I'm a sceptic that the 4th Turning started in 2008

[David Horn]

(06-22-2020, 05:04 PM)TnT Wrote: Listening to both sides of the partisan divide, and their inabilities to compromise, being a skeptic, I wouldn't be surprised to see regional civil wars break out.  If that happens and if history "rhymes," we might see our current military divide like it did in 1860 along partisan sides.  These pot-bellied, lunatic "militias" like we have in New Mexico actually think they have some sort of ability to "save the constitution" and other fantasies.  They are already in the streets, armed with small arms.  As soon as they start shooting in earnest, we will then find out where the "sides" come down.

If Trump is still in office, the "armed protests" will be more or less ignored. But assuming sanity reigns, even a soft-spoken guy like Biden will have to respond in a strong way. The military is pretty conservative, but they also follow orders.

I doubt it will surpass the Whiskey Rebellion in scope. If it does, we may fracture as a nation. Who get's the nukes?

[Mikebert]

(06-19-2020, 08:43 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-18-2020, 01:55 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-17-2020, 03:50 PM)TnT Wrote: Whenever the hell it started, we sure are in it now, and it has all the makings of "putting all the cards on the table," as the theory suggests is probable.

I agree. But it makes a huge difference whether this early in the 4T (meaning there is still time for change to occur) or we are late in the 4T in which the "change" was a collective decision to NOT change and go gently into that good night as a nation.

I don't see any reason the pace of change needs to be tied to a schedule of any kind.  The arrival of an anticipated though unpredictable pandemic is a case in point.  By it's very nature, it sets the pace, but could just as easily have arrived 10 years ago or 10 years from now.  The same could have been true of a climate catastrophe, but wasn't this time.  The other crises are certainly human caused, but the economic stressors are tied to the pandemic, so even there the pace is set by nature.

Until this confluence occurred, I was expecting a do-nothing 4T. I'm not expecting that now.  As far as when the beginning trigger can be set, that's still arguable.  I think we all agree that, barring the election of Barack Obama, a Donald Trump Presidency was a fantasy. Is that a legitimate argument for 2008?  Perhaps.  It will be a while before this all settles out, and how that happens will be the most instructive on how and why it started.  We can collectively choose chaos or a new order, but that choice is still in the future.

You seem to be implying that the pandemic is going make lots of change happen quickly. Change takes time. Look at past 4Ts.

The economy collapsed in 1929. Pre-slump unemployment was not re-established until 1942, by which time we were embroiled in a massive war. That finally was resolved four years later. Total time needed to deal with the crash 17 years.

South Carolina seceded from the union in 1860. A war began, the Confederacy was defeated. What the crisis resolved? No! We then enacted Reconstruction that lasted until 1877. We then threw in the towel. After 17 years we still couldn't resolve the crisis, but we destroyed the Southern elites, so we managed to resolve the political stress.

The American colonies revolted against the central government. After 6 years the battle was won, but was the problem solved? No! We needed another 8 years to establish a viable successor state. This crisis took 14 years to resolve.

We have had at least three triggers in the last couple of decades. In the aftermath of 911 we engaged in two interventions in which we made far less than the minimal required effort to prevail. As a result both failed. That is a 3T response.

In the aftermath of the 2008 panic, Democrats enacted under-powered interventions which ultimately failed. Failure is shown by the results of the 2010 election. This too is a 3T response.

Now we face the crisis of the pandemic. Again, the response has been under-powered, another 3T response.  What the Biden administration does, assuming they win this fall, may or may not be another 3T response. We will see.

Even if they opt to take this thing seriously, that doesn't mean they will choose to address the core issue of this 4T, which is NOT the pandemic. And even if they do address it, past experience shows it takes 14-17 years to resolve these things.

So IF we actually resolve the issues (i.e. actually have a 4T) it will take until the mid-2030's to do so, at the earliest. If the *generational* 4T is nearly over then there is zero probability that we will have something that looks like a 4t on the timetable S&H put forth. We will still have one, but it will fall into some other turning.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-26-2020, 02:57 PM)Mikebert Wrote: You seem to be implying that the pandemic is going make lots of change happen quickly. Change takes time. Look at past 4Ts.

The economy collapsed in 1929. Pre-slump unemployment was not re-established until 1942, by which time we were embroiled in a massive war. That finally was resolved four years later. Total time needed to deal with the crash 17 years.

South Carolina seceded from the union in 1860. A war began, the Confederacy was defeated. What the crisis resolved? No! We then enacted Reconstruction that lasted until 1877. We then threw in the towel. After 17 years we still couldn't resolve the crisis, but we destroyed the Southern elites, so we managed to resolve the political stress.

The American colonies revolted against the central government. After 6 years the battle was won, but was the problem solved? No! We needed another 8 years to establish a viable successor state. This crisis took 14 years to resolve.

We have had at least three triggers in the last couple of decades. In the aftermath of 911 we engaged in two interventions in which we made far less than the minimal required effort to prevail. As a result both failed. That is a 3T response.

