A conversation about whether this upcoming election is a Fourth Turning election began earlier today on our Generations and Turnings blog.

Mike Weber wrote that:

I'm beginning to suspect the problem is we are so used to 3T elections, and now we have our first 4T election since 1944, and none of the analysts and pundits really has any idea how to read it. Anybody else think that may be what's going on?

Neil later added:

Because of the sniper threat and reports of snipers elsewhere, a group of MD legislators are suggesting that National Guard troops be present at every voting location.

Now that would make this seem like a 4T election. Btw, I just got back from Chicago, where I heard the chief Economist analyst say that their economic projections assume a virtual 100% probability that the U.S. will go to war in Qtr 1 of 2003.

What do you think? Are people so confused about this election because most people haven't experienced an election like this? Or is there something else going on?

I agree that this is going to be the first national election since the 4T started. However, I don't yet see that 4T issues are being addressed in this election other than the looming war with Iraq. I suspect that it will look like 1930, when the previous 4T had started (in retrospect) but the social moment (the depression) hadn't begun in earnest and the economic issues that would drive the rest of the decade weren't yet a major issue (and the foreign policy issues were a decade away!) The country may have snapped into a new mood but the issues that will drive the next 17+ years haven't become salient enough to propel elections. 2004 should be a different story.

Originally Posted by Strauss and Howe

A conversation about whether this upcoming election is a Fourth Turning election began earlier today on our Generations and Turnings blog.

Because of the sniper threat and reports of snipers elsewhere, a group of MD legislators are suggesting that National Guard troops be present at every voting location.

Now that would make this seem like a 4T election. Btw, I just got back from Chicago, where I heard the chief Economist analyst say that their economic projections assume a virtual 100% probability that the U.S. will go to war in Qtr 1 of 2003.

That is wild. About a month ago, I received a phone call from an Illinois State employee asking me for my opinion on the impact of a war with Iraq on Food Stamp Program caseloads! I wasn't able to be very helpful, given that a war could have any number of possible economic implications. But that sure is interesting.

The Little Engine That Couldn't

In 1958, the GI's took the Senate. Twenty years later, the Silent claimed the hallowed hall. Now eighty-six years after the last Idealist generation gained plurality in the U.S. Senate, the Baby Boom looks poised to finally assume full power in Congress.

The current makeup of the Senate looks like this:
GOP: 3 GI (6.1%), 25 Silent (51.0%) & 21 Boom (42.8%)
DEM: 4 GI (7.8%), 22 Silent (43.1%) & 25 Boom (49.0%)
TOT: 7 GI (7.0%), 47 Silent (47.0%) & 46 Boom (46.0%)

Not only does the Silent's still rule the chamber, but together with their shadow, the vaunted GI's, the numbers stand at 54-46. And with the exception of the short-lived hysteria of the 104th Congress (when the Boom took the House), gridlock has ruled this, as David Broder called them yesterday, "Little Engine That Couldn't". I predict: that much, at least, probably won't change this year, even as the Boom are sure to finally assume command in Statuary Hall.

Unlike 1994, generational change in the Senate will not mark this, otherwise dreary, contest. The big story of this, will be that President Bush was unable to overcome the Jefford's switcheroore and thereby win back the Senate for the GOP.

In the Senate this year, there are basically twelve races worth following. Six are open seats left by 2 retiring GIs, 3 Silents and one very stupid, crooked Baby Boomer from New Jersey. Six other incumbent races are competetive: <table class='Wf' border=0 align='center' width='100%' cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 nowrap> <tr><td><pre>
2002 U.S. Congress (Senate) - Key Races
OPEN SEATS Elections & Candidates Prediction
N. Carolina: Bowles(D-Boom) vs. Dole(R-Sil) Sil GOP
N. Hampshire:Shaheen(D-Boom) vs. Sununu(R-Xer) Boom DEM
N. Jersey: Lautenberg(D-GI) vs. Forrester(R-Boom) GI DEM
S. Carolina: Sanders(D-Sil) vs. Graham(R-Boom) Boom GOP
Tennessee: Clement(D-Boom) vs. Alexander(R-Sil) Sil GOP
Texas: Kirk(D-Boom) vs. Cornyn(R-Boom) Boom GOP
CLOSE RACES
Arkansas: Pryor(D-Xer) vs. Hutchinson*(R-Boom) Xer DEM
Colorado: Strickland(D-Boom) vs. Allard*(R-Boom) Boom GOP
Iowa: Harkin*(D-Sil) vs. Ganske(R-Boom) Sil DEM
Minnesota: Wellstone*(D-Boom) vs. Coleman(R-Boom) Boom DEM
Missouri: Carnahan*(D-Sil) vs. Talent(R-Boom) Boom DEM
South Dakota:Johnson (D-Boom) vs. Thune(R-Xer) Boom DEM
</pre></td></tr></table>

