is something that looks a lot like libertarianism. Which is why the attempts of Bush and Obama to go back to the policies of the last 4T have been derailed.

Here is where the propaganda and deception come in. Reagan has piggy-backed on the anti-government feelings during the 2T, from both left and right, to help convince many Boomers, and many more of the "self-reliant, self-directed" Xers after them, that "government is the problem." It is well-documented that the people behind Reagan wanted to increase the power of the wealthy and corporate class by reducing the financial and legal power of government to deal with social problems. The right thinks these programs are "Marxist," but they are only social insurance and investment programs that help everyone, not an attempt by the proletariat to take over the means of production and reduce America to total equality. But calling them Marxist wins points with Americans, since we are almost all opposed to communism.

Reagan's diagnosis of the problems facing the New Deal superstructure is more true today than when he said it in 1964, and those are the issues we now face domestically. We have a government that our economy cannot sustain, and it's responding by getting even farther out of control. The external conflict is something different, but not entirely divorced from the issues above. Radical Islam is in many ways the Middle Eastern version of the Weather Underground.

We can sustain our social programs just fine, if we don't cut taxes that are needed to pay for them, just because some people don't want to pay them. These programs have already been cut and "reformed" almost out of existence as it is; they can't possibly be the cause of any problems anymore, even if they once were. Comparing Al Qaida and Co. to the small and incompetent Weather Underground of circa 1970 is ridiculous, and their priorities and interests are entirely opposite.

Originally Posted by pizal81

Swimming in da Nile.

Again, you think being urged to keep on shopping, and temporary power grabs by Bush and Cheney, are intense changes; you are the one in Da Nile. Come up for air, dude! The response to 9-11 was business as usual, more work for the military-industrial complex, and that's ALL it was. And "changes in US foreign policy to meet the conditions of a changed world since 9-11" was nothing but propaganda to convince people to support an illegal preemptive war policy that can't and won't be continued. And for Jesus' sake, tell me any "intense" changes happening on the domestic side.
Bush did absolutely nothing. He was Coolidge/Harding redux.

Originally Posted by pizal81

My point was that if we threw out the theory and certain things did happen then there would be little unrest left. The only way I could see more unrest is if corporate America just took things far enough to turn far right types. How the neocons sold the middle class on the benefits of favoring big business is genius. I think someone who disagreed with me would should say something like. The crisis mood would make sure some sort of equilibrium didn't happen and unrest would continue. Personally, I don't see how a crisis mood will last if Obama stops going to war (the more the millennials have power the less likely that is to happen) and the economy picks up just enough. We don't even have to go back to 5% unemployment. Our nation's expectations have been lowered so much anywhere around 7% will be considered acceptable.

As Bob and Brian have also pointed out, we face energy, environmental and global-economic challenges that the current economic crisis is just papering over. The real crisis is yet to unfold; we can't ignore these problems forever.

Now on the civil analogy which I think is good, but flawed is what are we going to go to war with ourselves over? They had a huge issue (slavery) that caused a divide that caused the civil war. The government has been backing down when people have made their voices heard. SOPA and PIPA didn't get anywhere. I don't see the top pushing any harder like 5 years from now.

We won't need to go to war in order to have a crisis that could challenge the existence of the USA as we know it. The government is completely polarized and can accomplish virtually nothing except tax cuts.

Just so you know I am trying to look at things as objectively as I can. To do that I'm throwing out the idea of a catalyst and looking at where we actually are then working back to see where the catalyst might actually be. I think some are doing it bass ackwards and deciding the catalyst then trying to make society fit where they think we should be.

That's what those people who say 9-11 was the catalyst are doing, for sure.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Odin, do me a favor. Take an afternoon (that's all it would take) and read Democracy by Henry Adams, which appeared, I think, in 1884, and was an international best-seller of incredible proportions (partly because he published it anonymously.) Then tell me 1) that it describes a political system run by mid-life civics and 2) that the author (b. 1837) is a civic. I'll bet you can't do it with a straight face.

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

If you think the corporate executives of the 1960s and 70s were much better than those of the Gilded Age, you are incorrect. They drove these companies into the ground with their short-sighted policies, and our society with them. Civics rarely live up in adulthood to the image portrayed of them by the authors and others. They are anything but the greatest generations.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

As far as the middle class being "sold" something, the economy was in the toilet in the late 70s. Deregulation actually began with Jimmy Carter. Everybody knew government had gotten out of control, and taxes were insanely high. Decades of Keynesianism had produced "stagflation" - runaway inflation in the middle of a stagnant economy. Trying to "stimulate" demand repeatedly got us into a ditch that that economic philosophy was unable to get us out of. Enter "supply side economics" - the goal of which is to reduce to the government burden on producers so that prices fall and employment picks up. People were "sold" on it because it worked, dramatically.

Do I have to trot out the Rachel Maddow video again
Supply side economics worked only for the richest 1% of the country.

Originally Posted by pizal81

Brian are you trollin? the crisis ending within the next 5 years doesn't mean the theory is invalidated just that you misunderstood it. Of course, the latter must be impossible.