In the aftermath of the 2008 panic, Democrats enacted under-powered interventions which ultimately failed. Failure is shown by the results of the 2010 election. This too is a 3T response.

Now we face the crisis of the pandemic. Again, the response has been under-powered, another 3T response.  What the Biden administration does, assuming they win this fall, may or may not be another 3T response. We will see.

Even if they opt to take this thing seriously, that doesn't mean they will choose to address the core issue of this 4T, which is NOT the pandemic. And even if they do address it, past experience shows it takes 14-17 years to resolve these things.

So IF we actually resolve the issues (i.e. actually have a 4T) it will take until the mid-2030's to do so, at the earliest. If the *generational* 4T is nearly over then there is zero probability that we will have something that looks like a 4t on the timetable S&H put forth. We will still have one, but it will fall into some other turning.

In the Industrial Age, the crisis was almost inevitably a crisis war.  This took about four years to resolve.  The time to remobilize, learn how to use the weapons of the time, and drive the other side back, took that long.  After that came the never again conferences and a reversion to building infrastructure and reinforcing the lessons learned in the crisis.

In the Information Age, with the major powers having nukes, with proxy war making Neo Colonialism hard to work, there are very few crisis war triggers.  The common four years to solve that problem has gone away.

While it may take four years to win a crisis war, to develop a vaccine takes about a year.  At that point there are enough folks wanting to get rid of the old thinking and settle down into the high mentality.  Another greater trigger is possible, but I don’t see people sitting around waiting for it.  They will want to get back to something like ‘normal’ again.  There are not enough fans of S&H to think a good and proper crisis trigger is due to appear.

Oh, the government will be strong and competent enough for a while.  People will be less likely to ignore the science or get into racism for a while.  Someone will appoint themselves guardian of the culture and try to make sure we never again sweep things like that under the rug.

But I don’t see the length of the crisis set in the Industrial Age stone.  Different age.  The patterns shift.  Don’t count on every lesson learned from the old days as repeating.

[Eric the Green]

The saeculum has been right on schedule. Everything has gone as predicted. The subject matter and types of events might shift a bit as we shift toward greenpeace and further into the information age, and I hope a bit further away from materialism of various types in the future. But I don't see why the timetable should change much, unless life becomes so stagnant that the whirlpool of change we know as the saeculum begins to slow down and stop.

[David Horn]

(06-26-2020, 02:57 PM)Mikebert Wrote: You seem to be implying that the pandemic is going make lots of change happen quickly. Change takes time. Look at past 4Ts.

The economy collapsed in 1929. Pre-slump unemployment was not re-established until 1942, by which time we were embroiled in a massive war. That finally was resolved four years later. Total time needed to deal with the crash 17 years.

South Carolina seceded from the union in 1860. A war began, the Confederacy was defeated. What the crisis resolved? No! We then enacted Reconstruction that lasted until 1877. We then threw in the towel. After 17 years we still couldn't resolve the crisis, but we destroyed the Southern elites, so we managed to resolve the political stress.

The American colonies revolted against the central government. After 6 years the battle was won, but was the problem solved? No! We needed another 8 years to establish a viable successor state. This crisis took 14 years to resolve.

We have had at least three triggers in the last couple of decades. In the aftermath of 911 we engaged in two interventions in which we made far less than the minimal required effort to prevail. As a result both failed. That is a 3T response.

In the aftermath of the 2008 panic, Democrats enacted under-powered interventions which ultimately failed. Failure is shown by the results of the 2010 election. This too is a 3T response.

Now we face the crisis of the pandemic. Again, the response has been under-powered, another 3T response.  What the Biden administration does, assuming they win this fall, may or may not be another 3T response. We will see.

Even if they opt to take this thing seriously, that doesn't mean they will choose to address the core issue of this 4T, which is NOT the pandemic. And even if they do address it, past experience shows it takes 14-17 years to resolve these things.

So IF we actually resolve the issues (i.e. actually have a 4T) it will take until the mid-2030's to do so, at the earliest. If the *generational* 4T is nearly over then there is zero probability that we will have something that looks like a 4t on the timetable S&H put forth. We will still have one, but it will fall into some other turning.

Bob covered a lot of this already, but I'll still weigh in.

What really constitutes change? I'll agree that the nuts-and-bolts reforms take an inordinate amount of time, but the change of heart needed to get there happens more quickly. You cite the last 4T, which has the unique benefit of being a crisis in a fully post-agricultural age. We went from 12 years of GOP dominance and laisse faire economics in the 1920s to a total flip of parties, and eventually philosophy, in 1932. Why? I'll postulate that the voting public decided that the old social and economic model was broken, was hurting them personally, and something different was needed. Of course, something different is never a simple thing, because, until it truly exists, it's a basket of ideas with no track record.

