The Christian Science Monitor published the following column of ours in its September 23rd editions.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0923/p09s01-coop.html

Through prism of tragedy, generations are defined
By Neil Howe and William Strauss
Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - Dec. 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor Sunday. Nov. 22, 1963, the assassination of JFK. Ask Americans who recall these dates, and they can tell you where they were, what they were doing, how it felt ? and how old they were at the time.

Big events, and the mood shifts they trigger, change our lives. They compel us as generations to interact with history. By the responses of parents and leaders, the collective personalities of older generations are revealed. And by the impressions gained by youth, the sensibilities of younger generations are shaped ? which, given time, will determine how the nation responds to the next big event.

We now reflect on the legacy of another big event. Few will ever forget the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Almost certainly, it defines another meeting between history and generations whose long-term meaning is only beginning to emerge.

For those in the fading "G.I. Generation" ? who came of age during the Great Depression and World War II, and are now in their late '70s on up ? 9/11 is an end-of-life affirmation. America is experiencing a replay of their adrenaline-filled launch into adulthood. Once again, it is a time for big institutions to play grand roles, for citizens to reaffirm their trust in nationhood, for neighborhoods to band together, for people to talk less and do more. From the likes of George Shultz or Henry Kissinger, we hear plain-spoken directions about how to project American power. Having so long regarded them as our "hero" generation, we thirst all the more for a new young generation of heroes now that we see them pass away.

For the retiring "Silent Generation," now in their '60s and '70s, 9/11 is worrisome. Polls confirm that these World War II-era children have aged into the most war- and casualty-averse Americans, the most ardent supporters of the UN, and the biggest advocates of committee-scripted process. They're the first generation not to have produced a US president. They've cultivated a gray-flannel reputation not as strong leaders but as the consummate technocrats and mediators of a civic order built by their more powerful next-elders. It makes them feel ? as Joseph Nye, the Harvard scholar, wrote recently ? that "America does not understand the complexities and ambiguities of its own power."

The most conspicuous voices of caution are coming from the likes of Colin Powell, Larry Eagleburger, Brent Scowcroft, and Dick Armey. Even prowar Silents like Jim Baker or Pat Moynihan prefer we follow a process of communication and consensus with allies. This generation is distressed by "good versus evil" choices, reminding them of the worst nightmares of their childhood ? the internment of minorities, the need for blind obedience, the rigid gender roles, and the trashing of civil liberties.

For the "Boomer Generation," now in their '40s and '50s, 9/11 is empowering. All their lives, Boomers have always believed that values come first. Now that they dominate national leadership, they're framing policies that focus on character, culture, goodness, and justice ? high principles that often rule out peaceable compromise. The first Boomer president, Bill Clinton, once complained that history provided no great crisis against which he could prove his mettle. Now history has dealt such a crisis to George Bush who, as even his detractors concede, has become a more effective leader now that he sees in 9/11 as "a moment we must seize to change our culture and overcome evil with greater good."

Of all today's generations, Boomers are the most prowar. From Desert Storm to Kosovo to the war on terror, polls have shown Boomers to be as much as 10 percentage points more likely than older or younger Americans to support the use of force and risk broader conflicts to remove evildoers abroad. Boomer editorialists like Charles Krauthammer, Michael Kelly, and Bill Kristol are vehemently leading the call for war. Though some Boomers on college faculties are trying to resurrect something akin to the anti-Vietnam War movement. As a whole, the Boom Generation appears to be reenacting what British historian Arnold Toynbee once called "the long war cycle," the tendency of the generation born after the last great war to declare the next great war as elder leaders.

For Generation X, on the brink of midlife, 9/11 is disorienting. Before this event, Gen-Xers voted lightly, maneuvered in the economy like free agents, and shared a mind-set that good deeds are done by and for individuals, not by or for nations. Now that America is under attack ? not persons who happen to be American, but America itself ? their highly exposed, fast-paced, unplanned, loyalty-free lifestyle suddenly feels unsafe. Polls show that of all generations, Gen-Xers were the most deeply affected by 9/11 in their living habits, finances, and career choices. Overlapping with the dot-com bust and recession, the year since 9/11 has seen a deceleration for Gen-Xers. A sharply rising number are getting married, having kids and spending more time with them, buying and fixing houses. We've heard more from the Lisa Beamers, and less from the Allan Iversons.

On a personal level, Gen X was hit hard by 9/11, having suffered most of the casualties, and provided most of the firefighter, police, and "let's roll" passenger heroes. Most of the soldiers who signed wills and exchanged wedding vows before shipping off to fight in Afghanistan were Gen X. The 9/11 aftermath is an opportunity for this generation to cast an anchor, to reengage in the history of a nation whose future matters more than they once thought.

