Has the regeneracy arrived?

[Odin]

(01-04-2017, 10:58 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-04-2017, 08:35 AM)Odin Wrote: The main reason the Great Depression got as bad as it did was because the Fed stupidly tightened the money supply right as the economy was slumping, and then Congress passed a huge set of tariffs. Had those things not have happened and the Depression just been a less severe downturn it still would have started the 4T.

As a (partial) example of this, Britain never experienced the same boom during the '20s, and had a somewhat more developed social safety net as the result of Liberal reforms during and prior to WWI.  While the industrial regions in the north and west experienced horrendous deprivation, the Home Counties actually grew during the 1930s and for the middle class, the 1930s were not too bad.  The Tories were dominant during most of this interwar period, and the big social programs that are a part and parcel of Britain's domestic life today were not instituted until after WWII.  Since I have long maintained that the (very rough) equivalent to WWI in this saeculum was the collapse of the Soviet Union, you could imagine the US' position today as being similar to a counterfactual scenario where tensions on the Continent led not to a general war (at least not one that Britain let itself get dragged into), but a wide-ranging collapse of entities like the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and/or the Russian Empire from internal tensions, while Britain contented itself with further Liberal reforms (hotly contested by the Conservatives) and a more heavy-handed embroilment in Ireland and the rest of the Empire.  With, of course, the fundamental question of Germany and Japan's place in the international order still open.

Food for thought.

That's a good analogy.

[SomeGuy]

Thanks, Odin, I was quite pleased with it.

[Emman85]

(01-03-2017, 04:29 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 11:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: It could just be that nothing is so drastically important that it forces a unified response.  Inequality is bad, but the most negatively affected are out-of-sight-and-out-of-mind.  ACW is getting worse, but it hasn't produce an environment disaster yet.  We are still more-or-less free.  The economy in general is meh.  It's hard to get wound up to fight the good fight if the fight isn't absolutely necessary.

Of course, that may still change.

This would be consistent with we still be 3T.

A distinction should be made between the S&H assertion that the saeculum exists and the generational theory they advance to explain them.  That one or the other, both or neither are true are all possibilities.

No it's not consistent with the idea that we are STILL in a 3T, the unraveling continues until the regeneracy, they make that clear in The Fourth Turning book. Howe/Strauss stress the point that the initial catalyst needs to be flowed by possibly two or more shocks to reach a critical threshold for a kind of counter entropy to happen.  The '08 Obama campaign was ran on "hope and change", just because Obama did not quite deliver does not mean we went back 3T, the need for change just got stronger among the US public(as seen with the result of the 2016 election).

In fact civic/social trust is supposed to implode and reach a nadir in the pre-regeneracy 4T. The US and much of the western world is so obviously deep into the fourth turning mood, there is a low supply of order but the demand for order is rising.

[SomeGuy]

(01-06-2017, 02:11 PM)Emman85 Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 04:29 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 11:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: It could just be that nothing is so drastically important that it forces a unified response.  Inequality is bad, but the most negatively affected are out-of-sight-and-out-of-mind.  ACW is getting worse, but it hasn't produce an environment disaster yet.  We are still more-or-less free.  The economy in general is meh.  It's hard to get wound up to fight the good fight if the fight isn't absolutely necessary.

Of course, that may still change.

This would be consistent with we still be 3T.

A distinction should be made between the S&H assertion that the saeculum exists and the generational theory they advance to explain them.  That one or the other, both or neither are true are all possibilities.

No it's not consistent with the idea that we are STILL in a 3T, the unraveling continues until the regeneracy, they make that clear in The Fourth Turning book. Howe/Strauss stress the point that the initial catalyst needs to be flowed by possibly two or more shocks to reach a critical threshold for a kind of counter entropy to happen.  The '08 Obama campaign was ran on "hope and change", just because Obama did not quite deliver does not mean we went back 3T, the need for change just got stronger among the US public(as seen with the result of the 2016 election).  

In fact civic/social trust is supposed to implode and reach a nadir in the pre-regeneracy 4T. The US and much of the western world is so obviously deep into the fourth turning mood, there is a low supply of order but the demand for order is rising.

Nailed it, Emman.  I think that tonight, after work, I am going to take my copy of T4T off the shelf and post segments from the book to remind people how it was predicted to play out.