For all of that, the public gave Roosevelt unprecedented support as he tried one thing after another. Yes, it was the war that finally resolved the problem, but the massive changes already existed before the economy was restored. Even the Lincoln era failed to grow government like the Great Depression era did. Government wasn't the solution, in and of itself. It was, however, the indispensable tool. The power of capital was enormous, and the countervailing power of labor was small in comparison. At that time there was no real consumer power. Capitalism had triggered the fall, and some other thing needed to fix it. In my opinion, that was the essence of the last 4T.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-27-2020, 04:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The saeculum has been right on schedule. Everything has gone as predicted. The subject matter and types of events might shift a bit as we shift toward greenpeace and further into the information age, and I hope a bit further away from materialism of various types in the future. But I don't see why the timetable should change much, unless life becomes so stagnant that the whirlpool of change we know as the saeculum begins to slow down and stop.

Again, the crisis heart has usually taken four years to win the war, but if nukes and proxy insurgency makes a crisis war unlikely, that four years could go away.

But otherwise, the crisis addresses the largest problem confronting the culture.  The crisis heart is apt to last as long as it takes to solve that problem.  I don't see us as running out of problems with the culture yet.  We have yet to see action on the environmental front.  The elites may lose the Republican Party and some of their profit off luxuries, but they have yet to be addressed directly.  The division of wealth has not yet risen to a crisis level problem.  I'm not worried that the next generation of prophets won't be able to find anything to complain about.

[Mikebert]

(06-26-2020, 05:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: While it may take four years to win a crisis war, to develop a vaccine takes about a year.  At that point there are enough folks wanting to get rid of the old thinking and settle down into the high mentality.  Another greater trigger is possible, but I don’t see people sitting around waiting for it.  They will want to get back to something like ‘normal’ again. 

You seem to have a rather romantic view of these things. You know the problems we face: mperial over extension, high levels of economic inequality, climate change, extreme political polarization, the appearance of extreme cultural movements on both the right and left that could form the basis for a modern version of the religious wars, etc.

These are just going to go away because people "get rid of the old thinking and settle down into the high mentality."?

[Mikebert]

David HornBob covered a lot of this already, but I'll still weigh in.  

What really constitutes change?  I'll agree that the nuts-and-bolts reforms take an inordinate amount of time, but the change of heart needed to get there happens more quickly. 
thNo it doesn't in most cases. The change in mind is an evolutionary change that takes decades. Example: the 1964 Civil Rights Act granted rights to women they didn't previous had. In response women started to support Democrats to a greater extent than before. Yet it took 20 years for the change to full play out.

Quote:You cite the last 4T, which has the unique benefit of being a crisis in a fully post-agricultural age.  We went from 12 years of GOP dominance and laissez faire economics in the 1920s to a total flip of parties, and eventually philosophy, in 1932.

Similar sharp, long-lasting changes happened as a result all prior 4Ts except for the Armada. It's the normal pattern posty-1435. As you may recall Chaz Donald and I extended the Anglo saeculum back to the ninth century some years ago. The pre-1435 4Ts were not like the later ones. Only some of them show the sharp transitions of the later ones (such as the one you note about the last one). Perhaps that is part of the reason why S&H concluded that the saeculum did not seem to operate before 1435. Actually there are clear-cut awakenings all the way back to the beginning of the second millennium, but the 4Ts are a LOT harder to discern outside of a few that do feature the sharp change (Norman Invasion 4T and the Viking 4T).

Quote:For all of that, the public gave Roosevelt unprecedented support as he tried one thing after another.  Yes, it was the war that finally resolved the problem, but the massive changes already existed before the economy was restored. Even the Lincoln era failed to grow government like the Great Depression era did. Government wasn't the solution, in and of itself.  It was, however, the indispensable tool.  The power of capital was enormous, and the countervailing power of labor was small in comparison.  At that time there was no real consumer power.  Capitalism had triggered the fall, and some other thing needed to fix it.  In my opinion, that was the essence of the last 4T.

And capitalism is a big part of the problem now.

This pandemic is trigger. It does not have to lead to 4T-like changes. Last cycle we had lots of triggers, 1873, 1893, 1907, 1919, 1929, 1941, one about every 14 years. the 4th one began the process that created the structural change. This time we've had triggers in 1971, 1987, 2001, 2008, 2020, one about every dozen years. The first four didn't trigger the structural change that characterizes a 4T. Perhaps this one will.

What I am getting at is the generational aspect of the S&H model allows one to approximately date when triggers are supposed to trigger structural change. It eliminates the first two from consideration. Generational timing identifies 2001 and 2008 as the likely 4T triggers with 2020 really being too late. We now have 19 and 12 years of hindsight with which to evaluate what happened after 2001 and 2008.

Have there been substantive structural changes or efforts to solve the problems highlighted by the trigger?

How many Amendments have been passed since 2000?  None

Has there been a major change in government structure (e,g, end of absolute monarchy, independence, conversion of a federation into a nation, six fold increase in size of the national state, rise of a dictator, establishment of a theocracy, etc.) since 2000? No.