For the post-X Millennial Generation, those born since 1982 who now fill grade schools and the first two years of college, 9/11 is a defining moment. At a personal level, 9/11 affected them the least, since their own world endured a similar, if smaller-scale, "terrorism" crisis back in 1998-99, with the wave of Columbine-style school shootings. Polls show that kids have been the least surprised by new security measures since they're the most used to having ID cards examined, luggage searched, and jokes screened by authorities. Today's kids trust and confide in authorities, set up Web cams in their rooms, and keep in constant electronic contact with parents and friends. For better or worse, privacy isn't a big issue among teens, and challenges to civil liberties are less of a worry than to older people.

Even before 9/11, the budding character of these new youth was making itself clear, with high trust in authority; rising achievement in math and science; and falling rates of crime, teen pregnancy, and substance abuse. Energized by a sense of their collective potential, large numbers of Millennials had already begun participating in community service. It was almost as though America was preparing these kids for some great mission. But what?

Along came 9/11, which may be history's answer to this question.

? William Strauss and Neil Howe are authors of 'The Fourth Turning' and 'Millennials Rising.'

Are you of the opinion that the 4T has now begun?

Some comments and questions about the Christian Science Monitor column.

Originally Posted by Strauss and Howe

The Christian Science Monitor published the following column of ours in its September 23rd editions.

For the retiring "Silent Generation," now in their '60s and '70s, 9/11 is worrisome. Polls confirm that these World War II-era children have aged into the most war- and casualty-averse Americans, the most ardent supporters of the UN, and the biggest advocates of committee-scripted process. They're the first generation not to have produced a US president. They've cultivated a gray-flannel reputation not as strong leaders but as the consummate technocrats and mediators of a civic order built by their more powerful next-elders. It makes them feel ? as Joseph Nye, the Harvard scholar, wrote recently ? that "America does not understand the complexities and ambiguities of its own power."

The most conspicuous voices of caution are coming from the likes of Colin Powell, Larry Eagleburger, Brent Scowcroft, and Dick Armey. Even prowar Silents like Jim Baker or Pat Moynihan prefer we follow a process of communication and consensus with allies. This generation is distressed by "good versus evil" choices, reminding them of the worst nightmares of their childhood ? the internment of minorities, the need for blind obedience, the rigid gender roles, and the trashing of civil liberties.

This resonates in my family, where my Silent Mom (1930 cohort, so old enough to have vivid memories of WWII) is extremely distressed about the prospect of War with Iraq and has a bumper sticker proclaiming support for the U.N.

How about Rumsfeld and Cheney though (and perhaps Ashcroft, but the latter is a cusper)? They seem to have the Boomer enthusiasm (which I don't share, by the way) for war.

Nor do I share their enthusiasm for war. I represent a boomer faction which supplied much of the population for the hippie culture. I have sensed for years that there has been a philosophical split in the boomer generation. I also represent a minority of boomers who have bent over all consciousness out of proportion to our numbers. We supply most of the older cultural creatives, the environmentalists, alternative political groups, etc.

My own unscientific poll tells me that these people are beginning to awaken to the realities of this new world. Who was it who said that the masses never do anything? It just takes a few. My prediction is that we will shortly see new alliances and new political allignments which will surprise us all.

And yes, does this mean that you believe that 911 was the catalyst?

Originally Posted by buzzard44

Nor do I share their enthusiasm for war. I represent a boomer faction which supplied much of the population for the hippie culture. I have sensed for years that there has been a philosophical split in the boomer generation. I also represent a minority of boomers who have bent over all consciousness out of proportion to our numbers. We supply most of the older cultural creatives, the environmentalists, alternative political groups, etc.

My own unscientific poll tells me that these people are beginning to awaken to the realities of this new world. Who was it who said that the masses never do anything? It just takes a few. My prediction is that we will shortly see new alliances and new political allignments which will surprise us all.

And yes, does this mean that you believe that 911 was the catalyst?

I've had a question in regards to the cultural creatives running around my mind lately. In the 1930's there was a rather equivalent group of young people, primarily in Europe as I recall from my reading, who pledged that they would never serve their countries in war. In England one of these groups made what was called "The Cambridge Declaration", I believe. The significance of these particular young people, most of them young men, was that they were of the privileged elite, students of Cambridge and Oxford and other schools, the future leaders of the country.
There was also in the 1930's a movement where many of these "cultural creatives" declared themselves to be "citizens of the world" and attempted to travel about without passports and the like, arguing that things like borders should be abolished.
There were other philosophical and political movements in Europe and the United States which were counter to the more normal manifestations of national self-interest, things such as communism, socialism, and other movements (I seem to recall Sinclair Lewis leading some sort of idealistic political campaign in California in the mid '30's).
Then...huge world events swept most of these things aside, leaving only a few individuals who remained committed to their ideals.
I have to seriously wonder how well the values of today's cultural creatives will survive a terrible 4T winter storm. This is not to slam these people, mind you. But when things change powerfully and unexpectedly, its hard to know what will be left.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Are you of the opinion that the 4T has now begun?

They do appear to be leaning that way.

I think that it is unlikely that the Cultural Creatives can actually keep us from war.

