Howe said a while back that he believes the 4T started in 2008 with the financial crisis, and that the first Homelanders were probably born ~2005. Since then we've seen unemployment remain stiffly around 9-10%, housing prices continue to tumble, $800 billion of government money injected into a flailing economy, a massive overhaul of the American health care system, a massive overhaul of federal regulations affecting Wall Street, and the development of an ever-blander culture (seriously, whither the existential threat of gangsta rap? It's all dance music now, and it all sounds the same; and let's not even talk about the superhero movies). As Boomers look to a future with drastically changed expectations for Social Security and Medicare, Gen Xers struggle to make ends meet, and Millennials face the reality of ever-fiercer competition from their classmates for ever-scarcer jobs, our culture senses that, for both government and individuals, financial ruin and/or permanent indebtedness are very real possibilities.

A reactionary backlash to Obamaism has created the most pronounced fission in American politics in a long time, and a moderate backlash to *that* movement may now be underway as Congress debates essentially gutting the last 4T's legacy and Obama faces a field of competitors ranging from the demagogical (Palin) to the positively Alf Landonesque (Romney, Pawlenty). The next decade appears set to feature a battle for Americans' heart and soul over economics; shall we move toward social democracy or toward laissez faire? Not since the 1930s has the choice seemed so vital, and never before so difficult for the average citizen.

Around the world, Europe has turned to austerity and bailouts to prevent default, Japan's economy had already come to a halt when a nuclear meltdown hit (the irony of Japan confronting nuclear meltdown in the new 4T is just too cruel), and an Arab Spring has engulfed the Middle East and North Africa, with successful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, an ongoing civil war in Libya, and violent reform pushes in Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere still to be resolved. Right now I'm in China, perhaps the current decade's greatest success story, where government is yet confronting the unenviable choice between watching inflation jeopardize newly won prosperity or itself jeopardizing newly won prosperity via overaggressive anti-inflation measures.

Seriously, how many of you think we are still 3T?

I don't think anyone doubts we are in the 4T. There have been many debates about when the 4T started on this forum with some pretty good evidence for a both 2001 and 2008. I wonder though, if people had been aware of this theory during different periods in history if people alive back then might have a differing views about when their 4T started too.

I haven't thought we were 3T since the economic collapse of 2008. Or did it really start in 2007?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I haven't thought we were 3T since the economic collapse of 2008. Or did it really start in 2007?

And it seems even worse today than it did 2008. I don't think when the crash first happened the reality of what was coming had really sunk in. I think people were scared but hopeful we would somehow recover quickly. And look at everything that has happened since then. All the anger, protests, bankrupt states, and uprising in the middle east leading to another US military involvement in another middle eastern country. And to top it all off any economic recovery that might have been underway is slowing slipping away. Then we have had all these terrible natural disasters this year. It's like all the forces of the universe are against us.

Originally Posted by 1990

Howe said a while back that he believes the 4T started in 2008 with the financial crisis, and that the first Homelanders were probably born ~2005. Since then we've seen unemployment remain stiffly around 9-10%, housing prices continue to tumble, $800 billion of government money injected into a flailing economy, a massive overhaul of the American health care system, a massive overhaul of federal regulations affecting Wall Street, and the development of an ever-blander culture (seriously, whither the existential threat of gangsta rap? It's all dance music now, and it all sounds the same; and let's not even talk about the superhero movies). As Boomers look to a future with drastically changed expectations for Social Security and Medicare, Gen Xers struggle to make ends meet, and Millennials face the reality of ever-fiercer competition from their classmates for ever-scarcer jobs, our culture senses that, for both government and individuals, financial ruin and/or permanent indebtedness are very real possibilities.

A reactionary backlash to Obamaism has created the most pronounced fission in American politics in a long time, and a moderate backlash to *that* movement may now be underway as Congress debates essentially gutting the last 4T's legacy and Obama faces a field of competitors ranging from the demagogical (Palin) to the positively Alf Landonesque (Romney, Pawlenty). The next decade appears set to feature a battle for Americans' heart and soul over economics; shall we move toward social democracy or toward laissez faire? Not since the 1930s has the choice seemed so vital, and never before so difficult for the average citizen.