Thus the new Boom-led Senate will look like this (with a net gain of one seat for the Democrats): 6 GI (6.0%), 45 Silent (45.0%), 48 Boom (48.0%) 1 Xer (1.0%)

It was eight years after they took the House, that the Missionary generation gained the Senate and thus assumed full command in Congress. That election spurred a big debate over America's entry into WWI during the presidential campaign of Woodrow "He kept us out of the war" Wilson. It maybe important to note that in between 1916 and 1922 (when the Missionaries peaked), America went to war, suffered a half million deaths (of mostly young, Lost gen members) to the Great Influenza, imposed federal Prohibition of Alcohol, endured the big Red Scare, essentially lost two presidents to death in office, and yet still, somehow seemed to "Return to Normacy" just before the "Dominate" Idealists peaked in 1922. Soon thereafter, we shut our doors on one of the greatest American success stories of the twentieth century: Immigration. It would be forty-one years before those doors would open to the world again.

Go figure, huh? :wink:

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

I agree that this is going to be the first national election since the 4T started. However, I don't yet see that 4T issues are being addressed in this election other than the looming war with Iraq. I suspect that it will look like 1930, when the previous 4T had started (in retrospect) but the social moment (the depression) hadn't begun in earnest and the economic issues that would drive the rest of the decade weren't yet a major issue (and the foreign policy issues were a decade away!) The country may have snapped into a new mood but the issues that will drive the next 17+ years haven't become salient enough to propel elections. 2004 should be a different story.

I'll agree wholeheartedly with Vince, that, if this is in fact a 4T election, it's not a typical one. It's a precursor, like 1930. Vince opts for calling it the first 4T election, I'll mark it as the last 3T. Either way, the next election will definitely be the 1932 equivalent. The only thing lacking is the "knight of the left".

I think we all agree that, barring a war catastrophe, Bush is the designated "knight of the right". Of course, Americans will not tolerate plane-loads of coffins; not yet, at least.

Anything can happen on November 5th.

It may be a long night for some of us election junkies. :-)

Originally Posted by Strauss and Howe

What do you think? Are people so confused about this election because most people haven't experienced an election like this? Or is there something else going on?

John Zogby (the only pollster with a proven track record, in my opinion) has posted the following article at his site:


http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=640

(For educ. and discussion)



Released: October 23, 2002

"It's Values, Stupid"
Here is a Take on the Election You Have not Heard


NEW YORK, NY??October 23, 2002. It is not the economy or the war on Iraq that is deciding November voters ??it is values. So says CUA Professor of politics, John Kenneth White, in his new book, The Values Divide: American Politics and Culture in Transition, published by Chatham House Publishers. To Purchase Click Here

As premier pollster John Zogby writes in his foreword: "In short and for all time, it is not the economy, stupid. It is who we are, what we want to be, what we want for our children, and whichever candidate or party best represents these, wins an election."

?I believe,? writes White, ?that while race, ethnicity, religion, and the economy remain important concerns to many Americans, values provide the connective tissue linking public policy to voter attitudes about contemporary politics.? It is values that help frame our concern of the moment--be it the economy, foreign policy, war, or lifestyle issues.

In the election of 2000 Americans were split right down the middle over who should govern the nation. Why there was this extraordinary outcome is the subject of The Values Divide. ?Values move voters,? explains White. ?And while there is an underlying public consensus about certain values??e.g., the benefits associated with freedom, individualism, and equality of opportunity??there remains much debate as to how these values should be implemented.? White categorizes election 2000 as having ?produced an electoral divide as sharp as the old North-South Civil War split.?

This ?values divide? is in evidence today in pre-election November 2002 analysis. It will also be a topic at John Zogby?s and John White?s post- election analysis presentation at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., November 8th.

John Kenneth White?s The Values Divide is a state-of-the-nation report. It describes how the changing nature of the American family over the last forty years and the controversy over emerging lifestyles has caused citizens to reassess their answers to the questions: "What does it mean to be an American?" and "Who's country is it anyway?" Whether or not these questions can be resolved, it is White?s sense that a solution is outside the small-minded realm that characterizes current politics. He concludes: ?Values will continue to matter more than ever before, but it is our politics that remains unable to cope.? To Purchase Click Here

In pre-publication praise of The Values Divide William Schneider, senior
political analyst at CNN, writes: "This book puts it all together in the story of our times." David Broder, political correspondent at The Washington Post describes the book as a: "A major contribution to understanding the current political scene." And Michael Barone, senior writer at U.S. News and World Report writes: "The Values Divide looks at our politics and shows how this came to be and what it means after September 11."