The peace versus war argument will still hold, but if it ever becomes clear that war truly is unavoidable or is necessary (as in the case of World War II), then war powers will be granted. This issue will likely be settled based upon the usage of war. In actuality, most liberal peace activists do not disagree with the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, or World War II. They were very much opposed to Vietnam. Vietnam was fought for the basis of expanding the American sphere of influence, and most wars fought since World War II were fought precisely for these, and other economic reasons. This is why there is such increasing opposition against an Iraqi War.

But let's suppose that Bush starts the war, and the economy crashes as oil prices skyrocket, and more terrorist attacks happen as a result of the war. In 2004, Bush is ousted, and Kucinich is sworn in. He establishes his Department of Peace. With this, American society is rebuilt around the concept of establishing peace. Now, let's zip forward to 2013, when a 4T China decides to iinvade the US to establish itself as a superpower. Will "peace" work then? Of course not. At that time, it will be NECESSARY for there to be total war. Kucinich will have no choice but to fight.

There are times in which war is not avoidable. The new values regime will likely only redefine the acceptable reasons for war, such as when the nation is threatened. Under this regime, war would likely only be a possible resort.

I will answer for Strauss and Howe, using my psychic powers to predict where they're coming from.

They, being historians and looking at generations and turnings and so on over a period of decades and centuries, are reluctant to make any sort of decision about which turning we're in after such a short period of time. It will probably be many years before they will be willing to definitely say at what point the 4th turning began.

But, they believe that it is looking like the 4th turning may have begun.

Originally Posted by madscientist

I think that it is unlikely that the Cultural Creatives can actually keep us from war.

But let's suppose that Bush starts the war, and the economy crashes as oil prices skyrocket, and more terrorist attacks happen as a result of the war. In 2004, Bush is ousted, and Kucinich is sworn in. He establishes his Department of Peace. With this, American society is rebuilt around the concept of establishing peace. Now, let's zip forward to 2013, when a 4T China decides to iinvade the US to establish itself as a superpower. Will "peace" work then? Of course not. At that time, it will be NECESSARY for there to be total war. Kucinich will have no choice but to fight.

I hate to say this, but if Dennis Kucinich is sworn in in January 2005 and serves the constitutionally-limited two terms, he will be an ex-President after January 20, 2013. So unless the attack happens in the very begining of the year, it won't be Kuckinch who declares war.

Originally Posted by Jenny Genser

Originally Posted by madscientist

I think that it is unlikely that the Cultural Creatives can actually keep us from war.

But let's suppose that Bush starts the war, and the economy crashes as oil prices skyrocket, and more terrorist attacks happen as a result of the war. In 2004, Bush is ousted, and Kucinich is sworn in. He establishes his Department of Peace. With this, American society is rebuilt around the concept of establishing peace. Now, let's zip forward to 2013, when a 4T China decides to iinvade the US to establish itself as a superpower. Will "peace" work then? Of course not. At that time, it will be NECESSARY for there to be total war. Kucinich will have no choice but to fight.

I hate to say this, but if Dennis Kucinich is sworn in in January 2005 and serves the constitutionally-limited two terms, he will be an ex-President after January 20, 2013. So unless the attack happens in the very begining of the year, it won't be Kuckinch who declares war.

Very true. Although it is possible, evn likely, that his Vice President -- a hand-picked successor -- will be elected President in November 2012 and carry on through 2021, which may be near the end of the 4T.

Originally Posted by Jenny Genser

Originally Posted by madscientist

I think that it is unlikely that the Cultural Creatives can actually keep us from war.

But let's suppose that Bush starts the war, and the economy crashes as oil prices skyrocket, and more terrorist attacks happen as a result of the war. In 2004, Bush is ousted, and Kucinich is sworn in. He establishes his Department of Peace. With this, American society is rebuilt around the concept of establishing peace. Now, let's zip forward to 2013, when a 4T China decides to iinvade the US to establish itself as a superpower. Will "peace" work then? Of course not. At that time, it will be NECESSARY for there to be total war. Kucinich will have no choice but to fight.

I hate to say this, but if Dennis Kucinich is sworn in in January 2005 and serves the constitutionally-limited two terms, he will be an ex-President after January 20, 2013. So unless the attack happens in the very begining of the year, it won't be Kuckinch who declares war.

but who's to say (if Kucinich is THAT popular in a 4T) that the constitution won't be amended again to allow for him to serve a 3rd or 4th term?

Well, the authors do seem to be leaning towards the "we're in a 4T now" position. That aside, though, I have a bit of a problem with their article, which I believe is best described in terms of the final words thereof:

It was almost as though America was preparing these kids for some great mission. But what?

Along came 9/11, which may be history's answer to this question.

No, it will not. It was merely the first domino to fall. It began the transition to the new civic order. It does not define it, nor does it define the challenge we face.

If we are in 4T now, which I believe we are, then 9/11 was the catalyst -- not the regeneracy. Look back on catalysts of the past, and think how they might have been regarded with conservative eyes.