Around the world, Europe has turned to austerity and bailouts to prevent default, Japan's economy had already come to a halt when a nuclear meltdown hit (the irony of Japan confronting nuclear meltdown in the new 4T is just too cruel), and an Arab Spring has engulfed the Middle East and North Africa, with successful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, an ongoing civil war in Libya, and violent reform pushes in Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere still to be resolved. Right now I'm in China, perhaps the current decade's greatest success story, where government is yet confronting the unenviable choice between watching inflation jeopardize newly won prosperity or itself jeopardizing newly won prosperity via overaggressive anti-inflation measures.

Seriously, how many of you think we are still 3T?

Good to see you! What are you doing in China?

Everything seem to be going off the rails. The political climate has gone insane. I've been back-stabbed by a president who I thought was a true Progressive. The weather has gone crazy. The Middle East has exploded in revolution. Japan has a triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown. Austerity threatens to tear the EU apart.

The world has gone crazy.

Excellent thread and welcome back.. :

Your opening post reminds me of the reality that we may well see a nearly global 4T. Consider that such such giant cultures as the euro-American, the Chinese, Indian and the Japanese are all due for their first internet age 4T. It is possible that, with a few exceptions, most of the rest of the world will likely be swept up in this period of massive rapid change. As a side I will add that considering that the Russia-eastern european area has just recently been through a 4T, they may well remain outside of the larger turmoil, at least as much as such is possible.

Back in 2007, anyone remember 2007? : I started a thread on how 911 and Katrina together eased us into the 4T.
One point that I do remember from about then is someone bringing up about our behavior after those events was how we were in many ways like the cartoon character Wyle E. Coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons.
If you'll recall in those cartoons that when the coyote ran off a cliff he didn't actually fall to the bottom until after he looked down. Consider that after 911 and/or Katrina we had run off of a cliff but with the housing boom, getting distracted with the Iraq war, and the continuing culture wars, we had yet to look down.
After the bank meltdown of 2008 we looked down as the economic deterioration left us no other choice.
We realized that there was no solid ground holding us up anymore.
And the ground that we view on our way down to rock bottom is getting bigger and bigger.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I haven't thought we were 3T since the economic collapse of 2008. Or did it really start in 2007?

Economists would say 2007. But people didn't recognize that anything but the housing market was "off" until September 15, 2008, which I would argue was a far more defining day in our contemporary society than even September 11, 2001. (While 9/11 could have and perhaps should have been a great unifying moment, after about two weeks of unity we quickly resumed our 3T ways. Anyone remember the 2002 and 2004 campaigns? Utter 3T mudslinging nonsense, far less meaningful than anything we've seen in the current Tea Party era.)

Originally Posted by Odin

Good to see you! What are you doing in China?

I got a scholarship to study for a month in Shanghai, at Fudan University. Will be here until June 25. 20 more days without Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube...

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Excellent thread and welcome back.. :

Your opening post reminds me of the reality that we may well see a nearly global 4T. Consider that such such giant cultures as the euro-American, the Chinese, Indian and the Japanese are all due for their first internet age 4T. It is possible that, with a few exceptions, most of the rest of the world will likely be swept up in this period of massive rapid change. As a side I will add that considering that the Russia-eastern european area has just recently been through a 4T, they may well remain outside of the larger turmoil, at least as much as such is possible.

While I have quibbles with a few color assignments on my world map, in general I think it holds. The revolutions in the Arab world, economic crises in Europe and America, and the general "why, God, why?" atmosphere in Japan...it all fits 4T (though if you believe my map, Syria's upheaval is 2T, not 4T). Interestingly, about half of Africa, and most of Latin America, is being spared. (Not that I particularly envy the third world; the '70s were a very, very bad time to live in Latin America, and any time is a difficult one to live virtually anywhere in Africa.)

As for the old Warsaw Pact, there's a long-running debate about how to classify Soviet turning history. Everyone agrees 1917 was part of a 4T in Eastern Europe, but was it the beginning or near the end? My personal interpretation has been that the USSR's first 4T ended in 1922, when the Bolsheviks won the Russian Civil War and founded the USSR, then that most of the Stalin years were 1T (yes, including the Purges, and yes, including WWII...it was probably the crappiest 1T in modern world history, but the rigid conformity and vicious public attitudes toward dissidents in the 1930s would seem to fit). While WWII was devastating, the Soviet Union came out of it economically stronger than ever before -- if 20 million people lighter -- and Khrushchev's years absolutely scream 2T what with the Khrushchev Thaw of cultural liberalization and de-Stalinization. Much like our own last 2T, the turning ended with its tail between its legs as Brezhnev proved a staid, conservative force. During its final 3T, the Soviet Union overspent and overextended in places like Afghanistan and Latin America, and Mikhail "Hoover" Gorbachev tried to contain the ruin before it all came crashing down in 1989-1991. The major flaw in my interpretation is that I can't come up with even an approximate date for the start of Russia's (and the old Soviet bloc's) current 1T; I "feel" like it occurred during Putin's presidency, but when?

