Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: Does this Crisis echo the Glorious Revolutuon?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
That was always the going theory on the old forum. How do we compare? Any obvious analogues to Charles II, James I, Cromwell, and other key players of the period?
According to the double rhythm theory, which is the going one on this site, yes there should be a resemblance. It's not a huge one, by any means. In the Glorious, like the Millennial, there was a basic domestic conflict, between parliament-advocates and royalists, and the protestants were still defending their victory and pushing it further. I believe this domestic conflict occurred in the colonies in the 4T, if I remember correctly (iirc). James I would be something like Ike; Charles II and James II would obviously be the Bushs, while Cromwell was more akin to the heroes of the French Revolution who became authoritarian, like Robespierre and Napoleon. Some would say Lincoln was a "dictator" too, but he and Robespierre were 4T, while Cromwell was 2T. Perhaps, in that respect, Cromwell could be compared to Lyndon Johnson. Revolutionary, both were indeed; but both became authoritarian in some ways and both overplayed their hands, and both inspired a reaction and subsequent restoration (Charles and James = Reagan and the Bushs).

The Glorious was also an international conflict in the 4T, though; so in that respect it was like the American Revolution and the Depression/World War II. Louis XIV played the Hitler role.
(09-03-2016, 04:52 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]That was always the going theory on the old forum. How do we compare? Any obvious analogues to Charles II, James I, Cromwell, and other key players of the period?

I think there is.
I remember people making those arguments, but to be honest I don't really see any parallels as of yet, and it is a period of history of which I am quite fond.
(01-05-2017, 12:54 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]I remember people making those arguments, but to be honest I don't really see any parallels as of yet, and it is a period of history of which I am quite fond.

I'm very skeptical of comparisons made across the Agricultural Age boundary.  Something changed when the basic economic model was disrupted by industrial processes that made long held assumptions less valid or simply invalid.  One basic necessities could be manufactured rather than fabricated by hand, the Maslow needs hierarchy of the masses started shifting away from survival to higher order implied needs.  That's only migrated further in the 200 years since.

I'm not certain we are totally the same creatures we were in the 18th century, though some of us (very few) could survive there quite well.  If that's true, then the history of those earlier times may relate less directly to us today than, say, the 14th century to the 17th.  Most people today have what only the elite had then, and many things they couldn't even imagine.  How impactful is that?
I think it echos the last 4T
(01-05-2017, 03:43 PM)flbones too Wrote: [ -> ]I think it echos the last 4T

It is echoing the next previous 4T quite strongly; the civil war saeculum. And the Revolutionary one too, as well as the last one of 1929-46. Double and triple rhythms are coming into play quite strongly.

It is less like the last 4T, in that a strong enough consensus was achieved soon so that drastic reforms could be made. Then we faced a clear-cut foreign threat. Today's 4T is, on the other hand, much like circa 1848-1865. The authors pronounced the 1850s "an anomaly" because its crisis nature was not obvious. That is just like today, when some here can't see that the 4T began in 2008, because of all the dithering and wavering. The dithering and wavering of these two eras, the 1850s and today, has the same cause: the division of the country. THAT was the crisis then, and THAT is the crisis now. And, like 3 times ago, only a Revolution can solve it. And it may, if we're lucky, be a Revolution akin to the Glorious one.

We need in fact to change to a parliamentary system based on the British model. That's what all other modern democracies are based on, more than the American, because it is a more democratic and less authoritarian system than an "elected king" like we have. That need has been demonstrated by our king's reckless and deadly foreign policy adventures, which he can simply order into being. Now, with King Donald, succeeding King George W. the third, the need could become stark.

I don't know if it will happen, but if the double rhythm holds and goes back to the Glorious, it could.
(01-05-2017, 03:43 PM)flbones too Wrote: [ -> ]I think it echos the last 4T

Yeah, I think there are more echoes with the previous 4T here in the US, or Britain's last couple of 4Ts when it was the reigning hegemon, than there are with the Glorious Revolution.  I mean, what, Oliver Cromwell as Reagan?  Dick Cromwell as Bush 41?  Charles II as Clinton and Bush 43?  The end of the Cold War as the Restoration?  The Civil Rights Movement as the English Civil War?  Obama as James II?  Trump as James II?  Those are all silly comparisons, and only silly people would make them.  I mean, they both fit into the saecular pattern, but two very different saeculums that played out two very different ways.
Eric, pretty sure King Donald is succeeding Barry I, The Black Prince.
(01-05-2017, 05:29 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]Eric, pretty sure King Donald is succeeding Barry I, The Black Prince.