How many anomalous, shortened turnings can a theory sustain? The authors said generations were 20 or 21 years long, and saecula were 80-plus years long. Shortening these things is a new theory.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

This election is going to be the end of the theocratic dream. Of that I feel increasingly confident.

Hardly. Evangelical, fundamental Christianity is deeply embedded in small town and small-city America. People don't shift their beliefs that easily. The dream will persist through this saeculum and beyond; it just won't be realized.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The other book you need to read is Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.

A serious indictment of 1950s America, IIRC. Quite parallel to the Gilded Age.

1Ts contain enough "civic spirit" to build things, and sustain some reforms created in the 4T (at least for a while); but the things that are "built" are things that enhance the power of industry and steam-roller the lives and concerns of ordinary people. The "other" America is ignored. Railroads, corporations, highways, glass boxes, urban renewal... if it's physically and economically powerful, morally and spiritual bereft, and benefits those holding the reins, then the 1T "builds" it. 1Ts, when civics reach mid-life, are never anything to look forward to.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think they will become even more aggressive--as they already are--in the areas in which they control local and state politics.

Yes, Virginia is swimming in a Religous Right cesspool right now. We can't fund public school, but private religous schools are OK. Oh, and be sure to buy lots of guns.

Originally Posted by radind

Zealots are a problem-religious or not.

Religous zealots are unique in believing they have the impimatur of God. That can't be overcome by reason, no matter how obvious or justified.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'll post this again since you seem to have missed it. S&H put the boundaries for midlife at 42-62. The oldest Xers were 42 in 2003, and will be 62 in 2023. Turnings and generations last about 20 years. All of these numbers are approximations, allowing for wiggle room on either side. S&H never claimed you could time it down to the hour.

YOu want enough wiggle room to wiggle out of the theory.

You can't just look at Xers. If anything, the previous 4T and 1T were too short for the cycle as a whole. If the saeculum and generation lengths stay the same, then events have adjusted, with the result that the 3T this cycle was longer: 1984-2008. Sometimes events (and the planets btw) shift the timing of turnings a bit, but the overall cycle stays at 80-plus years.

Your proclamations about what will or will not invalidate the theory are based on false premises with regard to the timing of dates and generations. To me, and many others, it is abundantly obvious that the primary catalyst for the 4T was 9/11/2001. The 2000 election fiasco and the bursting of the dot com bubble were also minor catalysts, in my opinion. You can agree or disagree with that view, but you cannot claim it's invalid based on what S&H wrote. In fact, it is the obvious answer to the question of when the 4T started. If you presented this theory to someone who had never heard it, and then asked them when they thought the 4T started, the first thing out of their mouth would be 9/11.

Polls I have seen (including here) say that 2008 seriously affected most people, but 9-11 very few. 9-11 was a spectacular disaster, and some people here are hypnotized by that to think it was the catalyst for a 4T. Other than it being a big event, there is no basis for that idea.

Howe has equivocated since, but if you want to argue it wasn't the catalyst because the country didn't sufficiently rally around Bush, you have to apply the same standard to Obama, which means we still aren't in a 4T.

Rallying around a president has nothing to do with a 4T. There was simply no commitment to the wars, by Bush or by the people, and they had nothing to do with a threat to the United States. It was simply business as usual.

The alternative is to recognize that internal division is a primary feature of this 4T. And then the argument against 9/11 goes out the window. If there was a flaw in S&H's ideas, it was in their characterizations of generations and turnings, not the fundamental mechanism. They undoubtedly saw a lot of things through rose-colored glasses, particularly the "national unity" of the previous 4T, and the personality of Civics as a generation. And we all seem to agree that they showed a huge amount of favoritism to Boomers.

Says who? They knocked Boomers constantly, as most people here do.

Internal division is indeed a primary feature of this 4T, but the main focus of that division now is whether the government should deal with social, economic and environmental problems or not. The culture and foreign policy divides are still there too, but they are not the main issue right now. The culture wars dominated the 3T (which was given that title), and the foreign policy divide dominated the 2T. The divide itself must be dealt with later in this 4T, and will be decided somehow in the mid-2020s.

If internal division is a primary feature of the 4T, as you say, then it follows that a foreign policy challenge like 9-11 cannot be the catalyst for it.

The power of Boomers has already peaked and is receding. Xers are on the rise. If you look at the composition of Congress, and especially new incoming members, the power of Boomers peaked around 2006-2008. In 2010 there was a clear shift in the direction of Xers. The conclusion that we are about half way through the 4T is obvious, and requires a lot of explanation to disprove.

No, it just proves Xers are more right-wing. They are the Tea Party crowd that took over in 2010. They may be shoved right back out of office again, and that will happen if the people decide to have any sense at all. Liberal Boomers like Grayson will come right back in. And maybe some liberal Xers too.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

It may go black and white, with some states going ga-ga for theocracy and others voting hell no. That might be a back story, or it could erupt into real tension and strife. Having Santorum as a candidate makes that a lot more likely than having Mitt the Mild setting the tone.

We've needed to have a Christian conservative make the pitch at least once. This could be the year. I'm betting that the results will be similar to McGovern's in '72, but in reverse. That might be a best case, actually. It' still scary, though.