[Mikebert]

Yes, the unraveling continues until the regeneracy changes course. But the actual examples have the regeneracy follow the trigger by a few years in the American saeculae.  The simple election of Trump is not a regeneracy because nothing has changed so far.  Trump was fairly specific about what he wanted to achieve.  If unemployment  is higher at the beginning of 2020 than it is now (which is likely to be the case if the business cycle still happens) then it will be hard to make the case the America will be tangibly better than it was in 2016 in which case it be hard to see that a regeneracy has occurred.  Should Trump's policies be successful and lead to a strong improvement during his second term in the 2020's, we might date the regeneracy for the recession bottom from which the recovery began.  Why begin the 4T in 2008 if the most of what was done in response to 2008 was repealed? Why not begin it in 2016 if the policy that begins the recovery was put in place by new administration that came to power in 2016 which only begins to take effect after 2020 and is not complete until the 2030's?

[Mikebert]

(01-03-2017, 07:15 PM)flbones too Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 04:21 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 09:47 AM)flbones too Wrote: Inequality remained high in the last 4T up until around 1940. .

No it didn't.

Actually it did you cabron.

Evidence please

[SomeGuy]

Quote:But the actual examples have the regeneracy follow the trigger by a few years in the American saeculae. 

S & H dated the start of the Glorious Revolution 4T in 1675, meaning the regeneracy took 13 years, and the 4T went on for 16 more years.  

Quote:The simple election of Trump is not a regeneracy because nothing has changed so far.

He hasn't even been inaugurated yet!

Quote:If unemployment  is higher at the beginning of 2020 than it is now (which is likely to be the case if the business cycle still happens) then it will be hard to make the case the America will be tangibly better than it was in 2016 in which case it be hard to see that a regeneracy has occurred.

Again, reread the book!  A regeneracy does not imply that all problems are solved, only that a consensus has been reached about how society is going to try to solve them, and that the populace is willing to allow them to play it out for the remainder of the 4T.

Quote: Should Trump's policies be successful and lead to a strong improvement during his second term in the 2020's, we might date the regeneracy for the recession bottom from which the recovery began.  Why begin the 4T in 2008 if the most of what was done in response to 2008 was repealed? Why not begin it in 2016 if the policy that begins the recovery was put in place by new administration that came to power in 2016 which only begins to take effect after 2020 and is not complete until the 2030's?

You're making up dates again.  Stop assuming your premises.  If the theme of the turning ends up being retrenchment and the abandonment of the liberal older/us imperium, then it would be perfectly reasonable to date it to the beginning of Obama's presidency.  See, I can throw out hypotheticals, too!

[Mikebert]

(01-06-2017, 04:25 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: S & H dated the start of the Glorious Revolution 4T in 1675, meaning the regeneracy took 13 years, and the 4T went on for 16 more years.

Are you saying that saeculae of 110 years duration apply today? If there is 30-40 years slop in the theory that makes it pretty much unfalsifiable.

[SomeGuy]

(01-06-2017, 04:46 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 04:25 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: S & H dated the start of the Glorious Revolution 4T in 1675, meaning the regeneracy took 13 years, and the 4T went on for 16 more years.

Are you saying that saeculae of 110 years duration apply today? If there is 30-40 years slop in the theory making pretty much unfalsifiable.

Not at all, simply pointing out that the regeneracy can take several years.  The Glorious Revolution one didn't occur until almost half way through.  Since, like many people here, I date the Civil War crisis to start sometime in the 50s and go no later than the early '70s (otherwise you almost completely lose the Great Power 1T).  So, again, some years.

[Mikebert]

[/size Wrote:[size=medium]Again, reread the book!  A regeneracy does not imply that all problems are solved, only that a consensus has been reached about how society is going to try to solve them, and that the populace is willing to allow them to play it out for the remainder of the 4T.

Yes, but the problems Trump was highlighting were largely economic.
 

Quote:If the theme of the turning ends up being retrenchment and the abandonment of the liberal older/us imperium..

That may be want you want (me too) but I doubt that Trump’s base would be happy with this if that was all and their negative economic trajectory were unchanged.
 
Domestic bread and butter issues generally outweigh foreign affairs in the long run. 

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Yes, but the problems Trump was highlighting were largely economic.

Yes, and if he starts plunking away at trade and infrastructure he will be addressing those issues in the way that he claimed he would.

Quote:That may be want you want (me too) but I doubt that Trump’s base would be happy with this if that was all and their negative economic trajectory were unchanged.

Free trade is a pretty basic plank of the US-led order instituted after WWII.  So is intervention abroad.  If he blows either up, by raising tariffs/abandoning NATO/getting into a geopolitical confrontation that goes badly, that would do it.

Remember, I did say that he doesn't have to be a good president in order to be a transformational one.  Once that order is gone, hey, it's gone, and the 1T would just be picking up the pieces in its wake.  Which was one of the outcomes outlined in T4T.