Has there been a crisis war since 2000? No.

Has there been a civil war, revolution, or foreign invasion? No.

Has there been a critical election, or the appearance of a Skowronek Reconstructive president like FDR, Lincoln or Washington? No.

Things along these lines can still happen and likely will, but they will not have been triggered by events in 2001 or 2008. That ship has sailed. The new trigger candidate is 2020, unless a Biden administration is elected that surprises by being transformational, or Trump remains in power after January, making it 2016.

The point is a 4t start in 2016 or 2020 begins to stress the generational concept. particularly when you consider that there exists a self-conception among late adolescents and young adults that they comprise a new generation, GenZ, distinct from Millennials, whose first cohort was in 1996.  This would firmly put the 4T start generation-wise in 2001, which subsequent events have ruled out as a 4T in terms of historical impact.

[Eric the Green]

The seeming inability of the 2008 trigger to bring basic structural change is explained, as always, by the fact that this 4T is in a double rhythm with the civil war 4T, which began circa 1848-1850 and didn't lead to structural change until the end in 1865. We are 1850s redux.

The civil war crisis was not a reconstructive one until Lincoln was elected. Before that, it was just some bleeding. The nature of a civil war crisis is that the nation is divided, and a nation divided cannot bring reconstructive change until one side of the divide (the retrograde side) is defeated. The nation divided and unable to act is our crisis. Obama's election in 2008 was a trigger that further divided the nation, leading to Trump-- who since 2016 has been a crisis in himself.

Gen Z is not a self-conception; it was defined demographically by Pew Research. In reality, Gen Z are late Millennials, just as late Xers were once called Gen Y, especially by people here.

Sub generations exist, but 15-year full generations do not. I already laid out these timelines in my book.

[Eric the Green]

(06-27-2020, 01:22 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-26-2020, 05:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: While it may take four years to win a crisis war, to develop a vaccine takes about a year.  At that point there are enough folks wanting to get rid of the old thinking and settle down into the high mentality.  Another greater trigger is possible, but I don’t see people sitting around waiting for it.  They will want to get back to something like ‘normal’ again. 

You seem to have a rather romantic view of these things. You know the problems we face: imperial over extension, high levels of economic inequality, climate change, extreme political polarization, the appearance of extreme cultural movements on both the right and left that could form the basis for a modern version of the religious wars, etc.

These are just going to go away because people "get rid of the old thinking and settle down into the high mentality."?

4th turnings always look very dark. Imagine how Washington felt at Valley Forge, or during the civil war as bodies piled up at Cold Harbor. Or the Nazis about to take over the world and plunge us into a dark age.

I think the problem with this 4T is that the problems seem more distant to people. covid only kills the old and infirm. climate change will happen tomorrow. extremism is out of sight, out of mind. The crisis has not congealed into an imminent threat, and the people have not been aroused sufficiently to meet it. They seem ready to vote for Biden now, but would they throw out Republicans in the senate? They don't sufficiently understand that the Republicans themselves ARE the clear and imminent danger.

I think Bob is saying that the 4T will be over once covid is handled soon, but I am sure the 4T will go on for another 9 years and involve all the other issues. The crisis is on schedule, and started in 2008, but it's far from over and people have to face up to it. So, you are basically correct, even though not quite, from my point of view at least. It won't go past the year 2029. And all problems won't be solved; they never are. It's just how human cycles work. People need a break from war, revolution and crisis, however it appears. But the main battle will be domestic, red vs. blue, just like it was before between the blue and the gray, even if not in just the same ways. The Classic Xers of our country have to be restrained and put out of power. Talk of unity will not be enough.

Judging from the planetary positions, I think in the year 2035 you might be posting here that the 4T is still going on. There may be as much controversy over when the 1T began as there has been over when the 4T began. I'm sure the majority view will be 2028 or 2029. I don't know which year though. I have leaned toward 2028 just because I know that the next 2T will start early like the last one did (probably in 2046), so there has to be enough time for a 1T!

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-27-2020, 01:22 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-26-2020, 05:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: While it may take four years to win a crisis war, to develop a vaccine takes about a year.  At that point there are enough folks wanting to get rid of the old thinking and settle down into the high mentality.  Another greater trigger is possible, but I don’t see people sitting around waiting for it.  They will want to get back to something like ‘normal’ again. 

You seem to have a rather romantic view of these things. You know the problems we face: mperial over extension, high levels of economic inequality, climate change, extreme political polarization, the appearance of extreme cultural movements on both the right and left that could form the basis for a modern version of the religious wars, etc.

These are just going to go away because people "get rid of the old thinking and settle down into the high mentality."?

A crisis addresses the most basic problems the people perceive needing to be fixed.  If you perceive problems that the bulk of the people don’t, you are apt to be disappointed by the results of the crisis.  Notably, you are correctly concerned about the division of wealth, but is that at the center of any of the current crisis issues?  I don’t, alas, see it.  Thus, it is not apt to be addressed.