The other argument is that WWII extended the USSR's founding 4T all the way to 1945, making it *at least* a 28-year 4T. The Khrushchev years, then, are 1T; this I have a problem with. While the '50s and certainly early '60s were in some ways a liberal time in the U.S. as well (see: Warren Court, New Frontier, death of the Hays Code), 1Ts generally are liberal in their tendency to favor social equality and *not* in a tendency toward open criticism of the status quo, which is what was beginning to happen under Khrushchev (then again, when your society is already designed with equality as its overriding goal, maybe speech is the obvious spot for liberalization). In that case, the Communist collapse of '89 was a 3T, not a 4T. I say that's an awfully big paradigm shift to consider the work of a 3T, but Howe agrees with that reading of Russian history, so it's not exactly a heterodox approach.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Back in 2007, anyone remember 2007? : I started a thread on how 911 and Katrina together eased us into the 4T.
One point that I do remember from about then is someone bringing up about our behavior after those events was how we were in many ways like the cartoon character Wyle E. Coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons.
If you'll recall in those cartoons that when the coyote ran off a cliff he didn't actually fall to the bottom until after he looked down. Consider that after 911 and/or Katrina we had run off of a cliff but with the housing boom, getting distracted with the Iraq war, and the continuing culture wars, we had yet to look down.
After the bank meltdown of 2008 we looked down as the economic deterioration left us no other choice.
We realized that there was no solid ground holding us up anymore.
And the ground that we view on our way down to rock bottom is getting bigger and bigger.

That makes a lot of sense. Since the social moment is probably more important than the initial event, 2008 seems the definite beginning point of our society's 4T mindset. Before September 2008, we acted as if nothing big was really wrong. Since then, we've felt that no solution was bold enough. It seems to me the Republicans' best line against Obama in 2012 is not that he's an extremist socialist what-have-you (which most people don't believe), but that he hasn't delivered (which a lot of people, even many of those likely to vote for him at this point, believe). Their problem is that, if you run Alf Landon against FDR, the voters definitely won't see Landon as more able to deliver.

Originally Posted by 1990

I got a scholarship to study for a month in Shanghai, at Fudan University. Will be here until June 25. 20 more days without Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube...

Use a VPN my friend. 我也住在中国。

Originally Posted by 1990

I got a scholarship to study for a month in Shanghai, at Fudan University. Will be here until June 25. 20 more days without Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube...

If you really want to get on facebook and twitter you can download a free vpn. I live in China as well so I know how you feel. The free ones have limited use as in only a few Gigs a day, but if you are just using it for facebook and twitter it should work. If you want to watch stuff on youtube you'll have to buy a better vpn.

Originally Posted by ASB65

And it seems even worse today than it did 2008. I don't think when the crash first happened the reality of what was coming had really sunk in. I think people were scared but hopeful we would somehow recover quickly. And look at everything that has happened since then. All the anger, protests, bankrupt states, and uprising in the middle east leading to another US military involvement in another middle eastern country. And to top it all off any economic recovery that might have been underway is slowing slipping away. Then we have had all these terrible natural disasters this year. It's like all the forces of the universe are against us.

Forces of the universe? Or the house catching fire because we left a space heater on all winter next to the curtains? Earthquakes are forces of the universe; I'm afraid that tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, prolonged La Ninas, etc are very much our doing. So, as the right wing keeps claiming, the atmospheric system itself is unstable. So did we have to keep on pouring excess heat into it?

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Excellent thread and welcome back.. :

Your opening post reminds me of the reality that we may well see a nearly global 4T. Consider that such such giant cultures as the euro-American, the Chinese, Indian and the Japanese are all due for their first internet age 4T. It is possible that, with a few exceptions, most of the rest of the world will likely be swept up in this period of massive rapid change. As a side I will add that considering that the Russia-eastern european area has just recently been through a 4T, they may well remain outside of the larger turmoil, at least as much as such is possible.