[Eric the Green]

(01-06-2017, 04:07 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Yes, the unraveling continues until the regeneracy changes course. But the actual examples have the regeneracy follow the trigger by a few years in the American saeculae.  The simple election of Trump is not a regeneracy because nothing has changed so far.  Trump was fairly specific about what he wanted to achieve.  If unemployment  is higher at the beginning of 2020 than it is now (which is likely to be the case if the business cycle still happens) then it will be hard to make the case the America will be tangibly better than it was in 2016 in which case it be hard to see that a regeneracy has occurred.  Should Trump's policies be successful and lead to a strong improvement during his second term in the 2020's, we might date the regeneracy for the recession bottom from which the recovery began.  Why begin the 4T in 2008 if the most of what was done in response to 2008 was repealed? Why not begin it in 2016 if the policy that begins the recovery was put in place by new administration that came to power in 2016 which only begins to take effect after 2020 and is not complete until the 2030's?

The regeneracy, as I see it, can only start now in the form of resistance to Trump, after which it takes over the government and continues the Obama projectory, although with more drastic and systemic change.

The double rhythm seems to indicate that when the 4T accents the domestic, as in the Glorious, the Civil War, and today (and for that matter the Wars of the Roses), the division of the country delays the regeneracy (defined as systemic changes supported by the people). The 1850s must be seen as early 4T in this scenario, and it's the only way to make any sense out of the current 4T.

[disasterzone]

(01-06-2017, 04:07 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Yes, the unraveling continues until the regeneracy changes course. But the actual examples have the regeneracy follow the trigger by a few years in the American saeculae.  The simple election of Trump is not a regeneracy because nothing has changed so far.  Trump was fairly specific about what he wanted to achieve.  If unemployment  is higher at the beginning of 2020 than it is now (which is likely to be the case if the business cycle still happens) then it will be hard to make the case the America will be tangibly better than it was in 2016 in which case it be hard to see that a regeneracy has occurred.  Should Trump's policies be successful and lead to a strong improvement during his second term in the 2020's, we might date the regeneracy for the recession bottom from which the recovery began.  Why begin the 4T in 2008 if the most of what was done in response to 2008 was repealed? Why not begin it in 2016 if the policy that begins the recovery was put in place by new administration that came to power in 2016 which only begins to take effect after 2020 and is not complete until the 2030's?

We're correcting the issues of 2001 and I think this 4T will be designed to correct the errors of the Bush administration.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:We're correcting the issues of 2001 and I think this 4T will be designed to correct the errors of the Bush administration.

Is that all that is going on?  Everything in the US was ticking along just fine until 9/11?

[pbrower2a]

Wjat is possible?

Donald Trump and the GOP will destroy American democracy by transforming the political and administrative order into nothing more than the enforcement of the wi9ll of a Master Class devoid  of any compassion, fairness, or integrity -- people who have accepted the Gospel of Ayn Rand. The rest of us must be content to be nothing more than our economic roles.

People nothing more than their economic roles? So it was for slaves, serfs, and prisoners of fascist and Commie labor camps. We are going to get much taste of dehumanization in what will no longer be the Land of the Free. Just work, bear children, and consign them to the tradition of working to exhaustion for the dubious reward of an animal-level of survival.

Death to that! Our humanity as persons is more than our ability to churn out stuff for plantation owners and overseers, or sweatshop exploiters.

How long will that last? Probably until America loses some catastrophic war that a fascistic or neo-feudal America loses because it tries to impose this nasty order where it is unwelcome. The people who impose a gangster order upon us ride a tiger that they dare not dismount. After about forty years commies in Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria could step down peacefully because they were not the ones who imposed the monstrous order and risked being hanged, shot, or beheaded (the last was the form of capital punishment in East Germany) for horrific crimes if they were to be overthrown, much like Nazi and fascist war criminals overthrown in defeat within a quarter-century of taking power. The imposition of tyranny is always a collection of monstrous crimes, crimes begging for the imposition of a death penalty.

DO NOT COUNT ON THE CURRENT LEADERS OR THEIR HANGERS-ON ALLOWING THEMSELVES TO LOSE IN 2020 or any time within their lifetimes in free and fair elections. The likes of Rakosi, Gottwald, Ulbricht, Bierut, and Gheorgiu-Dej had to be, along with their fellow partners in crime, completely off the scene -- dead. Thus the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and even the Prague Spring of 1968 were premature without outside assistance. The order that Donald Trump and his fellow-travelers have imposed will last at least as long as Generation X, the youngest generation to have complicity in his rise, is off the scene -- around 2055.