Think of the Boston Tea Party as a conservative might have. The problem might seem to have been rowdy, ungrateful, rebellious, unreasonable colonials who severely needed to be disciplined. That is certainly how the British government saw the matter.

Or think of Abraham Lincoln's election. To a conservative, especially but not exclusively one from the South, the problem was an administration, elected legally but without a popular majority, bent on violating the spirit (if not the letter) of the Constitution, necessitating breakup of the Union if the freedoms established in the prior Crisis (as seen by conservatives of the time) were to be preserved.

Or think of the 1929 stock market crash. To a conservative, the problem was that business was weak, and needed to be released from restraints imposed by government to regain its strength. Precisely that argument was made, in fact.

We now know that all three of these Crises bent in directions utterly opposite to the way a conservative would have interpreted their catalyst events. The Boston Tea Party led, not to disciplining the Americans and subduing their rebelliousness, but to national independence. The election of Lincoln led, not to dissolution of the Union, but, after a horrid bloodbath, to its strengthening and consolidation. And the stock market crash of 1929 led, not to a less-regulated, but to a more-regulated economy.

What Strauss and Howe have written for the Christian Science Monitor is an interpretation of the 9/11 attack as a conservative would see it: a repudiation of many of the causes and social changes from this saeculum's Awakening, a call for return to the unquestioning patriotism of the last High, a need to free the U.S. from the shackles (as a conservative might see it) of international treaties and organizations so that it can act without hesitation in its own defense. By interpreting generational differences in terms of whether the various generations are pro- or antiwar, pro- or anti-UN, they seem to be saying that the war on terrorism is the defining issue of the Crisis, and those who question the direction Mr. Bush is trying to take that war are being retrograde.

That is nonsense.

If there is one consistent fact that can be said about Fourth Turnings past, it is that not one of them has taken a society back to a place it occupied before the Awakening, except in the broadest, and politically least meaningful, sense of that phrase. That is: the mood of society in a Crisis is a constant from one saeculum to another, but the issues, the way in which it is to be approached, the solutions, all are new, and so is the society with which we will emerge from the maelstrom.

What's more, no Crisis of the past has ever repudiated the new values regime of the Awakening. All have institutionalized that values regime, and ended all significant controversy regarding it. The values regime of the present saeculum's Awakening having centered around the issues of unreflective, unquestioning patriotism, war and peace, and the danger to the environment, it would be absolutely unique and unprecedented if this saeculum's Fourth Turning were to repudicate and reverse those values.

This is not about America defending itself against evil. It is about America redefining itself in light of its own folly. The question is not whether we will go to war or not; we are already at war! The question, rather, is whether we will find our way to peace, or descend, as Mr. Bush seems to intend, into a state of constant war, war without end, war obliterating freedom as it did in Orwell's novel.

This is only the beginning. The regeneracy is not here yet. And the chances that Bush will be the one to lead the nation into it are slim to nonexistent. He would have to show considerably greater vision than he has so far -- and there is slim chance of that. But if he does not, his chances are nonexistent.

It has always rather astonished me that our admired authors, whose insights in regard to the saeculum istself are little short of miraculous, could have so little appreciation for the nature of the Crisis that their theory predicts, in its specific manifestation for this saeculum. In Generations, the only issue identified with specificity was the precarious state of the Social Security system and America's retirement structure generally, in light of federal deficits. In The Fourth Turning, a broader range of possible issues was presented, but one gets the feeling they were inserted more as a literary exercise than as serious thought. And now, in this article anyway, the first 4T event of the saeculum is taken, quite wrongly, as defining the course of the future in a very simple and linear way.

As Livy quotes Hasdrubal saying to Hannibal, the gods do not give all gifts to any one person.

Alan, I believe you have a misconception about the life course and influence of the last saeculum's cultural creatives.

Then...huge world events swept most of these things aside, leaving only a few individuals who remained committed to their ideals.

That statement is untrue. Nothing in the agenda you described was swept aside, despite the fact that World War II had to be fought. At its end, nationalism and isolationism were compromised, and international peacekeeping organizations (including but not limited to the United Nations) were established in harmony with their vision. As best they could, they manifested the idea of world citizenship in the global institutions created at the end of the Crisis.

What's more, World War II was itself a war against the very ultra-nationalism they questioned, exemplified by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. In that sense, the war strengthened the position of their ideals, rather than weakening it.

As for socialism, that, too, influenced the economic order of the post-Crisis world, which became far more respectful of the rights of workers and less unthinkingly friendly towards the wealthy and powerful.

We may anticipate at least a similar degree of influence by cultural creatives on the current saeculum's turmoil and on the new civic order that will be built.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, the authors do seem to be leaning towards the "we're in a 4T now" position. That aside, though, I have a bit of a problem with their article, which I believe is best described in terms of the final words thereof:

It was almost as though America was preparing these kids for some great mission. But what?

Along came 9/11, which may be history's answer to this question.

No, it will not. It was merely the first domino to fall. It began the transition to the new civic order. It does not define it, nor does it define the challenge we face.