Back in 2007, anyone remember 2007? : I started a thread on how 911 and Katrina together eased us into the 4T.
One point that I do remember from about then is someone bringing up about our behavior after those events was how we were in many ways like the cartoon character Wyle E. Coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons.
If you'll recall in those cartoons that when the coyote ran off a cliff he didn't actually fall to the bottom until after he looked down. Consider that after 911 and/or Katrina we had run off of a cliff but with the housing boom, getting distracted with the Iraq war, and the continuing culture wars, we had yet to look down.
After the bank meltdown of 2008 we looked down as the economic deterioration left us no other choice.
We realized that there was no solid ground holding us up anymore.
And the ground that we view on our way down to rock bottom is getting bigger and bigger.

And it's getting hotter and hotter the further we get to the bottom.

Give Lucifer my regards, folks.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Forces of the universe? Or the house catching fire because we left a space heater on all winter next to the curtains? Earthquakes are forces of the universe; I'm afraid that tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, prolonged La Ninas, etc are very much our doing. So, as the right wing keeps claiming, the atmospheric system itself is unstable. So did we have to keep on pouring excess heat into it?

I'm with you. I do believe the natural disasters you pointed out are in part the result of our own doing too. It is true that nature has cycles and some years are more extreme than others, but we added to this. The polar ice caps really are melting. And perhaps they still have might have had we have not had the industrial revolution which increased our population and put all these greenhouse gases into our environment, but chances are they wouldn't be melting at the alarming rate that they are today.

I'm going to reprise my thoughts on the security half of the crisis during the Bush 43 administration. There was a major values shift. Before September 11th, Clinton could not put US troops at risk. After September 11th, Bush 43 could launch preemptive invasions based on questionable intelligence. There was a period of trial and error as we figured out what would work. The central binary question was cut and run against stay the course. It was a highly partisan question. As it turned out, neither side was absolutely correct. The battle was not a hopeless quagmire where the only way out was to give up. Neither were we greeted as liberators, with cultures accustomed to autocratic rule eagerly embracing foreign occupation and democracy. It was difficult and expensive in both gold and blood.

But as neither side's values triumphed over the other, neither side is willing to openly acknowledge that lessons were learned and there is now a knowledgable consensus on how to approach security questions. On these forums at least, no one wants to admit that there was a security crisis with a large values clash and cultural transformation.

On to the economic crisis.

I still don't think we have defined adequately where to place the 3T / 4T cusp.

• The major catalyst where a whole bunch of people become aware that the old approach is broke.
• The first consensus when enough power is placed in the hands of people willing to make transforming changes.
• The point of mobilization. After Fort Sumter or Pearl Harbor there was a rush to the recruitment offices. After FDR was sworn in, large amounts of very new style legislation was passed in the first 100 days.
• The total consensus when all but the most die hard of denialists stop yelling and cursing 'That Man in the White House.' In military crises, this might be the equivalent of when Sherman's march reached the Sea, or when the allies broke out of the Normandy beach head. This isn't the end of the beginning, but the beginning of the end, when even most hard nosed opponents might have to admit that the Grey Champion might have known what he was doing. (This is not the 3T / 4T cusp, but might be an early sign of the 4T / 1T cusp.)

It seems safe to say there have been a good number of catalyst events. We know the system is broke. There is not much in the way of an agreement on the fix yet. There is a partisan divide. The progressive faction favors Keynesian stimulation to create jobs for the middle class, and advocate transformation to renewable energy. The conservative faction favors austerity, down sizing government and tax cuts for the wealthy. I suspect, as with the security crisis, that the true path is somewhere in the middle. The government needs to be right-sized, needs to serve the people more than the corporations and elites, and that ecological concerns and a new energy base have to be addressed.

It does not feel, however, that we have had a consensus empowered government performing significant transformations. Obama talks the talk, but puts Wall Street insiders in charge of his economic programs. There has been no real change. He simply does not believe he can get reelected or maintain a working majority in Congress by advocating radical change. The progressives dither while the conservatives delay.

Thus, we have not reached the roll up your sleeves and let's get at it phase in the economic half of the crisis. We haven't had our equivalent of FDR's hundred days or Pearl Harbor. We haven't seen the equivalent of the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, or the Atlantic Charter.

Thus, we have had catalysts but not enough catalysts. We are apt to see more. We are still divided and debating. We are not yet thoroughly committed to transformation. There cannot be a commitment to transformation when there is no agreement on what we ought to be trying to transform to.

