Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory
Has the regeneracy arrived? - Printable Version

+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Turnings (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-21.html)
+--- Thread: Has the regeneracy arrived? (/thread-80.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17


Has the regeneracy arrived? - Bronco80 - 05-14-2016

It sure feels like it here in the US given the events of this year, but before expounding further I'm curious if this had been discussed much in my absence on the old board.


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Kinser79 - 05-14-2016

Not from what I've seen apart from discussions as to whether Trump or Sanders or both were the GC. Myself I came to the conclusion rather quickly that both were, but that ties into my theory of Megasaecula and how the MillSaec is a Mega-3T.

I will need to write that up. I will probably do so in the next week as I have to take some vacation time (it's use it or lose it as I can't cash it in like I really want to).


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Bob Butler 54 - 05-14-2016

I would say no.  To me, the regeneracy is when the party that cases transforming change upon government and culture gets the power to do so.  I see Congress as still divided and this isn't apt to change in the upcoming elections.  There are some non-traditional presidential candidates out there, and the populace isn't greatly pleased about the status quo, particularly on the Republican side.  The mid-term elections generally go against the president party.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if things started moving after the 2020 elections.  Voter discontent is definitely there.  A consensus that something has to change is just about there.  A consensus on the nature of the change is not.


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Kinser79 - 05-15-2016

Bob, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but in the 1930s congress was just as divided. FDR himself was called everything under the sun. That is a feature of our particular system, not a bug, so getting around it isn't that much of a problem.

That being said, I would say that a regeneracy is noted by a recognition that the status quo is not working, and cannot be made to work by tinkering around the edges. Obama has pretty much proved that.

On the Republican side you are seeing an alignment behind Trump on the issues of Nationalism, Protectionism and Isolationism. On the Dems you have "Obama's Third Term" and "More of the Same" or at least that is how HRC is running at the moment (it will of course backfire because you don't get this much anger in the electorate if "4 more years" and "More of the Same" could work). Remember Sanders may not have a chance at getting the nomination but he's set the Dems on fire too.

In short as I've said elsewhere what I'm seeing is a realignment of the Parties and they won't fall on the left-right axis for much longer. The economic conditions that gave rise to that in the MillSaec are passing away. Rather we'll see alignment on the libertarian and authoritarian axis.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It should be noted that I think that particular test is skewed toward authoritarianism unless one is nearly pure ideologically as a libertarian. But as we can see on the political compass it is either an up or down axis for the libertarian-authoritarian dichotomy. It should be noted that one can be libertarian and be on the left or the right, likewise one can be authoritarian and on the left or the right.

My most recent political compass results (which are somewhat skewed toward the center economically on the basis of biases of the test makers) are as follows:

Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

As you can see my libertarian score (which is always a negative number on the graph) is as low as you can get and still be relatively centrist in that regard. On a similar test I also scored to the left but in the social libertarian camp.

It is my view that following this election the GOP will become, however, begrudgingly the party of social libertarianism and of nationalism, protectionism and isolationism, and that further this will be the basis of building the new order. Otherwise, we will end up in the terminal stages of empire and an implosion sometime around the next 2T.


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Bob Butler 54 - 05-15-2016

(05-15-2016, 12:31 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but in the 1930s congress was just as divided.  FDR himself was called everything under the sun.  That is a feature of our particular system, not a bug, so getting around it isn't that much of a problem.

The first 100 days the status quo went out the window. Yes, there was still a lot of division and strife. In any crisis the faction out of power doesn't shut up. They would be as loud and obstructive as they can be until the crisis reaches climax, at which point they somehow morph int "me too.". Congress's cooperation with FDR waxed and waned during his time in the White House. Still, if ever there was a time when labor, management and government came together and initiated transforming change, it was FDR's first Hundred Days.

A loud voice speaking extreme positions in the late 3T or pre-regeneracy 4T is nothing. All sorts of extreme positions will be put forth. The more extreme, the more dubious I'd be about throwing around labels like Grey Champion. What is needed is someone who can work coalition and compromise while anchoring to the central ideals and new values that center the crisis. It's the difference between Charles Sumner and Abe Lincoln.


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Odin - 05-15-2016

(05-15-2016, 12:31 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

FWIW I usually get around -9.5 on the economic axis and around -6 on the authoritarian-libertarian axis.