There is also a difference between a catalyst and a trigger.  The typical crisis will have several catalyst illuminating the primary issues.  There is generally only one trigger, something which makes the following regeneracy inevitable, which gives the weight of resolve to the progressive faction.  Last time around, I could argue for two triggers, the stock market crash and Pearl Harbor, but generally there is one.

September 11 was an unusual case.  It could have been a trigger.  It initially shifted significantly the national mood.  However, a conservative administration was in charge.  With hindsight, whatever they cooked up would not have aimed at a progressive regeneracy.  Whatever they tried would have failed.  

Over in the Generational Dynamics thread I proposed three types of causes for war.  There are noble sounding idealistic reasons.  In this case, we were taking away the WMDs or expanding democracy.  There are elite economic racket reasons, someone was out to make a profit.  This would make Iraq a war for oil.  This being the GD thread, you also have to address the xenophobic reasons.  The people had different skin pigmentation, didn’t like each other, and therefore the armed forces coerced the leaders into waging a war.  Regardless, none of these forced resolution of the red blue divide.  The war was not a trigger.  It might have made us war adverse, reluctant to solve problems by putting boots on the ground.  This is one role of crisis wars in shaping the following turnings, but that is it.

COVID and Black Lives Matter potentially could be triggers.  The virus could defeat the red willingness to ignore the science, to seek such a small government that problems cannot be solved.  This is close enough to global warming and the environment, that if the Democrats get in one could anticipate those issues too being addressed.  Black Lives Matter addresses police racist violence.

The problem is that even if the Democrats take the senate, they would have to have 60 votes to bring a bill to a vote.  The Republicans recently have just gone into obstructionist mode and blocked everything.  Will they try to block police reform and scientific COVID response?  Will the country’s mood shake them into responsible government?  Will the senate Democrats change the rules so debate can be closed by a simple majority?  The stalemate of the unravelling endless debates could conceivably be extended.  If the senate Republicans do remain obstructionist, will the problems have to be addressed at the state and local level? Even if Trump is put on the sidelines, will Republicans desperate for his base's votes still continue the obstructionism?

But at any rate, I have not seen much in the way of crisis level urgency spreading to other issues.  Until I do see it, I don’t see it as my job to anticipate it.  When the people have solved what they care about, I anticipate they will shift to a high mentality.  They will leave some issues unresolved.  Other issues will have to wait for another time.

[Eric the Green]

(06-28-2020, 06:35 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The problem is that even if the Democrats take the senate, they would have to have 60 votes to bring a bill to a vote.  The Republicans recently have just gone into obstructionist mode and blocked everything.  Will they try to block police reform and scientific COVID response?  Will the country’s mood shake them into responsible government?  Will the senate Democrats change the rules so debate can be closed by a simple majority?  The stalemate of the unravelling endless debates could conceivably be extended.  If the senate Republicans do remain obstructionist, will the problems have to be addressed at the state and local level?  Even if Trump is put on the sidelines, will Republicans desperate for his base's votes still continue the obstructionism?

But at any rate, I have not seen much in the way of crisis level urgency spreading to other issues.  Until I do see it, I don’t see it as my job to anticipate it.  When the people have solved what they care about, I anticipate they will shift to a high mentality.  They will leave some issues unresolved.  Other issues will have to wait for another time.

I see a way forward out of our stalemate as the 2020s unfold. I hope it will start in 2021; it could start in 2023 or 2025, but then the action will have to happen more quickly and more ruthlessly (including with SCOTUS packing). But it could be that the divide rages on, with all its senseless debates and a rising spiral of violence. The trigger may well have been the events of the past 4 months, but the nub issue of the 4T remains the divide itself, and the racist reaganomics ideology that causes it.

The Senate, if the Democrats take power, will need to be ruthless. I hope they have it in them. If not now, in crisis times after 40 years or more, then when?

The filibuster has already been removed even from supreme court appointments. Since we are in crisis times, it will need to be reduced by the Democratic majority to 55, or eliminated. It could be put back later, but no doubt it could also be put back before Republicans take power again, or taken advantage of or taken down again when they take power. This may go back and forth for a while. But if the Democrats can remove it for a few years, and get some things done, it won't matter so much when the 1T comes if the Republicans or some new party configuration puts it back. Senator Warren has already proposed ending the filibuster. I'm sure she will continue to speak up.

Statehood or full representation for DC and Puerto Rico could help end the unfair imbalance in favor of small rural Republican states that currently leaves so many people unrepresented in the Senate. The slave-state-favoring electoral college needs to be scrapped, and gerrymandering ended across the country. If the electoral college remains, reopened immigration and citizenship will turn Texas and Arizona blue, and state initiatives to give their electors to the national popular vote winner will prevail. Who knows, maybe we could admit Guam and American Samoa too, and we'd have 3 more new states with Democratic electoral votes! Money needs to be taken out of politics, and the supreme court reshaped so that Citizens United can be overturned and real campaign finance reform enacted. Health care reform will need to be redone to one extent or another, and real police reform passed. Lots of such reforms are needed in our new progressive reform era.