If we are in 4T now, which I believe we are, then 9/11 was the catalyst -- not the regeneracy. Look back on catalysts of the past, and think how they might have been regarded with conservative eyes.

Think of the Boston Tea Party as a conservative might have. The problem might seem to have been rowdy, ungrateful, rebellious, unreasonable colonials who severely needed to be disciplined. That is certainly how the British government saw the matter.

Or think of Abraham Lincoln's election. To a conservative, especially but not exclusively one from the South, the problem was an administration, elected legally but without a popular majority, bent on violating the spirit (if not the letter) of the Constitution, necessitating breakup of the Union if the freedoms established in the prior Crisis (as seen by conservatives of the time) were to be preserved.

Or think of the 1929 stock market crash. To a conservative, the problem was that business was weak, and needed to be released from restraints imposed by government to regain its strength. Precisely that argument was made, in fact.

We now know that all three of these Crises bent in directions utterly opposite to the way a conservative would have interpreted their catalyst events. The Boston Tea Party led, not to disciplining the Americans and subduing their rebelliousness, but to national independence. The election of Lincoln led, not to dissolution of the Union, but, after a horrid bloodbath, to its strengthening and consolidation. And the stock market crash of 1929 led, not to a less-regulated, but to a more-regulated economy.

Also, I might add that the stock market crash of 1929, on its surface, did not appear to have much in common with the rise of Hitler and Stalin and World War II. I say "appear" because of course, we now know that the dismal shortcomings of the laisse faire economies came home to roost in Europe and the US during the Thirties and helped produce Hitlers and Stalins (I'm not sure where Tojo and Japan fit into this). At any rate, nobody in 1929 or 1930 could have contemplated young GIs participating in a Normandy invasion or Iwo Jima a scant 15 years later.

Likewise, today, who knows that heroic deeds the kids filling our elementary and middle schools today will be called upon when the crisis climaxes in 15-20 years.

What Strauss and Howe have written for the Christian Science Monitor is an interpretation of the 9/11 attack as a conservative would see it: a repudiation of many of the causes and social changes from this saeculum's Awakening, a call for return to the unquestioning patriotism of the last High, a need to free the U.S. from the shackles (as a conservative might see it) of international treaties and organizations so that it can act without hesitation in its own defense. By interpreting generational differences in terms of whether the various generations are pro- or antiwar, pro- or anti-UN, they seem to be saying that the war on terrorism is the defining issue of the Crisis, and those who question the direction Mr. Bush is trying to take that war are being retrograde.

That is nonsense.

If there is one consistent fact that can be said about Fourth Turnings past, it is that not one of them has taken a society back to a place it occupied before the Awakening, except in the broadest, and politically least meaningful, sense of that phrase. That is: the mood of society in a Crisis is a constant from one saeculum to another, but the issues, the way in which it is to be approached, the solutions, all are new, and so is the society with which we will emerge from the maelstrom.

What's more, no Crisis of the past has ever repudiated the new values regime of the Awakening. All have institutionalized that values regime, and ended all significant controversy regarding it. The values regime of the present saeculum's Awakening having centered around the issues of unreflective, unquestioning patriotism, war and peace, and the danger to the environment, it would be absolutely unique and unprecedented if this saeculum's Fourth Turning were to repudicate and reverse those values.

Brian, I disagree. The issues of the Awakening that have become established in our culture during the Unravelling are: the role of women, the environment (I agree with you here), race, and religion. Here is what I see.

• environment. It is now unacceptable to pollute and clean air and water are desirable. Everyone in the US agrees on that now. The argument is about the particulars -- how much pollution is acceptable, how far should we go, and most important, how to balance the need of developing countries to achieve an acceptable standard of living without polluting the cr*p out of the planet.
• role of women. Women can have careers -- they can be doctors, lawyers, national leaders, ministers and rabbis. They can do all that and combine it with marriage and family. Heck, even the religious right organizations have married women in prominent positions. The more problematic area, as I see it, is sex and child-bearing. Divorce is certainly acceptable, although these days, you are frowned upon if you don't have a good reason ("verbal abuse" seems to cover most ills these days :wink: ). Sex between unmarried (including widowed and divorced) adults is tacitly accepted in most quarters and acknowledged in articles in mainstream publications like Ladies Home Journal and McCalls. And while unwed childbirth is more frowned upon these days, it is still tolerated -- no one has to hide away in a home and give up their babies in secrecy.
• race. Inter-racial dating and marriage is becoming increasingly common, especially among Xers and Millies.
• religion. I think that many aspects of Eastern and New Age thought have taken hold of our culture. Things like harmonious interior decoration, alternative medicine, meditation, yoga are pretty mainstream and even incorporated into the lives of religously conservative people. Example -- the Christian stay-at-home home-schooling mom who uses organic groceries.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

of course, we now know that the dismal shortcomings of the laisse faire economies came home to roost in Europe and the US during the Thirties and helped produce Hitlers and Stalins

Of ocurse, by "laissez faire", you refer to the tarriffs, subsidies, and general atmosphere of protectionism in the US, and the crippling hyperinflation in Germany (brought about by their gov't in an attempt to pay for the war they had just lost, and the subsequent looting of their capital stock by the victors)? Interesting thesis :o

Wonk,

Your evaluation of the issues of the Awakening/Unravelling today is right on (pun intended). Those views of the environment, women, religion,etc are firmly established and will be the core values in the 4T. There is some evidence that the abortion war will end as well, or at least far fewer people interested in the positions taken by the extremes. I recall this synergy theme explicitly stated by the authors.

