Originally Posted by mmailliw

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

By the way, if any of you fail to see the suppression of free speech and thought via intimidation, threat and brazen use of demeaning slander in the previous post, I afraid you wouldn't recognize a truelife agent of the Gestapo if your life depended on it.

Hey, I actually like HC's style... he definitely seems to be one of the most civil posters here (even if he agrees with Bush and actual conservative Republicans a little too much for my taste ;-) ) - and his analysis is always good; actually, I would say that this quote list is one of your better compilations (a few others - like the one Kiff pointed out fairly recently - seem to be misleading)...

That's very thoughtful of you, William. Obviously you have a soft spot for "sick" "kool-aid drinkers" who's "noses" are sticking in "other people's underwear," as Mr. Patton spoke so eloquently of HC. :wink:

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

True, but even as the stage and scale of the overall violence expanded, America unified. There still isn't a genuine global society, so calling WW II an internal conflict doesn't quite apply.

We are certainly more of a transnational society today than we were a national society 200 years ago.

We (and this applies to S&H) think of the saeculum as being something that adheres to nations, as in a French saeculum and a British one and an American one. We do this because history is typically packaged and taught as national history.

Economic historians and students of "total history" like Braudel have long known that the nation state is not a useful unit in thinking about history. They use supranational aggregates of nations linked by dense trade and cultural exchanges as their unit of analysis. Even in our own country, was late 18th century commerical New England really socially or culturally closer to the plantation South than it was to commerical England?

Sure the political history will be different between the two nations, but cultural, social and economic trends might be more similar.

If we look at a larger system, say Western Europe and the US, we can see crises are a mixed bag. The mid-19th century crisis was mild in England and France and catastrophic in the US. Yet the very next crisis was the other way around, mild in the US and catastrophic in Europe.

This current crisis is already a full-blown catastrophe for much of Africa (I heard on the radio that 40% of adults in Botswana have AIDs). It has been much milder in the US, although we have experienced the worst attack on the US and largest stock market crash since the last crisis. The whole Far East is sitting on a potential debt implosion that might create a Great Depression for them.

Many people do not know that Sweden pulled themselves out of depression in 1934 using full-bore Keynesian stimulus, making the crisis for them quite mild. This time the US is using a version of this stimulus to prevent a depression here, but Asia seems unable to do the same.

In other words it might easily be fairly mild here, but other parts of the world are in for a helluva rough ride.

Mike Alexander '59 mentioned Braudel and others using supra-national linkages rather than nation-states in their analysis. What would that imply about our Crisis?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

H.C., it's true that the last Crisis involved less civil violence than the prior three. Hopefully, we won't see a replay of the Civil War or the Revolution this time, either! But the context of the discussion involved the idea that a 4T is a time of consensus and unity. I have said before that I don't think that's true. It's a time when people stop diverting themselves with trivialities and focus on essential issues, but that doesn't mean they agree about how those issues should be resolved. We think of a 4T as a time of unity only because of the national unity that emerged in World War II. But that represents only the final four years of one Crisis, and it would be hard to find another example. Also, during WWII there was plenty of conflict and violence, it was just pushed off into the international arena rather than manifesting internally.

I think this last election saw people focusing on essential issues for the first time in decades, and the Democrats lost because they failed to do so themselves.

Strangely enough, Brian Rush here is saying almost exactly the same thing that I did here, except for the parts in my post regarding President Bush:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...=549&start=200

It's almost as if the far left and the far right were shaking hands before turning their guns on the mushy middle (and, for the record, this is meant entirely figuratively).

Actually, though, it's not that surprising: both of us want to change America, albeit in opposite ways. Thus the idea of "coming together" behind some blandly moderate platform is not on either of our agendas.

On election night, last year, I posted:

Originally Posted by [url=http://fourthturning.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=45208#45208

Marc Lamb[/url]]Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 12:27 am

Let's face it, folks, this dang thing has turned out to be a...

GOP ROMP!

And, quite frankly, spells doom for the very unholy triad of Clinton, McAuliffe and Daschle. I think...

Here's a shocker.

1 down 2 to go?

Here is a paleo perspective from Charley Reese:

Kind Of Weird

by Charley Reese
For Monday, July 7, 2003

[cut]



Moved to Sodomy Law thread where it belongs.

A post from four years ago, a few days before the election...

Originally Posted by zilch

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.

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.

Late shift appears to favor GOP

By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY
Key Senate races in Tuesday's congressional elections are too close to call, but Republicans appear to have gained strength in the final weekend as they fight to retain and perhaps add to their thin House majority.

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll this weekend shows that in House races, likely voters prefer Republicans to Democrats 51% -45%.

That marks a 9-point shift from two weeks ago, when Democrats led Republicans 49%-46%.

The GOP's 6-point advantage mirrors the lead Republicans held in the final days of the 1994 election, when they won control of the House of Representatives and Senate.

The same thing appears to be happening again... the GOP look poised to steal yet another election from the blessed Democrats.

Originally Posted by zilch

A post from four years ago, a few days before the election...

The same thing appears to be happening again... the GOP look poised to steal yet another election from the blessed Democrats.

Report back on Wednesday. If you're right, feel free to gloat. If not ...

Originally Posted by zilch

The same thing appears to be happening again... the GOP look poised to steal yet another election from the blessed Democrats.

For the record, the generic ballot still heavily favors the Dems, by an even larger margin than the Repubs in 1994. But the generic ballot is a very poor predictor of voting patterns, since voters for their Congresscritter and not a generic representative.

Still, it would be interesting (to me at least) some years from now, when we've confirmed another Turning boundary, to see how well the polls correlate with the actual votes, and whether that predicts a Turning or not...

Err, just what kind of result would be a major indicator for a turning change?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Err, just what kind of result would be a major indicator for a turning change?