I wrote that intentionally. No, George III Dubya Bush was a "King," who ordered up needless wars that killed thousands; Obama was merely a "president." Black Prince, maybe; but in England he died before Richard II took over.

The amazing thing I guess is that we live in a country where it's possible for the president to order a war, and the people, the congress and the media just blindly go along; enough of them anyway.
(01-05-2017, 05:25 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-05-2017, 03:43 PM)flbones too Wrote: [ -> ]I think it echos the last 4T

Yeah, I think there are more echoes with the previous 4T here in the US, or Britain's last couple of 4Ts when it was the reigning hegemon, than there are with the Glorious Revolution.  I mean, what, Oliver Cromwell as Reagan?  Dick Cromwell as Bush 41?  Charles II as Clinton and Bush 43?  The end of the Cold War as the Restoration?  The Civil Rights Movement as the English Civil War?  Obama as James II?  Trump as James II?  Those are all silly comparisons, and only silly people would make them.  I mean, they both fit into the saecular pattern, but two very different saeculums that played out two very different ways.

Of course Reagan as Oliver Cromwell is ridiculous; Reagan was the counter-revolution, not the revolution. Lyndon Johnson was the appropriate parallel. Very different times, though, no doubt. The point that emerges though, is that both countries and 4T times are at a place where a parliament needs to take over from the king.
Quote:I wrote that intentionally. No, George III Dubya Bush was a "King," who ordered up needless wars that killed thousands; Obama was merely a "president." Black Prince, maybe; but in England he died before Richard II took over.

The amazing thing I guess is that we live in a country where it's possible for the president to order a war, and the people, the congress and the media just blindly go along; enough of them anyway.


So, blind partisanship then?  Got it.  Don't really care, I really just wanted to make the Black Prince bit since we were doing the whole government-as-monarchy bit, although there is no real connection between Obama and old Ed.

Quote:Of course Reagan as Oliver Cromwell is ridiculous; Reagan was the counter-revolution, not the revolution. Lyndon Johnson was the appropriate parallel.

The trouble with that is that S & H dates that cycles Awakening from about 1621 to 1649, and its 3T from 1650 to 1675.  This would place Cromwell pere et fils at the beginning of the 3T (they actually called that turning Reaction & Restoration), not the high point of the 2T.  Although, Oliver Cromwell was the leader of the New Model Army during the ECW, which was definitely 2T.  Which then makes the whole thing completely different, it would be like if Bill Ayres or Huey Newton actually led the Revolution they wanted to in the 1970s, then became president in the 80s, only for the Republicans to come back in 10 years later and rule consistently ever since.  Even if you try to push the 3T start to 1660 with the Restoration (which then raises the question of where you date the 2T), it still doesn't line up in any coherent way with what actually happened in this saeculum.

Quote:The point that emerges though, is that both countries and 4T times are at a place where a parliament needs to take over from the king.

The reassertion of war-making and other sorts of authority by Congress over the White House WOULD be an interesting parallel with the Glorious Revolution, and one can fairly easily imagine situations where that came about.  However, it doesn't seem to be in the cards at the moment, and so we should probably wait and see how things turn out before making that explicit comparison, at least as far as this board is concerned.
(01-06-2017, 10:59 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:I wrote that intentionally. No, George III Dubya Bush was a "King," who ordered up needless wars that killed thousands; Obama was merely a "president." Black Prince, maybe; but in England he died before Richard II took over.

The amazing thing I guess is that we live in a country where it's possible for the president to order a war, and the people, the congress and the media just blindly go along; enough of them anyway.


So, blind partisanship then?  Got it.  Don't really care, I really just wanted to make the Black Prince bit since we were doing the whole government-as-monarchy bit, although there is no real connection between Obama and old Ed.