Sure, we will have elections -- like those in the old Soviet Union, where they had meaning only at the village or block level, or as in China, where there is a nominal opposition devoid of ability to challenge anything but exists for a show of some veneer of parliamentary democracy. We might also have iconic images of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, TR, and perhaps even FDR and Kennedy(!) -- of course gutted of their meaning, being used (like Marti in Cuba) to sell Fidel Castro as a nationalist hero.

We need to make undemocratic rule difficult. We need to protest and strike. We need to use our creative and organizational skills to the detriment of tyranny at any level, whether that level is a town council or the President. We need to recognize that the pariah of a tyrant is our brother and not our enemy. We need to assert the assets that we have, all moral and intellectual -- and like Nathan Hale in one time and Medgar Evers in another, that a life of subjection is not really life.

They have power; we have truth. We have a tradition of liberty that we dare not sell out for transitory privilege or safety. That tradition of liberty is worth far more than our material comfort. The longer that the nightmare lasts, the more that any signal of wealth or privilege will be associated with complicity with tyranny.

If we get free elections in 2020 it will be because the Armed Services and the intelligence agencies have determined that there must be free elections.

[David Horn]

(01-06-2017, 02:11 PM)Emman85 Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 04:29 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 11:24 AM)David Horn Wrote: It could just be that nothing is so drastically important that it forces a unified response.  Inequality is bad, but the most negatively affected are out-of-sight-and-out-of-mind.  ACW is getting worse, but it hasn't produce an environment disaster yet.  We are still more-or-less free.  The economy in general is meh.  It's hard to get wound up to fight the good fight if the fight isn't absolutely necessary.

Of course, that may still change.

This would be consistent with we still be 3T.

A distinction should be made between the S&H assertion that the saeculum exists and the generational theory they advance to explain them.  That one or the other, both or neither are true are all possibilities.

No it's not consistent with the idea that we are STILL in a 3T, the unraveling continues until the regeneracy, they make that clear in The Fourth Turning book. Howe/Strauss stress the point that the initial catalyst needs to be flowed by possibly two or more shocks to reach a critical threshold for a kind of counter entropy to happen.  The '08 Obama campaign was ran on "hope and change", just because Obama did not quite deliver does not mean we went back 3T, the need for change just got stronger among the US public(as seen with the result of the 2016 election).  

In fact civic/social trust is supposed to implode and reach a nadir in the pre-regeneracy 4T. The US and much of the western world is so obviously deep into the fourth turning mood, there is a low supply of order but the demand for order is rising.

I agree, but the problem, as I see it, has to do with what order is demanded.  Apparently, there is a balance of terror between the two dominant positions that precludes a resolution ... at least for now.  Does it get resolved, or is there just no perceptible shift in these positions until we run out the clock?  If we run out of 4T passion, a glum and resigned 1T will take its place and the following 2T becomes a powder keg.  I suspect it will, and that's been my opinion for some time.  I can't see a 4T resolution with broad support, unless we come close to destroying what we wish to save.  ACW-II?  No thanks.

[David Horn]

(01-06-2017, 04:25 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Again, reread the book!  A regeneracy does not imply that all problems are solved, only that a consensus has been reached about how society is going to try to solve them, and that the populace is willing to allow them to play it out for the remainder of the 4T.

Considering the intense anger on the Left, and the total determination to slash-and-burn on the Right, when and how do you see us arriving at a consensus?  If you are assuming the force of external events, what are they?  Because, frankly, the political standoff between urban and rural, religious and secular, open and closed is getting more intense every day.  These differences involve world views that are deep and baked in.  They don't just change on a whim.
The rule for changing entrenched beliefs is life-changing trauma.  Is that your assumption?   Geography and demographics make a parting of the ways out of the question, That doesn't leave many options.

[TeacherinExile]

(01-07-2017, 11:32 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 04:25 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Again, reread the book!  A regeneracy does not imply that all problems are solved, only that a consensus has been reached about how society is going to try to solve them, and that the populace is willing to allow them to play it out for the remainder of the 4T.

Considering the intense anger on the Left, and the total determination to slash-and-burn on the Right, when and how do you see us arriving at a consensus?  If you are assuming the force of external events, what are they?  Because, frankly, the political standoff between urban and rural, religious and secular, open and closed is getting more intense every day.  These differences involve world views that are deep and baked in.  They don't just change on a whim.
The rule for changing entrenched beliefs is life-changing trauma.  Is that your assumption?   Geography and demographics make a parting of the ways out of the question, That doesn't leave many options.