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Odin - 05-15-2016

(05-15-2016, 06:21 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(05-15-2016, 12:31 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but in the 1930s congress was just as divided.  FDR himself was called everything under the sun.  That is a feature of our particular system, not a bug, so getting around it isn't that much of a problem.

The first 100 days the status quo went out the window.  Yes, there was still a lot of division and strife.  In any crisis the faction out of power doesn't shut up.  They would be as loud and obstructive as they can be until the crisis reaches climax, at which point they somehow morph int "me too.".  Congress's cooperation with FDR waxed and waned during his time in the White House.  Still, if ever there was a time when labor, management and government came together and initiated transforming change, it was FDR's first Hundred Days.

A loud voice speaking extreme positions in the late 3T or pre-regeneracy 4T  is nothing.  All sorts of extreme positions will be put forth.  The more extreme, the more dubious I'd be about throwing around labels like Grey Champion.  What is needed is someone who can work coalition and compromise while anchoring to the central ideals and new values that center the crisis.  It's the difference between Charles Sumner and Abe Lincoln.

I think the difference between this 4T and the last is that this 4T is just as much a political crisis  (like in the Civil War 4T) as it is an economic crisis, and because the edge of the economic crisis was taken off by swift action by governments there is not the same urgent fear of "if we don't go along and play nice the people are going to go Fascist or Communist and have us hanging from lampposts".


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Bob Butler 54 - 05-15-2016

(05-15-2016, 01:21 PM)Odin Wrote: I think the difference between this 4T and the last is that this 4T is just as much a political crisis  (like in the Civil War 4T) as it is an economic crisis, and because the edge of the economic crisis was taken off by swift action by governments there is not the same urgent fear of "if we don't go along and play nice the people are going to go Fascist or Communist and have us hanging from lampposts".

I have no problem with that observation.  My feeling is that the big changes that came with FDR's Hundred Days were only possible because lots of people knew that the next team at bat after FDR would be the communists.  McCarthy found so many former members of the Communist Party in the 1950s because a lot of people were just that fed up with the democratic / capitalist status quo.

Still, to me, the late 3T is the time when extremists are saying extreme things, and the terrorists are staging violent events intended to create action.  The regeneracy is the point when selected extreme plans are put into action, and if there is a military element the terrorists don't need to provoke action as the troops are mobilized and marching.  Thus, Harper's Ferry would be a late and major catalyst that brought things to the edge, while Fort Sumter was a trigger that drove things off the edge.  Somewhere between those two there was a regeneracy, with both North and South committing themselves to drastic action.  I see room for sincere disagreement between the two.

To me, today, as we have multiple extremists pushing conflicting plans, and there is no united push to implement anything, we're still 3T.  Yes, it's political.  No, the transformation has not been committed to.  No, nothing has been implemented yet.

Still, it's not clear to me that everyone has agreed on a common definition of 'regeneracy', or 'Grey Champion'.  If one defines 'regeneracy' as "there are extremists ruling around saying extreme stuff" and 'Grey Champion' as meaning "an extremist who says extreme stuff" one can state another opinion.  I just prefer stricter benchmarks.


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Kinser79 - 05-15-2016

(05-15-2016, 01:12 PM)Odin Wrote:
(05-15-2016, 12:31 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.92

FWIW I usually get around -9.5 on the economic axis and around -6 on the authoritarian-libertarian axis.

Do you want a cookie? As I said, the political compass test is heavily skewed.


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Kinser79 - 05-15-2016

(05-15-2016, 03:04 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(05-15-2016, 01:21 PM)Odin Wrote: I think the difference between this 4T and the last is that this 4T is just as much a political crisis  (like in the Civil War 4T) as it is an economic crisis, and because the edge of the economic crisis was taken off by swift action by governments there is not the same urgent fear of "if we don't go along and play nice the people are going to go Fascist or Communist and have us hanging from lampposts".

I have no problem with that observation.  My feeling is that the big changes that came with FDR's Hundred Days were only possible because lots of people knew that the next team at bat after FDR would be the communists.  McCarthy found so many former members of the Communist Party in the 1950s because a lot of people were just that fed up with the democratic / capitalist status quo.