And since the country is moving left demographically, and a fake president on the destructive scale of Drumpturd is unlikely to appear again, and since activism will not totally die down in the version of the Neptune-in-Aries 1T that will follow this time, extremist Republicans will not be able to undo everything in the 1T consensus that follows in the 2030s and early 2040s, after the real crisis-time progress of the 2020s, even if they put the filibuster back again or take advantage of it being taken down. A high mentality will return and some issues unresolved during the 1T; that's the way human cycles work. But remember, the next 2T's changes will be heavily cultural and spiritual, and centered on lifestyle; many of the political changes will most-likely be made in the 4T this decade.

The covid crisis can be managed without senate approval. The administration that could have acted by law, but chose not to and to let the virus spread. That will be its downfall on Nov.3. Shelters/shutdowns may require new national imposition in 2021, but at least support for testing, tracing and quarantines will be needed-- which our fake president has opposed. If protective equipment is still needed, the war production act can be imposed-- again without senate approval. This will be needed to approve and distribute the new vaccine quickly and widely. The Senate may approve additional aid to people who have lost their jobs and livelihoods, but whether this is fairly done may require a Democratic Senate to act boldly and remove the filibuster, and a new admin that sees to it that the money goes to the people who need it and not corporate cronies.

The urgency of the climate crisis is being expressed quite loudly and clearly. Younger people are rising up. It can't and won't be left for another day. The Senate and president will act on it, if they can take power and get ruthless. Once a 4T gets triggered and going, Katy bar the door. After being blocked for 40 years, the desire will not be to go back to normalcy soon, but to make up for so much lost time. Reform in the mid/later 2020s could move smoothly forward, even as violent right-wing rebellion is being suppressed and their guns taken away.

[User3451]

The 4T began in 2007/2008, it's very clear.

Eric is correct, this 4T is mirroring the civil War 4T. In fact, the election is mirroring 2008, with Biden coming back in and I highly doubt he goes the Obama route. He will need to introduce structural change because the moment demands it.

The crazies on the right and the left are all having their say, but they are not the ones who will decide, unless we go full Maoist or Ethnostate

[Mikebert]

Quote:A crisis addresses the most basic problems the people perceive needing to be fixed.

Does it?  The problem most Republicans perceived in 1860 was preventing the spread of slavery, not freeing the slaves and most certainly NOT political equality with black people. And yet that turned out to be what it was about.

Quote:Notably, you are correctly concerned about the division of wealth, but is that at the center of any of the current crisis issues?  I don’t, alas, see it.  Thus, it is not apt to be addressed.

It is central, as it is for all secular cycle crises (which include 5 of the last 6 4Ts). In each secular cycle rising inequality creates an enlarged elite increasingly in competition and eventually in conflict with each other. Eventually they duke it out, the losing side suffers a loss in position, reducing total elite numbers and inequality, allowing the cycle to begin anew.

For example emancipation stripped Southern elites of wealth equal to 1.7 times Southern  GDP  (that’s along the lines of the losses American elites would suffer if we had a Socialist revolution—can you see why they saw no choice but fight the war?).  They ceased to be elites. The slaves went from being property to free men, a HUGE equality increase. Problem solved.

Quote:There is also a difference between a catalyst and a trigger.  The typical crisis will have several catalyst illuminating the primary issues.  There is generally only one trigger, something which makes the following regeneracy inevitable, which gives the weight of resolve to the progressive faction.  Last time around, I could argue for two triggers, the stock market crash and Pearl Harbor, but generally there is one.{/quote}

Trigger is the term often used in the T4T discussion site to refer to the catalyst. They mean the same thing, or at least I used the word in that sense.

Quote:When the people have solved what they care about, I anticipate they will shift to a high mentality.

You are assuming the people know what they want solved. Do you REALLY think the BLM movement is about police killing of black men per se? That is simply the triggering event. The immediate underlying issue is the experience ordinary black men have in numerous interactions with police. These interactions are signals of disrespect. But behind that disrespect is the lack of progress working class black men have made in the fifty years since the Civil Rights bills: Real incomes are no higher, and  the fraction of black men aged 20-29 in prison  relative to white men is unchanged from 1970.

Now I will note that during the time when the New Deal economic paradigm was in force, black men saw their wages relative to white men rise from 40% in 1940 to 75% in 1980. Since then, no progress.  There HAS been progress for working class black women--just not the men. and this shows up in the incarceration rates for black men and the disrespect they experience in interactions with police.

If you think that the problems perceived by the BLM movement, by the Occupy movement, by the Poor People’s Campaign etc. can be solved without taking on the excess elites and the inequality that breeds them, you are in for a rude awakening.