The Values Divide: American Politics and Culture in Transition

By John White
Foreword by John Zogby
Published by Chatham House Publishers: October 21st, 2002
ISBN: 1-889119-75-X
Contact: Clare Williams, 212-529-4686 x106

[end]



If this is accurate, it would seem to me that, a year having passed, it is finally beginning to sink in with people that we will not be going back to what was. Of course we are only at the very start of the "problem recognition" stage. People, just now awaking from their long 3T slumber, generally do not have a clue what the options for the future are much less where they want to go. We should see the rise of various people with competing visions over the next few years and eventually, maybe not even by 2004, a consensus should form.

We've only been in Crisis for a little over a year now, assuming that 9/11 was the catalyst.

Unlike any other recent elections, there is a sense of urgency surrounding this election. Many seem to actually feel that this could be the last election. Many are frantically trying to get people to vote Democratic to keep Republicans from gaining power.

Recalling that "A CRISIS arises in response to sudden threats that previously would have been ignored or deferred, but which are now perceived as dire, " this is definitely the atmosphere of this election, coming from all ideologies. Bush supporters tend to think that there is a dire threat from Iraq. North Korea admitting to a nuclear program helps Bush's terror war, while indirectly helping the case for an Iraqi War. Those who do not support Bush tend to think that the greatest threat is not a foreign nation, but from the government itself, which they perceive is throwing away democracy. Economic fears are only aggravating the situation.

Originally Posted by madscientist

Many seem to actually feel that this could be the last election.

???

Did someone schedule Ragnarok and not tell me?

After E2K, a woman who was with me on an abortion protest line was desperate that Bush beat Dole at all costs in the Court, trying to get everyone to "filibuster" the judges, because Al Gore was "Evil" (you could hear the capitalization). Even 2000 had some 4T tinges!

During E1992, Clinton claimed the eighties were the "decade of greed", and the economy then "was the worst in fifty years." And "Cycles of American Politics" author, Arthur Scheslinger, Jr., predicted that 1992 marked a "new era" of FDR-style liberalism... Heck, even 1992 had some 4T tinges!




p.s. Then, there was that time when Clinton sought to "bring America together", as blamed the Oklahoma City bombing on conservative talk show hosts. Heck, even 1994 had some 4T tinges! And what about Bosnia... America bombs dropping on buses full of innocent civilians? Heck, just about every year has some 4T tinges, if you're sensitive to the rumblings of the gathering storm. :wink:

It's not the Mississippi but Denial in Minnesota. The contest is all personalities and the campaigns are 3T "content free".


The financial problems of the State, the WOT, the Not-War in Iraq, and Social Security are absent....in their stead we have testimonials by parents, spouses and children to go on to make our "informed" choices at the ballot. The DFL and GOP are trying to drive down the vote so their partisans will hold sway. It may work.

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

I agree that this is going to be the first national election since the 4T started. However, I don't yet see that 4T issues are being addressed in this election other than the looming war with Iraq. I suspect that it will look like 1930, when the previous 4T had started (in retrospect) but the social moment (the depression) hadn't begun in earnest and the economic issues that would drive the rest of the decade weren't yet a major issue (and the foreign policy issues were a decade away!) The country may have snapped into a new mood but the issues that will drive the next 17+ years haven't become salient enough to propel elections. 2004 should be a different story.

Here's what happened in E1930:

Senate before Election: 39D 56R 1I
Senate after Election: 47D 48R 1I
Net Change: +8 D, -8R, out of 32 seats up for election.
Republican Majority before election: 17
Republican Majority after election: 1

House before Election: 163D 267R, 1I, 4VACANT
House after Election: 216D, 218R, 1I
Net Change: +53D, -49R, out of 435 seats up for election
Republican Majority before election: 104
Republican Majority after election: 2

So, 1930 does seem like a major election to me...

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

It's not the Mississippi but Denial in Minnesota. The contest is all personalities and the campaigns are 3T "content free".


The financial problems of the State, the WOT, the Not-War in Iraq, and Social Security are absent....in their stead we have testimonials by parents, spouses and children to go on to make our "informed" choices at the ballot. The DFL and GOP are trying to drive down the vote so their partisans will hold sway. It may work.