Still, to me, the late 3T is the time when extremists are saying extreme things, and the terrorists are staging violent events intended to create action.  The regeneracy is the point when selected extreme plans are put into action, and if there is a military element the terrorists don't need to provoke action as the troops are mobilized and marching.  Thus, Harper's Ferry would be a late and major catalyst that brought things to the edge, while Fort Sumter was a trigger that drove things off the edge.  Somewhere between those two there was a regeneracy, with both North and South committing themselves to drastic action.  I see room for sincere disagreement between the two.

To me, today, as we have multiple extremists pushing conflicting plans, and there is no united push to implement anything, we're still 3T.  Yes, it's political.  No, the transformation has not been committed to.  No, nothing has been implemented yet.

Still, it's not clear to me that everyone has agreed on a common definition of 'regeneracy', or 'Grey Champion'.  If one defines 'regeneracy' as "there are extremists ruling around saying extreme stuff" and 'Grey Champion' as meaning "an extremist who says extreme stuff" one can state another opinion.  I just prefer stricter benchmarks.

By your line of argument then we should have been in a 3T for far longer than a turning should last, even if you take the late date of 1984 as the end of the 2T like I do. This of course breaks the theory--not to mention doesn't conform to history.

Let us face it, there are only two extreme plans out there, and then there is the status quo. Since Sanders won't win the Dem Nomination his plan (Democratic Socialism) won't come to the front without HRC swinging massively to the left, which is about as likely to happen as the earth being hit by an asteroid 1000km across tomorrow. The other extreme plan is Nationalism, Protectionism and Isolationism offered by Trump (which isn't that extreme historically).

Given that it seems that Trump's message is catching on I foresee him becoming President quite handily and implmenting that plan. The rest of the GOP has already fallen in line minus a few #NeverTrump clowns most of whom are RINOs anyway according to RW press.

As such I see no evidence at all that we're in a 3T, furthermore much evidence we have been in a 4T for quite some time, of course I also subscribe to the theory that S&H made the CivWarSaec 4T far too short and it really should have started in the 1850s (with the compromise of 1850 being the catalyst).

If we add to that the Mega-saeculum theory that the MillSaec itself is a Mega Unraveling then it becomes apparent that the whole saeculum has been dominated by at least two extreme positions dukeing it out since the end of WW2. As such it is only natural for this 4T to have a 3T like feel. I imagine that the next saeculum will be a saeculum long crisis on many fronts.


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - naf140230 - 05-15-2016

(05-15-2016, 04:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: If we add to that the Mega-saeculum theory that the MillSaec itself is a Mega Unraveling then it becomes apparent that the whole saeculum has been dominated by at least two extreme positions dukeing it out since the end of WW2. As such it is only natural for this 4T to have a 3T like feel. I imagine that the next saeculum will be a saeculum long crisis on many fronts.

Just like the Revolutionary War Saeculum.


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Kinser79 - 05-16-2016

(05-15-2016, 10:14 PM)naf140230 Wrote: Just like the Revolutionary War Saeculum.

To give you a TL;DR version of the order of the saecula in the Megasaecula the Current Megasaeculum I'll simply call "Modern" for lack of a better name we have:

CWSaec -> 1T
GreatPowerSaec -> 2T (the back bone of current tech/ideology started here)
MillSaec -> 3T
Next Saec -> 4T

In the Early Modern Megasaeculum we have:

Late Medieval Saec -> 1T
Tudor Saec -> 2T (The Reformation happened here)
New World Saec -> 3T
Revolutionary Saec -> 4T

It should be noted that at the end of Revolutionary Saeculum there was a new country (the US), a French Republic, and major reforms in Britain.


Still talking, not doing - Bob Butler 54 - 05-16-2016

(05-15-2016, 04:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: By your line of argument then we should have been in a 3T for far longer than a turning should last, even if you take the late date of 1984 as the end of the 2T like I do.  This of course breaks the theory--not to mention doesn't conform to history.

Let us face it, there are only two extreme plans out there, and then there is the status quo.  Since Sanders won't win the Dem Nomination his plan (Democratic Socialism) won't come to the front without HRC swinging massively to the left, which is about as likely to happen as the earth being hit by an asteroid 1000km across tomorrow.  The other extreme plan is Nationalism, Protectionism and Isolationism offered by Trump (which isn't that extreme historically).