I do not understand why Brian assumes that the authors, or even Bush, expect the 4T to revert back to a 1T. Are the victories on these issues noted above not enough?

Brian's assertions that "conservatives" would have viewed catalysts as insignificant is plainly wrong. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were revolutionaries and landowners, who pledged their lives and fortunes. They had fortunes. Charles Beard showed that these men were what we would think of as conservatives. Yet, the "conservatives" acted.

Methinks that Brian is, like generals and the last war, fighting the battles of the last turning.

I think that we have our answer to why the authors have been absent from these forums for so long. I suspect that they decided to wait one year after 9-11 before making any assessment of those events as a catalyst. This piece was written after 9-11-02 and has just now made it to print. The last line of the piece, with a small reservation, sure looks like they believe that 9-11 is the catalyst.

Originally Posted by monoghan

Brian's assertions that "conservatives" would have viewed catalysts as insignificant is plainly wrong. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were revolutionaries and landowners, who pledged their lives and fortunes. They had fortunes. Charles Beard showed that these men were what we would think of as conservatives. Yet, the "conservatives" acted.

The founders were conservatives, but only by today's standards. They look like conservatives to us because their values have been entrenched in society for so long. By the standards of their day, the Tories were the conservatives and the moderates, while the patriots were radically liberal. That's why we tend to call them "classical liberals". In fact, people like Paine, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin were much more liberal and much more radical in their own time than the communists were in the 1930s. In today's world, the position of the commies is held by the Green Party. As for the revolutionaries, that remains to be seen. They do exist, but are nowhere in the public scene. Such an equivalent would have to actually take the concept of government to a whole new level. They would have to go beyond the concept of republican democracy, to likely a more direct, participatory form of democracy. They would throw out the current constitution, and build one from the bottom up, based upon principles that republican democracy as we practice it today is an intolerably harmful system, and that a much more free model is desired. 200 years from now, the most radical of our values today will seem strongly conservative.

Methinkss that Brian is, like generals and the last war, fighting the battles of the last turning.

I disagree. The 2T was successful, and the public generally agrees with environmentalists, feminists, and civil rights activists. But remember that 2Ts only change the private behavior of individuals. A 4T is still required to institutionalize the ideals, and to change the behavior of the public. Only during the 1T does the battle really end.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Brian, I disagree. The issues of the Awakening that have become established in our culture during the Unravelling are: the role of women, the environment (I agree with you here), race, and religion. Here is what I see.

• environment. It is now unacceptable to pollute and clean air and water are desirable. Everyone in the US agrees on that now. The argument is about the particulars -- how much pollution is acceptable, how far should we go, and most important, how to balance the need of developing countries to achieve an acceptable standard of living without polluting the cr*p out of the planet.
• role of women. Women can have careers -- they can be doctors, lawyers, national leaders, ministers and rabbis. They can do all that and combine it with marriage and family. Heck, even the religious right organizations have married women in prominent positions. The more problematic area, as I see it, is sex and child-bearing. Divorce is certainly acceptable, although these days, you are frowned upon if you don't have a good reason ("verbal abuse" seems to cover most ills these days :wink: ). Sex between unmarried (including widowed and divorced) adults is tacitly accepted in most quarters and acknowledged in articles in mainstream publications like Ladies Home Journal and McCalls. And while unwed childbirth is more frowned upon these days, it is still tolerated -- no one has to hide away in a home and give up their babies in secrecy.
• race. Inter-racial dating and marriage is becoming increasingly common, especially among Xers and Millies.
• religion. I think that many aspects of Eastern and New Age thought have taken hold of our culture. Things like harmonious interior decoration, alternative medicine, meditation, yoga are pretty mainstream and even incorporated into the lives of religously conservative people. Example -- the Christian stay-at-home home-schooling mom who uses organic groceries.

Jenny, I tend to agree with your list of relevant 2T issues, rather than Brian's. Sometimes, I feel like if we were to go with his list, we would be forbidden to defend ourselves from attack under any circumstances, and could in fact be called upon to take up arms against our own country if we are attacked. Perhaps his anti-Americanism, admittedly shared here by certain other people, could be a leftover from his Communist past?

As far as your own list goes, I would like to see us develop an alternative energy technology that would be non-polluting, or at least would pollute the environment far less than the burning of fossil fuels. Might hydrogen possibly take the place of fossil fuels? There's a potentially near endless supply in the world's oceans, and the leftover byproduct is water vapor, as opposed to hydrocarbons and smog.