You are both right, each in your own way.  Some problems are held over for later resolution, often in a subsequent administration, and not necessarily by the same political party even.  FDR's New Deal was not enacted in its entirety in his "first 100 days."  Much of it was passed in his second term.

My only quibble with SomeGuy is the word "consensus."  No American president has ever garnered much more than 60% of the vote, even in landslides.  That means, of course, that a significant minority of voters opposed the winner.  I would call 60% a "critical mass" sufficient for an incoming president to implement new policy, especially if backed by a Congressional super-majority--and a compliant Supreme Court, which even FDR attempted to stack when the highest court overturned some of his key legislation.  When I hear the word "consensus," I think of the 90+ percent of climate scientists who conclude that global warming is real and man-made.  Again, a niggling objection to certain nomenclature...  

I tend to agree with you too, David, your contention that the body politic has reached such an impasse in America, that I am hard pressed to see anything on the horizon that remedies the polarization especially.  As a nation, we are split right down the middle in so many ways, as you mention.  Trump may succeed in the short run in "ramming down our throats," as Obama's strident critics accused him of doing with Obamacare and a host of executive orders.  But if that further inflames the passions of the Left, and generates a backlash in turn, how does that really change the status quo?  If the Crash of 2008 didn't do the trick, what will it take exactly?  (I have my own oft-repeated prediction.)

That's a fair question for you, SomeGuy.  What national trauma do we have to suffer, one that lays the country so low that a president is granted permission--if only grudgingly so even by the opposition--to lead the country in a whole new direction.  Or maybe you think we're already there...with Trump.

[SomeGuy]

(01-07-2017, 11:32 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 04:25 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Again, reread the book!  A regeneracy does not imply that all problems are solved, only that a consensus has been reached about how society is going to try to solve them, and that the populace is willing to allow them to play it out for the remainder of the 4T.

Considering the intense anger on the Left, and the total determination to slash-and-burn on the Right, when and how do you see us arriving at a consensus?  If you are assuming the force of external events, what are they?  Because, frankly, the political standoff between urban and rural, religious and secular, open and closed is getting more intense every day.  These differences involve world views that are deep and baked in.  They don't just change on a whim.
The rule for changing entrenched beliefs is life-changing trauma.  Is that your assumption?   Geography and demographics make a parting of the ways out of the question, That doesn't leave many options.

There might not be a cultural consensus, but there's a prime opportunity for the Republicans to forge a political one.  Whether they take it, or piss it away like the Dems did 2009, remains to be seen.  Remember that past crises were not characterized by uniformity of opinion, they remained bitterly divided, only that one side managed to get completely in the driver's seat and stay there long enough to drive the country somewhere new.

Besides, I don't think this crisis is going to be solely about the fight between yuppies and rednecks.  There's still geopolitics to consider here.  I don't think the Empire is done with us just yet, or we with it.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:You are both right, each in your own way.  Some problems are held over for later resolution, often in a subsequent administration, and not necessarily by the same political party even.  FDR's New Deal was not enacted in its entirety in his "first 100 days."  Much of it was passed in his second term.

My only quibble with SomeGuy is the word "consensus."  No American president has ever garnered much more than 60% of the vote, even in landslides.  That means, of course, that a significant minority of voters opposed the winner.  I would call 60% a "critical mass" sufficient for an incoming president to implement new policy, especially if backed by a Congressional super-majority--and a compliant Supreme Court, which even FDR attempted to stack when the highest court overturned some of his key legislation.

Agreed, as I stated above.

Quote:When I hear the word "consensus," I think of the 90+ percent of climate scientists who conclude that global warming is real and man-made.  Again, a niggling objection to certain nomenclature...  

Fair enough.  I supposed what's good for the goose is good for the gander as well.

Quote:I tend to agree with you too, David, your contention that the body politic has reached such an impasse in America, that I am hard pressed to see anything on the horizon that remedies the polarization especially.  As a nation, we are split right down the middle in so many ways, as you mention.  Trump may succeed in the short run in "ramming down our throats," as Obama's strident critics accused him of doing with Obamacare and a host of executive orders.  But if that further inflames the passions of the Left, and generates a backlash in turn, how does that really change the status quo?  If the Crash of 2008 didn't do the trick, what will it take exactly?  (I have my own oft-repeated prediction.)

That's a fair question for you, SomeGuy.  What national trauma do we have to suffer, one that lays the country so low that a president is granted permission--if only grudgingly so even by the opposition--to lead the country in a whole new direction.  Or maybe you think we're already there...with Trump.

It remains to be see.  I think that external opponents have been the traditional option in these cases.  For those of you who are doubtful, I understand, and in that case all you really have to do is trust in Trump's diplomacy.