Good question -- that's the analysis I wondered about.

Short answer: we can only tell in hindsight. Ask me again in 2008.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Err, just what kind of result would be a major indicator for a turning change?

Originally Posted by Finch

Good question -- that's the analysis I wondered about.

Short answer: we can only tell in hindsight. Ask me again in 2008.

Why wait? You can ask Mr. Zilch, and he will be more than happy to tell you - even before the election results arrive. You should assume a reasonably large standard deviation applies, though.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Err, just what kind of result would be a major indicator for a turning change?

As you may have read on the "Metrics" thread above, I'm mostly concentrating on turnout as a measurement of turrning change. In short, if tommorrows' turnout is over 40%, it would be only the second time, the other being in 1982, scince the 26th amendment was passed in 1971 that a midterm reached that level. Considering that the 60% mark for presidential elections was reached for the first time scince 1971 in 2004, I believe that another high turnout election, especally among yoth, would at least confirm the millies as a civic like high voter turnout generation. And if older generations conform to the trend, it's a strong sign that we are now 4t.

The outcome part of the question is more tricky. Simply put, if we have a high turnout and a drastic change in congress, the case is pretty much closed. A high turnout with little change may be just atributable increased millie participation. A low turnout with drastic change is unlikely and would likely be attributed to whoever had the best turnout operation. A low turnout and little change would be a strong sign of a continued 3t.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Err, just what kind of result would be a major indicator for a turning change?

I'm not sure about 2006. If the Democrats gain a significant number of seats, that could indicate that Americans are tiring of the status quo. Any significant change in the election would be an indicator. If a new, much larger momentum develops for the 2008 election, then I would feel rather safe and declaring that we are in the new turning. Are you observing a sudden shift and/or a sudden acceleration in social momentum? Do people now perceive society to be accelerating towards some climax rather than gradually disintegrating? Is there a significant and effective movement among the citizenry to push for bold, radical, sweeping, and far-reaching changes? Is idealism, utopianism, reason, universalism (in race, ethnicity, popular culture), materialism (and secularism, techno-utopianism, science, economics), making a comeback in social life? Has the "story of the times" shifted from increasing atomization, individualism, social decay, and chaos and towards increasing organization, collaboration, construction, and order?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

As you may have read on the "Metrics" thread above, I'm mostly concentrating on turnout as a measurement of turrning change.

One other tidbit about turnout: apparently, that will be the only piece of information from the exit polls released by the major news orgs before the polls close. So, it appears we'll know the turnout part of the metric before we know the seat-shift part.

Originally Posted by Mr. Reed

I'm not sure about 2006. If the Democrats gain a significant number of seats, that could indicate that Americans are tiring of the status quo. Any significant change in the election would be an indicator. If a new, much larger momentum develops for the 2008 election, then I would feel rather safe and declaring that we are in the new turning. Are you observing a sudden shift and/or a sudden acceleration in social momentum? Do people now perceive society to be accelerating towards some climax rather than gradually disintegrating? Is there a significant and effective movement among the citizenry to push for bold, radical, sweeping, and far-reaching changes? Is idealism, utopianism, reason, universalism (in race, ethnicity, popular culture), materialism (and secularism, techno-utopianism, science, economics), making a comeback in social life? Has the "story of the times" shifted from increasing atomization, individualism, social decay, and chaos and towards increasing organization, collaboration, construction, and order?

I agree that it will be very hard to measure that with such a small window in time. Also, as I noted in some earlier posts, it seems most likely that this will be a two-stage process: 1) rejection of the Right's ideology, ca. 2006, 2) rejection of the Left's ideology, ca.2008.

Question to anybody that's thought about this historical parallel: what was the dominant ideology between 1930 and 1932, in as few words as possible?

Is there a significant and effective movement among the citizenry to push for bold, radical, sweeping, and far-reaching changes? Is idealism, utopianism, reason, universalism (in race, ethnicity, popular culture), materialism (and secularism, techno-utopianism, science, economics), making a comeback in social life?

gulp?

Originally Posted by Finch

I agree that it will be very hard to measure that with such a small window in time. Also, as I noted in some earlier posts, it seems most likely that this will be a two-stage process: 1) rejection of the Right's ideology, ca. 2006, 2) rejection of the Left's ideology, ca.2008.

Question to anybody that's thought about this historical parallel: what was the dominant ideology between 1930 and 1932, in as few words as possible?

Hoover knew that the government had to play a role during the depression, but he did too little, too late to save his presidentcy. FDR actually did run a fairly conservative campaign in 1932, but as the economic low point hit just as he was taking office he had the vision to see that the past practices were inadequite for the future. Something new and different will happen during the 4t as it always does. The 4t guarentees change, but not the direction that the change will take us.

Originally Posted by zilch

Is there a significant and effective movement among the citizenry to push for bold, radical, sweeping, and far-reaching changes? Is idealism, utopianism, reason, universalism (in race, ethnicity, popular culture), materialism (and secularism, techno-utopianism, science, economics), making a comeback in social life?

gulp?

What are you afraid of, eh? Is it the fact that since Bush took office, Lefties have been spending a lot less time talking about gun control and a lot more time talking about protecting the Bill of Rights?

Um, I gulped trying to digest the utter profundity of the young man's questions, man. I mean, like, well, uh, hmmmm...

p.s. By the way, scuttlebutt from the dark side, my side of the aisle, says the late GOP surge ain't gonna be enough to save the House. So, get ready Dems, your big moment has come.

Originally Posted by Finch

What are you afraid of, eh? Is it the fact that since Bush took office, Lefties have been spending a lot less time talking about gun control and a lot more time talking about protecting the Bill of Rights?

I love that emoticon, Rick!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I love that emoticon, Rick!

It's fun to play with The Google.