Thus, it is a problem of definition. Do we say we are in crisis when we know something is broken that ought to be fixed, or do we actually have to commit to attempt transformation?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm going to reprise my thoughts on the security half of the crisis during the Bush 43 administration. There was a major values shift. Before September 11th, Clinton could not put US troops at risk. After September 11th, Bush 43 could launch preemptive invasions based on questionable intelligence. There was a period of trial and error as we figured out what would work. The central binary question was cut and run against stay the course. It was a highly partisan question. As it turned out, neither side was absolutely correct. The battle was not a hopeless quagmire where the only way out was to give up. Neither were we greeted as liberators, with cultures accustomed to autocratic rule eagerly embracing foreign occupation and democracy. It was difficult and expensive in both gold and blood.

But as neither side's values triumphed over the other, neither side is willing to openly acknowledge that lessons were learned and there is now a knowledgable consensus on how to approach security questions. On these forums at least, no one wants to admit that there was a security crisis with a large values clash and cultural transformation.

On to the economic crisis.

I still don't think we have defined adequately where to place the 3T / 4T cusp.

• The major crisis where a whole bunch of people become aware that the old approach is broke.
• The first consensus when enough power is placed in the hands of people willing to make transforming changes.
• The point of mobilization. After Fort Sumter or Pearl Harbor there was a rush to the recruitment offices. After FDR was sworn in, large amounts of very new style legislation was passed in the first 100 days.
• The total consensus when all but the most die hard of denialists stop yelling and cursing 'That Man in the White House.' In military crises, this might be the equivalent of when Sherman's march reached the Sea, or when the allies broke out of the Normandy beach head. This isn't the end of the beginning, but the beginning of the end, when even most hard nosed opponents might have to admit that the Grey Champion might have known what he was doing. (This is not the 3T / 4T cusp, but might be an early sign of the 4T / 1T cusp.)

It seems safe to say there have been a good number of catalyst events. We know the system is broke. There is not much in the way of an agreement on the fix yet. There is a partisan divide. The progressive faction favors Keynesian stimulation to create jobs for the middle class, and advocate transformation to renewable energy. The conservative faction favors austerity, down sizing government and tax cuts for the wealthy. I suspect, as with the security crisis, that the true path is somewhere in the middle. The government needs to be right-sized, needs to serve the people more than the corporations and elites, and that ecological concerns and a new energy base have to be addressed.

It does not feel, however, that we have had a consensus empowered government performing significant transformations. Obama talks the talk, but puts Wall Street insiders in charge of his economic programs. There has been no real change. He simply does not believe he can get reelected or maintain a working majority in Congress by advocating radical change. The progressives dither while the conservatives delay.

Thus, we have not reached the roll up your sleeves and let's get at it phase in the economic half of the crisis. We haven't had our equivalent of FDR's hundred days or Pearl Harbor. We haven't seen the equivalent of the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, or the Atlantic Charter.

Thus, we have had catalysts but not enough catalysts. We are apt to see more. We are still divided and debating. We are not yet thoroughly committed to transformation. There cannot be a commitment to transformation when there is no agreement on what we ought to be trying to transform to.

Thus, it is a problem of definition. Do we say we are in crisis when we know something is broken that ought to be fixed, or do we actually have to commit to attempt transformation?

In other words, shit hasn't really hit the fan yet. When S&H describe the timeline of the crisis they say things will get worse and worse before it gets better. The turning point is the climax of the crisis. Obviously we aren't there yet. I'd imagine there would be a lot false starts and stops along the way. I think the problem is that most people who understand the theory deep down inside are impatient. They are looking for a catalyst and the solution all at the same time. Only after the crisis has past can we look back and do Monday morning quarterbacking.

I don't think that most crises only last a few years. 20 years is probably more accurate. The more complex the problems of the crisis are, I'd guess that the longer will take to solve them. Regardless of whether the crisis started with 2001 or 2008, I think we still have a long way to go. And this time around it is more complicated because we are so much more connected with the rest of the world than ever before in history. I don't see any reason why this crisis couldn't last more along the lines of 20 to 30 years than 10 to 20 years like some of our more recent crises.

Originally Posted by ASB65

In other words, (expletive deleted) hasn't really hit the fan yet.

If you don't mind me refining your metaphor, picture a bunch of people standing around a fan with various sizes and shape lumps of amorphous brown stuff sticking to their clothes with other assorts lumps airborne along many and varied trajectories. Each individual is making a different point. Should the fan be turned off until a long term solution is reached? Is fertilizing the area a good thing? Might the fan be redesigned for a better redistribution of fertilizer? If the entire field isn't being equally covered, should more power be fed to the fan? Was the old method of using a shovel and a wheelbarrow preferable? Given that the shovel and wheelbarrow is sitting there unused, does anyone want to pick up the shovel and start moving stuff? Can we afford to buy a tractor, feeder attachment and commercial fertilizer?