Quote:Of course Reagan as Oliver Cromwell is ridiculous; Reagan was the counter-revolution, not the revolution. Lyndon Johnson was the appropriate parallel.

The trouble with that is that S & H dates that cycles Awakening from about 1621 to 1649, and its 3T from 1650 to 1675.  This would place Cromwell pere et fils at the beginning of the 3T (they actually called that turning Reaction & Restoration), not the high point of the 2T.  Although, Oliver Cromwell was the leader of the New Model Army during the ECW, which was definitely 2T.  Which then makes the whole thing completely different, it would be like if Bill Ayres or Huey Newton actually led the Revolution they wanted to in the 1970s, then became president in the 80s, only for the Republicans to come back in 10 years later and rule consistently ever since.  Even if you try to push the 3T start to 1660 with the Restoration (which then raises the question of where you date the 2T), it still doesn't line up in any coherent way with what actually happened in this saeculum.

Quote:The point that emerges though, is that both countries and 4T times are at a place where a parliament needs to take over from the king.

The reassertion of war-making and other sorts of authority by Congress over the White House WOULD be an interesting parallel with the Glorious Revolution, and one can fairly easily imagine situations where that came about.  However, it doesn't seem to be in the cards at the moment, and so we should probably wait and see how things turn out before making that explicit comparison, at least as far as this board is concerned.

I wouldn't subscribe to the idea that parallels have to be exactly-timed to be relevant. The double rhythm shows this; if the 4T began in 1675, then the Glorious would fit too. The climax and real change only came in the later portion of the 4T in the case of the civil war 4T (1850s) and today, whereas in the other two it came early. That's of course if you accept the progressive idea, as mikebert does, that real progressive change happens in 4Ts. I know, that's a "partisan" notion. But the idea of Reagan parallel to Cromwell just doesn't fit by anyone's standards, I don't think.

I of course add the planetary cycles to the idea of finding parallels, and in this case the parallel of Uranus opposite Pluto in 1649 (climax of revolution cycle) = Cromwell (and more extreme movements like the levellers), and Uranus conjunct Pluto in 1965-66 (beginning of revolution cycle) = Lyndon Johnson and his era (and Huey Newton/Black Panthers), fits very well.

But it's true, the change to a parliamentary system hasn't happened yet, of course. But perhaps the Glorious adds to the support of my proposal and prediction of what may happen. It may be too drastic a change for Americans to make, conservative as we are. But we can expect some systemic changes in this 4T, and somehow restraining the president's ability to start wars (or even issue drone strikes against US citizens, as Obama did against that Al Qaeda cleric and his family in Yemen) would seem to me to be on peoples' minds after the events of this saeculum.
You're missing the point I am making.  The parallels don't have to be exact in order to serve as a tool for thought (if they were exact then they wouldn't be parallels, but identities), but between now and the 17th century there just aren't really any common factors at all, other than being a saeculum that happened in an English-speaking country.  Cromwell isn't Reagan, but Charles II isn't Reagan either.  The Long Parliament and the ECW don't bear any real resemblance to anything that actually happened in the 60s and 70s, and as much as you might like a parliamentary system, switching the country over to one just isn't on anybody's radar.  Even the Glorious Revolution didn't institute a parliament, it simply defined the relation between the existing Parliament and the Crown, which had been a continuing source of contention all century.  Crises don't introduce and then resolve new issues, they settle (one way or another) questions of long-standing.
(01-05-2017, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-05-2017, 12:54 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]I remember people making those arguments, but to be honest I don't really see any parallels as of yet, and it is a period of history of which I am quite fond.

I'm very skeptical of comparisons made across the Agricultural Age boundary.  Something changed when the basic economic model was disrupted by industrial processes that made long held assumptions less valid or simply invalid.  One basic necessities could be manufactured rather than fabricated by hand, the Maslow needs hierarchy of the masses started shifting away from survival to higher order implied needs.  That's only migrated further in the 200 years since.

I'm not certain we are totally the same creatures we were in the 18th century, though some of us (very few) could survive there quite well.  If that's true, then the history of those earlier times may relate less directly to us today than, say, the 14th century to the 17th.  Most people today have what only the elite had then, and many things they couldn't even imagine.  How impactful is that?