One thing you left out concerning the role and status of women: concepts of who might be seen as a suitable marriage or relationship partner. Pre-2T, a woman was expected to marry a man who was older than herself, and guaranteed to make more money than she could ever hope to. Now, it is perfectly acceptable for her to choose a younger man, and to be the primary breadwinner. Assuming, of course, she even wants a man in her life. Though some would say that it is becoming more acceptable again for a woman to want to include a man in her life than it would have been some 15 years ago.

On the item you brought up under race, I tend to feel that the trend you mentioned may well prove to be the glue that holds this country together through this century, while eventually making the question of hereditary group guilt a non-issue. I certainly hope so, at any rate. On both counts.

In sum, if one can put the four together that you outlined, one creates the vision of an America that would truly be worth defending, rather than Brian's vision of a New World Order to be built upon the smoldering ruins of an America that has suffered at least Germany's fate in 1945, if not Carthage's fate at Roman hands in 146 BCE, or Judaea's at the same hands in 70 CE.

Wow. Interesting where some of you are taking my arguments. I never thought to go towards "the smoldering ruins of an America that has suffered at least Germany's fate in 1945, if not Carthage's fate at Roman hands in 146 BCE."

I seriously doubt that will be necessary. Mr. Bush is not a dictator and the American people can stop this nonsense short in two years, before anything so catastrophic comes to pass. Of course, I may be underestimating the stubbornness and stupidity of the American people. I hope I'm not, but we shall see.

Monoghan, I believe Robert has answered your point well. Yesterday's progressivism is today's conservatism. Someday, environmentalism and the belief in a sustainable society will be a conservative tenet.

Jenny, of the four points you mentioned, three are purely Awakening-era issues. They are not likely to be Crisis issues here -- though elsewhere they may be. I say this because they are purely cultural, and the Awakening alone, with its tidal-wave shift in the way our culture thinks and operates, was sufficient to implement them. As you note yourself, the expanded role of women, the positive changes in race relations, and the new currents in religion are already successes. Where is the need, then, for a Crisis centered around those things?

Environmentalism is different. That's nowhere near finished, and it will require massive institutional reform, not just cultural changes, to make it happen.

The other issue I mentioned was just as important in the Awakening as environmentalism. Maybe more important. And this is where the Vietnam War comes in, and also where we tie into current circumstances.

What was the movement against the Vietnam War about, on a deep level, in terms of wider issues? It was about unreflective nationalism and a blind national willingness to wage war when we didn't need to. It was about the need for caution and temperance in a nuclear-armed age. It was about the danger that war poses to our liberties. All those issues are still with us. The Awakening didn't resolve them, and could not because they go beyond culture.

The war in Afghanistan was one thing. The proposed war in Iraq is something else again. Nobody says that we shouldn't defend ourselves when attacked. (Or very few do, and I am not one.) But it is proper to question whether we should ourselves be an aggressor, merely because we disapprove of a foreign government, or hypothesize that it someday might attack us.

In this Crisis era, we will make a transition to a new civic order. It is proper to ask what sort of new order we will achieve. As Gore put it in a recent speech (a huge improvement over his recent efforts, incidentally), do we want to be a world leader among equals, or do we want empire? A nation that engages in preemptive attacks, or begins wars to achieve "regime change," is an empire. But the world will not willingly allow an American Empire. Nor is it in our interests.

This, I believe, is a Crisis issue, and it is incorrect to suggest, as Strauss and Howe have done, that those who raise it are mired in 3T thinking.

jds:

Perhaps his anti-Americanism, admittedly shared here by certain other people, could be a leftover from his Communist past?

I am not anti-American. To question foolhardy or wicked policies of the U.S. government is not anti-American. To try and stop our nation from plunging headlong off a cliff is not anti-American.

To call people anti-American who are engaging in this kind of activity, however, is -- in that it violates the ideals on which this nation was founded.

In sum, if one can put the four together that you outlined, one creates the vision of an America that would truly be worth defending

Fine. I'm all for defending America. But defense is one thing, aggression another. What Mr. Bush proposes in Iraq is aggression, not defense.

It does sound as though Strauss and Howe are leaning toward the "we be 4T" view. Though they don't come out and say it directly, leaving a bit of elbow room to change positions should it turn out we "still be 3T."

Or perhaps, Brian, you may feel that I overestimate the level and depths of sheer hatred felt towards the American people, which has been building for at least the last 60 years, and which I can see as a major 4T issue. A hatred which I firmly believe cannot be satisfied with anything less than our obliteration. In fact, I have found what in one way is an even better analogy than Carthage. In 629 BCE the Assyrian Empire was at the height of it's power. A power built far more blatantly than anything we've ever done on a deliberate policy of savage brutality towards subject peoples and neighboring powers. In 625 BCE, these subject peoples and most of the neighboring powers (Egypt abstained at first, then put it's own interests ahead of any anti-Assyrianism it felt) rise up in furious revolt. For a decade, Assyria and it's enemies were locked in a bloody stalemate, before the coalition finally got the upper hand. The Assyrian heartland was then put to fire and sword (614 to 609 BCE), and the two primary members of the coalition, Babylon and Media, partitioned what little was left.