I would propose that a catalyst would be something hitting the fan. I would propose that the soft brown stuff is still going all over the place with no real sign of progress towards improving the situation.

I think right now there is a feeling of irrelevancy about the political process but it is completely different than that of the 3T. During the 3T, people were detached from politics because they did not see it as relevant to their daily lives. Now people are engaged in politics because they know it is all too relevant, however they also believe that the sparring between both political parties is irrelevant to helping the economy.

I feel also like we have a similar nationwide indecision toward which party to support just like we did in the 3T but indecision back then came in the form of the media trying to seed doubt into our minds using celebrity-style gossip, and inaccurate labels. The indecision now is because we know that neither party is having a very good track record.

I think that we would be having nation-wide protests if this country was smaller. If the US was the size of the Midwest, we would all feel a national connection to what is going on in WI and probably be involved in it on either side, but for most of us, Wisconsin is so far away both in terms of distance and culturally that it might as well be on Mars. Instead, I think we have become apathetic, and have also become more regionally polarized. (Keep in mind however that I would say both were true in the American colonies between 1773 and 1775.) I also believe however that we are one event away from having nation-wide protests. As I have stated before, if the events of the 2000 election were to happen in 2012, millions would march on DC and would not leave even if it meant being thousands of miles away from their homes and worldly possessions for weeks.

Speaking of the 3T, I'm using the 2004 election for a statistics project (to try to prove that it was not stolen don't worry ) and check this out. Am I the only one that think that we're a little bit past that sort of non-story? I guess I'll know if the scandal involving the Congressman with the strangely coincidental name is still getting talked about a month from now.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

I think right now there is a feeling of irrelevancy about the political process but it is completely different than that of the 3T. During the 3T, people were detached from politics because they did not see it as relevant to their daily lives. Now people are engaged in politics because they know it is all too relevant, however they also believe that the sparring between both political parties is irrelevant to helping the economy.

I feel also like we have a similar nationwide indecision toward which party to support just like we did in the 3T but indecision back then came in the form of the media trying to seed doubt into our minds using celebrity-style gossip, and inaccurate labels. The indecision now is because we know that neither party is having a very good track record.

I think that we would be having nation-wide protests if this country was smaller. If the US was the size of the Midwest, we would all feel a national connection to what is going on in WI and probably be involved in it on either side, but for most of us, Wisconsin is so far away both in terms of distance and culturally that it might as well be on Mars. Instead, I think we have become apathetic, and have also become more regionally polarized. (Keep in mind however that I would say both were true in the American colonies between 1773 and 1775.) I also believe however that we are one event away from having nation-wide protests. As I have stated before, if the events of the 2000 election were to happen in 2012, millions would march on DC and would not leave even if it meant being thousands of miles away from their homes and worldly possessions for weeks.

For folks here Wisconsin is almost next door, relatively speaking, and it has been spilling over to here. a while ago my dad, who is the head union guy at the sugar beet processing plant he works at, was part of a demonstration in Fargo in solidarity with the demonstrators in Wisconsin.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

Speaking of the 3T, I'm using the 2004 election for a statistics project (to try to prove that it was not stolen don't worry ) and check this out. Am I the only one that think that we're a little bit past that sort of non-story? I guess I'll know if the scandal involving the Congressman with the strangely coincidental name is still getting talked about a month from now.

What I find funny is how the Netroots bunch has retaliated by creating an hilarious "Andrew Breitbart got syphilis from a goat! he hasn't denied it!" smear campaign!

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

[*]The major catalyst where a whole bunch of people become aware that the old approach is broke.[*]The first consensus when enough power is placed in the hands of people willing to make transforming changes.[*]The point of mobilization. After Fort Sumter or Pearl Harbor there was a rush to the recruitment offices. After FDR was sworn in, large amounts of very new style legislation was passed in the first 100 days.[*]The total consensus when all but the most die hard of denialists stop yelling and cursing 'That Man in the White House.' In military crises, this might be the equivalent of when Sherman's march reached the Sea, or when the allies broke out of the Normandy beach head. This isn't the end of the beginning, but the beginning of the end, when even most hard nosed opponents might have to admit that the Grey Champion might have known what he was doing. (This is not the 3T / 4T cusp, but might be an early sign of the 4T / 1T cusp.)