Besides the Democrat Wellstone, and the Republican Coleman; doesn't Minnesota have other voices? Like Kovatchevich (Constitution Party), Moore (Minnesota Independence Party) and Tricomo (Green)?

Are the folks of Minnesota just being dumb to turn a deaf ear to reason of these pols? Are the good folks of Minnesota like the numbskull spouse, the last one to find out their better half has been screwing around?

Ought there be a law against such? Such as, Campaign Finance Reform? Motor Voter laws? No pain voting from the comfort of home on the internet?

Can the case be made that perhaps, while the voter seems to like "testimonials by parents, spouses and children", that to have it any other way, right now, would invite an even greater disaster? In other words, can it possibly be the said "denial" is actually just hunky dory?

Nah. :wink:


p.s. The same argument, blather, odious thinking, nonsense, clueless questioning would apply to the mayors race, the governors race, the state and federal representatives races, the dog catchers race, the race for village idiot... :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

The Little Engine That Couldn't

Thus the new Boom-led Senate will look like this (with a net gain of one seat for the Democrats): 6 GI (6.0%), 45 Silent (45.0%), 48 Boom (48.0%) 1 Xer (1.0%)

Go figure, huh? :wink:

Ah, so the Xers will have their very first senator? Seems to fit with the beginning of the 4T, as does the Silent losing their favorite word, their plurality.

Seeing how the Lost generation gained a plurality in the Senate just nine years after the last fourth began, I would think your argument might be stretching it just a tad.

And seeing how it took us Boomers twenty-some years to do the same number, this might be taking wishful thinking into the stratosphere. But then again, isn't that where liberals live? :wink:

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

I agree that this is going to be the first national election since the 4T started. However, I don't yet see that 4T issues are being addressed in this election other than the looming war with Iraq. I suspect that it will look like 1930, when the previous 4T had started (in retrospect) but the social moment (the depression) hadn't begun in earnest and the economic issues that would drive the rest of the decade weren't yet a major issue (and the foreign policy issues were a decade away!) The country may have snapped into a new mood but the issues that will drive the next 17+ years haven't become salient enough to propel elections. 2004 should be a different story.

Here's what happened in E1930:

Senate before Election: 39D 56R 1I
Senate after Election: 47D 48R 1I
Net Change: +8 D, -8R, out of 32 seats up for election.
Republican Majority before election: 17
Republican Majority after election: 1

House before Election: 163D 267R, 1I, 4VACANT
House after Election: 216D, 218R, 1I
Net Change: +53D, -49R, out of 435 seats up for election
Republican Majority before election: 104
Republican Majority after election: 2

So, 1930 does seem like a major election to me...

Makes sense, but are you TRYING to copy my writing style here? If so you're doing a pretty good job of it :-)

A Voice Stilled...

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Besides the Democrat Wellstone, and the Republican Coleman; doesn't Minnesota have other voices? Like Kovatchevich (Constitution Party), Moore (Minnesota Independence Party) and Tricomo (Green)?

Fox News is reporting that Senator Wellstone, along with his wife and daughter, has perished in a plane crash.

I had predicted, in this very thread, a Wellstone victory this November. Though I have always strongly disagreed with this man's politics, I nevertheless could respect his outspken courage to speak his mind during this "conservative era" in America.

The Gallup people are predicting a Democrat romp next week. Pollster, Zogby is as well. Gallup has also noted that "Investor Optimism" has "Plunged" in October. This should increase the number of seats they'll gain as they take back the House, and retain the Senate by a larger margin.

This, of course, will cause Bush a lot of trouble with Saddam. Congress will seize the moment by pressuring Bush to let the UN sanctions work. There isn't going to be any war with Iraq. Bush may get his Homeland Security, but in a much watered down version. America is about to put the whole 9.11 thing behind them, and get on with the business of "It's about the children, stupid!"

The biggest fight in the next two years will occur not in Iraq, but rather in Washington DC. And they'll be centered on federal judges and probably supreme court justices.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

The Gallup people are predicting a Democrat romp next week. Pollster, Zogby is as well. Gallup has also noted that "Investor Optimism" has "Plunged" in October. This should increase the number of seats they'll gain as they take back the House, and retain the Senate by a larger margin.

This, of course, will cause Bush a lot of trouble with Saddam. Congress will seize the moment by pressuring Bush to let the UN sanctions work. There isn't going to be any war with Iraq. Bush may get his Homeland Security, but in a much watered down version. America is about to put the whole 9.11 thing behind them, and get on with the business of "It's about the children, stupid!"