Does economics really matter in this case?
(01-06-2017, 06:18 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]You're missing the point I am making.  The parallels don't have to be exact in order to serve as a tool for thought (if they were exact then they wouldn't be parallels, but identities), but between now and the 17th century there just aren't really any common factors at all, other than being a saeculum that happened in an English-speaking country.  Cromwell isn't Reagan, but Charles II isn't Reagan either.  The Long Parliament and the ECW don't bear any real resemblance to anything that actually happened in the 60s and 70s, and as much as you might like a parliamentary system, switching the country over to one just isn't on anybody's radar.  Even the Glorious Revolution didn't institute a parliament, it simply defined the relation between the existing Parliament and the Crown, which had been a continuing source of contention all century.  Crises don't introduce and then resolve new issues, they settle (one way or another) questions of long-standing.

Like defining the relationship between Congress and the President?
Quote:Like defining the relationship between Congress and the President?


Like I said, that would be a big parallel if it happened.  I can even envision scenarios where a Trump administration could spur it.  I just haven't seen any evidence of it brewing.  Congress has been pretty enthusiastic about abrogating its responsibilities in the war-making department all saeculum, no sign of them stopping now.

But still, it's a possibility.  Pitching big chunks of the Constitution in order to implement a parliamentary system in its place?  I don't see it happening in the next 10 years.  Hasn't exactly been a big issue people have been squabbling about for the last several decades, which is generally what has preceded consitutional amendments.
(01-06-2017, 01:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The amazing thing I guess is that we live in a country where it's possible for the president to order a war, and the people, the congress and the media just blindly go along; enough of them anyway.

Switching to a Parliamentary system won't fix that either.  The problem lies with the people, who take very little interest in their governance, except where it impacts then directly.  Thus, we have many thinking that things can be done that are unsustainable or even unachievable, while being equally sure that someone else is getting more than they are.

I'm almost 70.  When I attended public school, we had a mandatory history or civics class every year starting in the 7th grade, with only the 12th grade being an elective.  No one graduated with less than 5 years.  Now, I'm not sure what is required.  I do know that much of the history is now social history.  That's certainly valuable, but its nowhere near as fundamental as traditional programs.
I think there are some definite parallels with the Glorious Revolution building up. According to Colin Woodard a defining aspect of the Glorious Revolution in the American colonies, especially New England, was the determination to preserve their own local cultural and political autonomy in the face of centralization efforts from London. Right now we have a "Dixie" political alliance centered on the Deep South and Greater Appalachia trying to impose their will on the other cultures that make up the US, and resistance and anger is building. Trump may be our Edmund Andross.
(01-07-2017, 12:36 AM)naf140230 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-05-2017, 02:55 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-05-2017, 12:54 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]I remember people making those arguments, but to be honest I don't really see any parallels as of yet, and it is a period of history of which I am quite fond.

I'm very skeptical of comparisons made across the Agricultural Age boundary.  Something changed when the basic economic model was disrupted by industrial processes that made long held assumptions less valid or simply invalid.  One basic necessities could be manufactured rather than fabricated by hand, the Maslow needs hierarchy of the masses started shifting away from survival to higher order implied needs.  That's only migrated further in the 200 years since.

I'm not certain we are totally the same creatures we were in the 18th century, though some of us (very few) could survive there quite well.  If that's true, then the history of those earlier times may relate less directly to us today than, say, the 14th century to the 17th.  Most people today have what only the elite had then, and many things they couldn't even imagine.  How impactful is that?

Does economics really matter in this case?

It does to the extent that we have a long-standing system that uses labor and ownership as the two modes of acquiring goods and services.  If you don't own, then you must work to acquire money to buy things you need or do without.  If that's disrupted entirely, what replaces it?  99% are still outside the ownership class.  Very few have he option of moving off the grid and living off the land, so maintaining peace and order mandates another model.  Now, that model can be as fair as the old Feudal system, but only if the serfs are kept ignorant.  In this technological age, that seems bizarre, so I assume it will be different, just unknown for now.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9