How much will you bet? I'll pit my crystal ball against your perceptions of what we need any day.

Santorum may be out as soon as late April.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hardly. Evangelical, fundamental Christianity is deeply embedded in small town and small-city America. People don't shift their beliefs that easily. The dream will persist through this saeculum and beyond; it just won't be realized.

I think the point is how it's manifest. The Moral Majority brought it into the public square. A humiliating defeat might send it back there. Religion and politics are poor bedfellows, so having that as a result would be fine with me.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

How much will you bet? I'll pit my crystal ball against your perceptions of what we need any day.

Santorum may be out as soon as late April.

Mitt seems to focus on one threat at a time, and Santorum is the threat on today's menu. Will Mitt bet him down or will he crash and burn on his own? Beats me. I don't understand the fascination, so I'm not one to ask. Ask those who sing his praises.

You have to admit, it's a bit scary that someone so close to society's social edge can be this close to running on a major party ticket.

I'm starting to wonder what this forum would be like if I put every Boomer on ignore.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Religous zealots are unique in believing they have the impimatur of God. That can't be overcome by reason, no matter how obvious or justified.

You really are starting to expose yourself as an anti-Christian bigot. You don't believe the things you're saying. This is pure demonization and demagoguery, motivated by hate.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Religous zealots are unique in believing they have the impimatur of God. That can't be overcome by reason, no matter how obvious or justified.

The problem being, of course, that today religious zealots apply the same approach of fanatically believing in things they are told, to economic and militarist ideologies as well. Trickle-down, free market Reaganomics is nothing if not a fundamentalist, political "religion," believed-in by many of the same people who believe in religious fundamentalism, and believed in in the same way.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The problem being, of course, that today religious zealots apply the same approach of fanatically believing in things they are told, to economic and militarist ideologies as well. Trickle-down, free market Reaganomics is nothing if not a fundamentalist, political "religion," believed-in by many of the same people who believe in religious fundamentalism, and believed in in the same way.

Yep. There's no point even debating them. Their views are based on fantasy, and therefore illegitimate. They should lose the right to vote on the basis of cognitive impairment. They're sub-human. At some point we may have to round them all up into camps.

Of course, the ideology of the left bears no resemblence to religion. It's all based on reason, science and fact. Therefore all other views should simply be outlawed.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Mitt seems to focus on one threat at a time, and Santorum is the threat on today's menu. Will Mitt beat him down or will he crash and burn on his own? Beats me. I don't understand the fascination, so I'm not one to ask. Ask those who sing his praises.

You have to admit, it's a bit scary that someone so close to society's social edge can be this close to running on a major party ticket.

It's simply more proof of how crazy, ideological, fanatical and zealous our right-wing today is. It is THE problem facing America. Yes, it can be kinda scary.

But Santorum himself is a weak candidate, and he won't last through the primaries. Don't be too worried about the rise and fall of the latest non-romney. Even the right-wing knows it has weak candidates this time around. They may, in fact, never have a strong candidate again.

Unless perhaps they can congeal around Paul Ryan; he will be a strong candidate in the future, if he runs. Even so, Ryan may turn out to be more rational and moderate than he now appears, having to cater to the people in his Party.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You really are starting to expose yourself as an anti-Christian bigot. You don't believe the things you're saying. This is pure demonization and demagoguery, motivated by hate.

No, it's simple fact. That's the way these people are. They are deaf to all reason; they believe (simple as that). And you yourself are an example of it.

That's not to say you are not articulate and thoughtful about some things, and that you don't make good points. You do. Your views represent a large slice of America today, and it's good to have them represented on this forum. That's why though I disagree with you about almost everything, I would not put you on ignore (as I do JDGlick), even if you put me there. But when your arguments fail to convince, or are disproven, you simply resort to restating your views; eventually you can no longer engage.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yep. There's no point even debating them. Their views are based on fantasy, and therefore illegitimate. They should lose the right to vote on the basis of cognitive impairment. They're sub-human. At some point we may have to round them all up into camps.

Of course, the ideology of the left bears no resemblence to religion. It's all based on reason, science and fact. Therefore all other views should simply be outlawed.

I'm content to have them defeated at the polls. That is quite overdue to happen, to be sure. But no, I am not in favor of intelligence tests as a prerequisite to vote. It is the right-wingers today who are erecting barriers to voting, not left-wingers like me.

No, you can't evade the traits of your side with sarcasm. It won't work. Maybe ignoring us will work for you. But it's well to remember that, to some extent, we need our enemies. Without them we have no game of life. We don't know who we are, and no challenges are ever taken up.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

You really are starting to expose yourself as an anti-Christian bigot. You don't believe the things you're saying. This is pure demonization and demagoguery, motivated by hate.

I'm a Christian, and I'm not at all offended by what he's saying. If he's anti-anything, he's anti-misogyny.

Latest Gallup matchup Romney 50% Obama 46%. This is during the very nasty primary among Republicans. With gas prices shooting up and putting the kabosh on any growth or recovery this could turn into a Reagan 1980 type victory for Romney....


http://www.gallup.com/poll/152918/Ro...ationally.aspx