The biggest fight in the next two years will occur not in Iraq, but rather in Washington DC. And they'll be centered on federal judges and probably supreme court justices.

This is quite a change from your spring prediction of a GOP sweep next week. Does this reversal affect your view of where we be in the political cycle or in the saeculum?

Well, it appears that Bush and the GOP have blown it. But it's certainly not the economy. Or at least it wasn't last week as Gallup notes in their "top of the mind awareness" tracking poll. The very same poll showed a whopping 69% just before the election in 1992, while today it's been tracking at about 35% since early summer.

Zogby claims this is strictly a "values" election, and that the values Americans care most about are expressed by Clinton and the Democrats.

On Sunday, I posted this:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

But it is interesting, is it not, the generational angle to the senate story this year? Two Baby Boomers, the Torch and Wellstone, both in hotly contested races, being replaced by a GI and an aging Silent?

This tells me that Democrat party is not the party with any new ideas, but one inexorably stuck in the past.

Today the UK Telegraph's story, Mondale, 74, set to be a youth in old boys' Senate has an interesting take on this:

One Republican Senate aide said: "I'm surprised they don't have any younger people they can find in places like Minnesota and New Jersey. It must be demoralising for young liberals to see these crusty old warriors being trotted out to save the day."

Much as you might like to disagree, the present tax situtation does not bode well for Democrats racing off on the next New Deal. I can only surmise, then, that moms and dads have just decided they are antiwar, and basically wish nothing more than to shut off the world and turn further inward. That's something that the Democrats have always preached, so there it is.

Which, of course, sounds more like 1920, than 1930. But we shall see.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Zogby claims this is strictly a "values" election, and that the values Americans care most about are expressed by Clinton and the Democrats.

Former President Clinton laughs with former Vice President Walter Mondale
and his wife Joan Mondale as they enter a public memorial service
Tuesday, Oct. 29 2002 in Minneapolis for Sen. Paul Wellstone, his wife
and the three staff members who died Oct. 25, in a plane crash in Eveleth, Minn.





?I?ve been in this job for a long time,
but this is the worst night I have had.?
--Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle




Quite the contrast, huh? When I posted the first photo, I opined, "Seems the American people have really wierd "values" these days..."

Perhaps not. Perhaps, if these people would have chosen to then mourn, instead of laughing and cheering, they would now be laughing and cheering instead of now mourning. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Zogby claims this is strictly a "values" election, and that the values Americans care most about are expressed by Clinton and the Democrats.

Former President Clinton laughs with former Vice President Walter
Mondale and his wife Joan Mondale as they enter a
public memorial service Tuesday, Oct. 29 2002 in
Minneapolis for Sen. Paul Wellstone, his wife and the three staff
members who died Oct. 25, in a plane crash in Eveleth, Minn.
(AP Photo/ Paul Sancy




Shades of Ron Brown's funeral... (when Clinton was yucking it up, then he saw the camera and immediately began to shed tears.)

Seems the American people have really wierd "values" these days...

That's not fair. There is a surprising amount of mirth at funerals, as people recount the foibles and misadventures and wit and humor of the deceased.

was carried on ABC, NBC, and CBS for 3 1/2 hours and many a radio station in NE Minnesota.

It was an accurate relection upon the man. It was full of enthusiasm and hubris. It was vulgar. It was rant filled. It was emotive. It was a demagogic farewell to a demagogue.


What surprised me on the newscasts (local) that followed was the unease of loyal followers of the late Senator at the style which he had embodied in his political work. We may see a backlash from those people as well as the other half of Minnesota that would have dignity at such memorials...it seemed a 3T affair.

For years now, the left has sought to "dumb down" America. Last night, it became obvious that they have at least succeded in that aim with the Democratic Party. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.

Originally Posted by KARE TV

Kahn's comments, which came more than an hour into the planned two-hour tribute shocked media outlets across the state which were carrying the event live. Viewers and listeners were outraged. By 10:15 p.m., KARE TV's operator had logged more than 100 calls. It is unknown how many call went to the station's overflow voicemail system. More of KARE TV's coverage...

Convention wisdom holds that nothing in life is as sure as death and taxes. In death, it has often been lamented that at least one need not pay anymore taxes: That in death is seen the frailty of life, and that some things are more important than our jobs, our careers and our mere material welfare.

Last night, the Democratic Party managed to confound this conventional wisdom. Last night the Democratic Party proved once and for all, that nothing transcends their Party, nothing transcends Partisanship, nothing transcends their Quest, their Thirst for Political Power.

Not even death.