[Eric the Green]

I agree with Mike. In a crisis, people are not eager to return to a high mentality for a while, until some major change happens. And the change turns out to be bigger than originally conceived. Once a 4T is engaged for real, it has a momentum of its own, and it goes beyond what was originally expected by elites and pundits or the people themselves. It's like the French Revolution 4T. The parting on the left, became a parting on the right, and the beards all grew longer overnight!

We are in a time something like this:





http://philosopherswheel.com/reverberati...dtime.html

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-28-2020, 04:02 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Trigger is the term often used in the T4T discussion site to refer to the catalyst. They mean the same thing, or at least I used the word in that sense.

I remember the distinction.  Many catalysts.  One trigger per crisis heart.  If you persist in forgetting the distinction, you are being sloppy and creating confusion.

(06-28-2020, 04:02 PM)Mikebert Wrote: If you think that the problems perceived by the BLM movement, by the Occupy movement, by the Poor People’s Campaign etc. can be solved without taking on the excess elites and the inequality that breeds them, you are in for a rude awakening.

I hope you are right.  I have just been infected by people who are being disappointed in advance by Biden.  He is more an establishment make no waves sort of guy than the advocate of change that would do what he can through the crisis.  It could be that once he has a Democratic congress, and if he can work around the need for 60 votes in the senate to pass anything, that the obstructionism of the Republicans will end, he might implement the whole blue agenda.  It could be that his VP will have the needed amount of fire for change.

But so far the Democrats have run against the senate obstruction, that even the most popular public opinion on respecting minorities and COVID does not slow down the obstructionism.  The regeneracy is being blocked.  This could easily change, but until it starts to change I am not going to say it has changed.

[David Horn]

(06-27-2020, 02:41 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Bob covered a lot of this already, but I'll still weigh in.  

What really constitutes change?  I'll agree that the nuts-and-bolts reforms take an inordinate amount of time, but the change of heart needed to get there happens more quickly...

 
No it doesn't in most cases. The change in mind is an evolutionary change that takes decades. Example: the 1964 Civil Rights Act granted rights to women they didn't previous had. In response women started to support Democrats to a greater extent than before. Yet it took 20 years for the change to full play out.

That actually makes my point.  The change of mind (or heart, if that makes more sense) tends to be an emotional response, and tends to be quick.  That it failed to produce anything immediately meaningful in the policy realm doesn't obviate that effect. Just because we know that something is wrong doesn't give us the needed insight to effect a real change.  If anything, it's a bit disorienting and a case for introspection.

Mikebert Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:You cite the last 4T, which has the unique benefit of being a crisis in a fully post-agricultural age.  We went from 12 years of GOP dominance and laissez faire economics in the 1920s to a total flip of parties, and eventually philosophy, in 1932.

Similar sharp, long-lasting changes happened as a result all prior 4Ts except for the Armada. It's the normal pattern posty-1435. As you may recall Chaz Donald and I extended the Anglo saeculum back to the ninth century some years ago. The pre-1435 4Ts were not like the later ones. Only some of them show the sharp transitions of the later ones (such as the one you note about the last one). Perhaps that is part of the reason why S&H concluded that the saeculum did not seem to operate before 1435. Actually there are clear-cut awakenings all the way back to the beginning of the second millennium, but the 4Ts are a LOT harder to discern outside of a few that do feature the sharp change (Norman Invasion 4T and the Viking 4T).

We've been down this road before.  Can a 'traditional' society, with strongly fixed roles and duties, really follow a pattern that requires a lot of independent thought to trigger and implement change?  It's arguable both ways, since human beings are not automatons.  It seems more likely in our modern world, since change is actually baked into the sauce.  Today, nobody expects to live the life their parents lived.  I assume that change will be more readily adopted in this paradigm than older ones.  That's no the same as good and proper change.  The potential for error is higher, if anything.  If this was an engineering problem, it might be a case of too little damping on a change in process.

Mikebert Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:For all of that, the public gave Roosevelt unprecedented support as he tried one thing after another.  Yes, it was the war that finally resolved the problem, but the massive changes already existed before the economy was restored. Even the Lincoln era failed to grow government like the Great Depression era did. Government wasn't the solution, in and of itself.  It was, however, the indispensable tool.  The power of capital was enormous, and the countervailing power of labor was small in comparison.  At that time there was no real consumer power.  Capitalism had triggered the fall, and some other thing needed to fix it.  In my opinion, that was the essence of the last 4T.

And capitalism is a big part of the problem now.

This pandemic is trigger. It does not have to lead to 4T-like changes. Last cycle we had lots of triggers, 1873, 1893, 1907, 1919, 1929, 1941, one about every 14 years. the 4th one began the process that created the structural change. This time we've had triggers in 1971, 1987, 2001, 2008, 2020, one about every dozen years. The first four didn't trigger the structural change that characterizes a 4T. Perhaps this one will.