Personally, if I thought it could work, I would be a very staunch isolationist. Unfortunately, I also firmly believe that even if we were to withdraw completely from world affairs, and allowed the rest of the world to go it's own way, those who hate us now would still want to take it out of our collective hides, and would in fact interpret such a withdrawal as a sign of weakness. As time for Assyrian history to repeat itself, with us as Assyria.

jds:

Or perhaps, Brian, you may feel that I overestimate the level and depths of sheer hatred felt towards the American people, which has been building for at least the last 60 years, and which I can see as a major 4T issue. A hatred which I firmly believe cannot be satisfied with anything less than our obliteration.

If that's what you believe, then you overestimate the level and depth of that hatred, yes.

And you certainly have no business suggesting that I, personally, share in it, merely because I think the president should not be starting a war with a country that hasn't attacked us, regardless of his (or my) opinion of said country's leader. In no way, shape, or form does that mean I hate my country.

Please consider the following points:

1. This hatred cannot have been building for over 60 years, when we have only a been a superpower for 57 years, and only the world's sole superpower for 11 years. Before that, some countries, tribes, or races might have hated us (the Indians, Mexico, the Philippines) but it was certainly not a global phenomenon.

2. A hatred which can only be satisfied with the total obliteration of the hated object is quite extreme, and very rare. While I don't doubt there are some groups, e.g. al-Qaeda, that seek our total obliteration, it is beyond reasonable credibility that the whole world does. In fact, I'm quite sure that the negative feelings felt towards America by most of the world fall short of anything that could properly be called "hate."

How many times in history has something comparable to the destruction of Assyria occurred? How many imperial powers have made themselves loathed to that great a degree? Rome suffered no such fate. Britain suffered no such fate. Even Nazi Germany suffered no such fate. Assyria was extraordinary in its cruelty. Its foes were extraordinary in their response.

The world's attitude towards America is far more ambivalent than that. We are admired as much as we are resented, emulated as much as feared, and the objects of gratitude as often as of loathing.

Nor are the world's negative feelings towards us irrational, for the most part, or outside our control. By acting responsibly, by exercising global leadership for the world's benefit (not just our own), by steering the planet peacefully towards the ideals for which we say we stand, instead of towards lining the pockets of our corporations, we can wipe out much of the past and create a better future.

We have alternatives other than isolationism and empire.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Jenny, of the four points you mentioned, three are purely Awakening-era issues. They are not likely to be Crisis issues here -- though elsewhere they may be. I say this because they are purely cultural, and the Awakening alone, with its tidal-wave shift in the way our culture thinks and operates, was sufficient to implement them. As you note yourself, the expanded role of women, the positive changes in race relations, and the new currents in religion are already successes. Where is the need, then, for a Crisis centered around those things?

No, Brian, you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that the role of women, race, or new currents in religion were crisis issues. What I meant was that they were solid cultural achievements of the Awakening that are unlikely to be rolled back.

Not a biggie, but I just wanted to clarify that. On the whole, I enjoy the thought you put into your posts.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ocrats_economy

AAAARRRGGGHHH!

(Excuse me. I fear I needed that.)

With the stock market falling and consumer fears rising, Democrats stepped up efforts Tuesday to refocus the political debate on the economy before November's elections ? an effort complicated by the continuous talk of war by the Bush administration.

Democrats have enlisted party leaders, scheduled events on the economy and highlighted a long list of negative economic news.

"It's difficult to get through the noise on Iraq," said Democratic spokeswoman Maria Cardona. "But these economic issues do command attention outside of the (Washington) Beltway, where it really matters."

Unbelievable. Or no, wait, we're talking about the Congressional Democrats here. Of course it's believable. It's just unconscionable.

Important as the economy is, what issue can possibly outweigh the danger of war????

The Democrats are being completely irresponsible here. They're also being political dunderheads. And cowardly. This issue could work to their advantage, and what's more, Bush is leaving them no choice but to deal with it. He is forcing a war on the country, just as much as Osama bin Ladin did last year. He is betraying principles of international law and of American idealism. The Democrats ought to be challenging him.

Does he want the issue to be war, rather than the economy? Fine. Take him up on it. The American people aren't nearly as strongly behind this war as he thinks, or pretends to think.

But that would be controversial. It would offend some people, and few Democrats dare do that!

Pshaw. These aren't Democrats. This is not the party of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. The Democrats are supposed to be fire-eaters, progressives, crusaders for what's right.

These aren't Democrats. They don't deserve the name.

Jenny, you're right. Actually, the confused presentation was mine. I should have said: "The issues of the Awakening, as they translate into Crisis issues, are . . ."

Of course all those things you mentioned were Awakening issues. Important ones, too.