Personally I find the idea of 9/11 as the start point for this 4T completely implausible at this point, though maybe that's a discussion for another thread. That would mean we're 10 years into the 4T, and looking back, the 2000s felt pretty textbook 3T (though a darker form after 9/11 than before) until at least 2007 and more likely fall 2008 (when *non*-T4T people noticed that something was up, haha). Before the financial crisis, a lot of people didn't think anything was wrong with our charge-it-now, ask-questions-later lifestyle (and at this point, economics is clearly the focus of this 4T, not terrorism). As for when enough power is placed in the hands of people willing to make transformative changes, we had huge wave elections in 2008 and 2010, though the latter actually stymied transformative change. Perhaps the 2012 election will make the situation clearer. As for the point of mobilization, it depends. If you consider FDR's First 100 Days a point of mobilization, I'd submit Obama's first two years, which were almost unprecedentedly ambitious. As for that final climax, we are a good 10 years away from that.

Originally Posted by 1990

Personally I find the idea of 9/11 as the start point for this 4T completely implausible at this point, though maybe that's a discussion for another thread. That would mean we're 10 years into the 4T, and looking back, the 2000s felt pretty textbook 3T (though a darker form after 9/11 than before) until at least 2007 and more likely fall 2008 (when *non*-T4T people noticed that something was up, haha). Before the financial crisis, a lot of people didn't think anything was wrong with our charge-it-now, ask-questions-later lifestyle (and at this point, economics is clearly the focus of this 4T, not terrorism). As for when enough power is placed in the hands of people willing to make transformative changes, we had huge wave elections in 2008 and 2010, though the latter actually stymied transformative change. Perhaps the 2012 election will make the situation clearer. As for the point of mobilization, it depends. If you consider FDR's First 100 Days a point of mobilization, I'd submit Obama's first two years, which were almost unprecedentedly ambitious. As for that final climax, we are a good 10 years away from that.

I have gone back and forth as to the start date. I've been absolutely convinced it was 2001 or 2008 at one point or another. So at this point, I'm just going to say...I don't know. I think this 4T is combination of different things which were also featured in the previous 4T. That one was a combination of foreign war, economic crisis, and natural disasters (the dust bowl). It seems we have those 3 things also going on in this 4T too. The fact that we have been at war in various conflicts for 10 years is not something we should just brush off. Now whether or not these wars (or more wars) end up being the deciding factor of how this 4T turns out remains to be seen. I think we have to get deeper into the crisis before we really we realize what the climax of this 4T will be. Once it's over with then we will be able to go back and look at what were the building blocks that took us to the conclusion of this 4T...Plus I'm not convinced that these wars are truly all about terrorism. We didn't find any WMDs in Iraq.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Forces of the universe? Or the house catching fire because we left a space heater on all winter next to the curtains? Earthquakes are forces of the universe; I'm afraid that tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, prolonged La Ninas, etc are very much our doing. So, as the right wing keeps claiming, the atmospheric system itself is unstable. So did we have to keep on pouring excess heat into it?

How people respond to "forces of the universe" matters almost as much as what those forces are. As a prime example, the Dust Bowl drought would have had a different effect upon America had it hit in the early 1920s instead of the early 1930s. Americans who saw it as a calamity with innocent victims in need of government assistance in the 1930s might not have been so sympathetic in the Devil-Take-the-Hindmost 1920s.

3T depravities were going on until at least 2005, but about then people were shocked that the government could bungle the response to a predicted disaster, that wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were going badly. Such came before the economy went into a tailspin.

Originally Posted by 1990

Howe said a while back that he believes the 4T started in 2008 with the financial crisis, and that the first Homelanders were probably born ~2005. Since then we've seen unemployment remain stiffly around 9-10%, housing prices continue to tumble, $800 billion of government money injected into a flailing economy, a massive overhaul of the American health care system, a massive overhaul of federal regulations affecting Wall Street, and the development of an ever-blander culture (seriously, whither the existential threat of gangsta rap? It's all dance music now, and it all sounds the same; and let's not even talk about the superhero movies). As Boomers look to a future with drastically changed expectations for Social Security and Medicare, Gen Xers struggle to make ends meet, and Millennials face the reality of ever-fiercer competition from their classmates for ever-scarcer jobs, our culture senses that, for both government and individuals, financial ruin and/or permanent indebtedness are very real possibilities.