What I am getting at is the generational aspect of the S&H model allows one to approximately date when triggers are supposed to trigger structural change. It eliminates the first two from consideration. Generational timing identifies 2001 and 2008 as the likely 4T triggers with 2020 really being too late. We now have 19 and 12 years of hindsight with which to evaluate what happened after 2001 and 2008.

Have there been substantive structural changes or efforts to solve the problems highlighted by the trigger?

How many Amendments have been passed since 2000?  None

Has there been a major change in government structure (e,g, end of absolute monarchy, independence, conversion of a federation into a nation, six fold increase in size of the national state, rise of a dictator, establishment of a theocracy, etc.) since 2000? No.

Has there been a crisis war since 2000? No.

Has there been a civil war, revolution, or foreign invasion? No.

Has there been a critical election, or the appearance of a Skowronek Reconstructive president like FDR, Lincoln or Washington? No.

Things along these lines can still happen and likely will, but they will not have been triggered by events in 2001 or 2008. That ship has sailed. The new trigger candidate is 2020, unless a Biden administration is elected that surprises by being transformational, or Trump remains in power after January, making it 2016.

The point is a 4t start in 2016 or 2020 begins to stress the generational concept. particularly when you consider that there exists a self-conception among late adolescents and young adults that they comprise a new generation, GenZ, distinct from Millennials, whose first cohort was in 1996.  This would firmly put the 4T start generation-wise in 2001, which subsequent events have ruled out as a 4T in terms of historical impact.

Your points are all well taken, but this era is also different in both the tools to affect change and the tools to resist it.  There is a field know as perception management that exists solely to manipulate the thinking of people susceptible to being manipulated -- frankly, most of us.  Originally  developed for the Defense Department, this tool has been widely applied by people with the wherewithal to do so in support of their desire to continue as they are. 

If we look back at how the previous triggers were defused and responses arrayed against each other, it's not surprising that it took something straight forward and devastating as watching a man die in front of us to overcome the ability of the manipulators to manipulate, though the RW talking heads are still giving it their best. I think 2008 was the real trigger, and the replay we're in now is making that clear.  That said, I still have a hard time knowing where this goes beyond the 2020 election.  Dems are notorious for dropping the ball.

[David Horn]

(06-28-2020, 02:33 PM)User3451 Wrote: The 4T began in 2007/2008, it's very clear.

Eric is correct, this 4T is mirroring the civil War 4T. In fact, the election is mirroring 2008, with Biden coming back in and I highly doubt he goes the Obama route. He will need to introduce structural change because the moment demands it.

The crazies on the right and the left are all having their say, but they are not the ones who will decide, unless we go full Maoist or Ethnostate

I more or less agree with this. My only caveat is the fecklessness of the Democrats.  But I hope you're right.

[David Horn]

(06-28-2020, 07:04 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-28-2020, 04:02 PM)Mikebert Wrote: If you think that the problems perceived by the BLM movement, by the Occupy movement, by the Poor People’s Campaign etc. can be solved without taking on the excess elites and the inequality that breeds them, you are in for a rude awakening.

I hope you are right.  I have just been infected by people who are being disappointed in advance by Biden.  He is more an establishment make no waves sort of guy than the advocate of change that would do what he can through the crisis.  It could be that once he has a Democratic congress, and if he can work around the need for 60 votes in the senate to pass anything, that the obstructionism of the Republicans will end, he might implement the whole blue agenda.  It could be that his VP will have the needed amount of fire for change.

But so far the Democrats have run against the senate obstruction, that even the most popular public opinion on respecting minorities and COVID does not slow down the obstructionism.  The regeneracy is being blocked.  This could easily change, but until it starts to change I am not going to say it has changed.

We may be one saeculum away from correcting the inherent power of wealth, or it may never happen. I do believe (or maybe hope is a better word) that we can lessen the imbalance that exists today so the next 1T can be fully productive. We won't be fixing the problem of rampant automation, which is still considered a good thing by most people who haven't taken the full implications into account, but that's coming to a 2T/4T in the next cycle.

The rest of the blue agenda is less contentious, so the PTB will most likely go along without too much fuss. Universal healthcare is a near certainty and some adjustment to the criminal justice system that reduces the number of mostly black men incarcerated and marked by the system as criminals. Free college may be in the works. But total economic equity? Not this time.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-29-2020, 10:14 AM)David Horn Wrote: If we look back at how the previous triggers were defused and responses arrayed against each other, it's not surprising that it took something straight forward and devastating as watching a man die in front of us to overcome the ability of the manipulators to manipulate, though the RW talking heads are still giving it their best. I think 2008 was the real trigger, and the replay we're in now is making that clear.  That said, I still have a hard time knowing where this goes beyond the 2020 election.  Dems are notorious for dropping the ball.

2008 was not the real trigger. It did not make the new values, a regeneracy or the crisis heart nigh on inevitable. Obama chose not to go after the Wall Street people, and lost the congress, thus the endless red - blue debate went on.

A catalyst, sure. It shaped how everybody viewed the economy. The trigger, no.