A reactionary backlash to Obamaism has created the most pronounced fission in American politics in a long time, and a moderate backlash to *that* movement may now be underway as Congress debates essentially gutting the last 4T's legacy and Obama faces a field of competitors ranging from the demagogical (Palin) to the positively Alf Landonesque (Romney, Pawlenty). The next decade appears set to feature a battle for Americans' heart and soul over economics; shall we move toward social democracy or toward laissez faire? Not since the 1930s has the choice seemed so vital, and never before so difficult for the average citizen.

Around the world, Europe has turned to austerity and bailouts to prevent default, Japan's economy had already come to a halt when a nuclear meltdown hit (the irony of Japan confronting nuclear meltdown in the new 4T is just too cruel), and an Arab Spring has engulfed the Middle East and North Africa, with successful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, an ongoing civil war in Libya, and violent reform pushes in Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere still to be resolved. Right now I'm in China, perhaps the current decade's greatest success story, where government is yet confronting the unenviable choice between watching inflation jeopardize newly won prosperity or itself jeopardizing newly won prosperity via overaggressive anti-inflation measures.

Seriously, how many of you think we are still 3T?

While I think it is pretty obvious by now that the US is in a 4T, I'm not sure about Western Europe. Despite all the talk about bailing out Greece, the public mood here in Germany is still 3T. Bailing out Greece (and to a lesser degree Portugal and Ireland) is extremely unpopular here. If Germany were 4T, I think the response would be more along the lines of "it sucks but it has to be done". Instead if there was a plebiscite here whether Greece would get bailed out or not, they wouldn't get a single dime. If Greece does collapse, however, I guess it would pull down Western (and Central and Northern) Europe to a 4T.

So if you asked me, as of today, Germany still is 3T, as are Scandinavia, the Benelux countries, France, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. About the UK I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by 1990

As for the old Warsaw Pact, there's a long-running debate about how to classify Soviet turning history. Everyone agrees 1917 was part of a 4T in Eastern Europe, but was it the beginning or near the end? My personal interpretation has been that the USSR's first 4T ended in 1922, when the Bolsheviks won the Russian Civil War and founded the USSR, then that most of the Stalin years were 1T (yes, including the Purges, and yes, including WWII...it was probably the crappiest 1T in modern world history, but the rigid conformity and vicious public attitudes toward dissidents in the 1930s would seem to fit). While WWII was devastating, the Soviet Union came out of it economically stronger than ever before -- if 20 million people lighter -- and Khrushchev's years absolutely scream 2T what with the Khrushchev Thaw of cultural liberalization and de-Stalinization. Much like our own last 2T, the turning ended with its tail between its legs as Brezhnev proved a staid, conservative force. During its final 3T, the Soviet Union overspent and overextended in places like Afghanistan and Latin America, and Mikhail "Hoover" Gorbachev tried to contain the ruin before it all came crashing down in 1989-1991. The major flaw in my interpretation is that I can't come up with even an approximate date for the start of Russia's (and the old Soviet bloc's) current 1T; I "feel" like it occurred during Putin's presidency, but when?

The other argument is that WWII extended the USSR's founding 4T all the way to 1945, making it *at least* a 28-year 4T. The Khrushchev years, then, are 1T; this I have a problem with. While the '50s and certainly early '60s were in some ways a liberal time in the U.S. as well (see: Warren Court, New Frontier, death of the Hays Code), 1Ts generally are liberal in their tendency to favor social equality and *not* in a tendency toward open criticism of the status quo, which is what was beginning to happen under Khrushchev (then again, when your society is already designed with equality as its overriding goal, maybe speech is the obvious spot for liberalization). In that case, the Communist collapse of '89 was a 3T, not a 4T. I say that's an awfully big paradigm shift to consider the work of a 3T, but Howe agrees with that reading of Russian history, so it's not exactly a heterodox approach.

Not all of the former Soviet bloc was in the same turning as Russia. East Germany was and always has been on the Western European one, and there is a strong case for at least Poland, former Czechoslovakia (at least the Czech half) and possibly even the Baltic states being as well. Remember that especially for East Germany and Czechia, being under Russian influence was an anomaly of history. And the Prague Spring just screams 2T to me. Russia itself is a different case, I admit, and there is strong evidence for it being generally one turning ahead of Western Europe since the Napoleonic era, with various Western European nations smashing their 1T during their own 4T.