Given that it seems that Trump's message is catching on I foresee him becoming President quite handily and implmenting that plan.  The rest of the GOP has already fallen in line minus a few #NeverTrump clowns most of whom are RINOs anyway according to RW press.

As such I see no evidence at all that we're in a 3T, furthermore much evidence we have been in a 4T for quite some time, of course I also subscribe to the theory that S&H made the CivWarSaec 4T far too short and it really should have started in the 1850s (with the compromise of 1850 being the catalyst).

If we add to that the Mega-saeculum theory that the MillSaec itself is a Mega Unraveling then it becomes apparent that the whole saeculum has been dominated by at least two extreme positions dukeing it out since the end of WW2.  As such it is only natural for this 4T to have a 3T like feel.  I imagine that the next saeculum will be a saeculum long crisis on many fronts.

To start, I don't see clockwork regularity in the turnings.  The classic S&H 4 stroke pattern works well enough for Anglo American Civilization during the Industrial Age.  Force fitting it anywhere else hasn't worked very well.  This means the 4 stroke pattern is not, repeat, not inevitable.  I also see computers, nuclear weapons and a need for renewable energy as arguably marking the end of the Industrial Age pattern, the beginning of something else.  (The Information Age?)  Thus, while I find the language of S&H very useful if you use it consistently, if there is a conflict between history as it is unfolding and The Theory, I am more inclined to question the theory than to cross my eyes and stand on my head to make the theory in its most simplistic form work.  Take it in the same was as I say the language of Marx is very useful, but you can't anticipate that history will rigidly follow his outline and time table.

As I've said many times, I see September 11th as a Trigger for a failed regeneracy and crisis.  Bush 43 attempted to implement a new set of values including neocolonialism and spreading western values at gunpoint.  His time in office was a referendum on 'stay the course' against 'cut and run'.  This was by far the dominant aspect of his two terms.  The resolution was 'peace with honor', a pull out of the conflict without quite admitting defeat coupled with a better understanding of how very difficult it is to achieve much of anything in the Middle East.  An awful lot of people do not want to acknowledge that a critical values issue was decided on the battlefield.  The left over post Vietnam tensions between hawks claiming they could have 'won' while the doves asserted there was no way to avoid quagmire was revisited in another environment.  The post Bush 43 result is more nuanced than either of the conflicting dogmatic hawk and dove dogmatic certainties.  Cultures can be changed at gunpoint, but doing so is very expensive in gold, iron and blood.  The general conclusion was bring the boys home and avoid foreign entanglements without a very long hard look at Powell's Questions.

I understand the base aspects of a 3T is stagnation, endless debate and inaction, as no one having the power or influence to significantly change the status quo.  After Bush 43's failed crisis, I see the US as waddling like a duck, swimming like a duck, and quacking like a duck.  Obama may have wanted to push a progressive agenda, but he spent all his political capitol on health care.  After that, pure 3T.

I see a regeneracy as an enabling of one of the systems of values created with fanfare in the prior 2T and debated the duration of the preceding 3T.  Traditionally it is the progressive values that are enabled by the regeneracy, while the conservatives attempt to maintain the status quo.  If someone like Bernie Sanders could get the presidency with a working majority in Congress, this sort of pattern could repeat.  

I do not see this as inevitable any more than I see the four stroke S&H pattern as inevitable.  The GIs attacked problems with everything they had, willing to bear any burden, pay any price, etc...  They achieved ever so much, and in doing so created Future Shock.  We haven't recovered from the GIs shaking up our culture yet.  The GIs arguably solved some problems that according to T4T theory ought to have been solved in the following crisis, but were solved 2 generations ahead of schedule in the awakening.  As a result, the 3T unraveling has had an element of 1T dogmatism.  All is well, so there is no need to change.  The core of it is the Reagan memes.  The government is the problem not the solution.  Any attempt by the government to fix things makes it worse.  The best solution to most problems is to cut taxes, reduce regulation and let the private sector handle it.  The Reagan Memes are the antithesis of the GI values, the opposite of an enthusiastic bearing of any burden, paying of any price, fighting of any foe...

For a current day progressive to break the Reagan Memes will be very very difficult, but that's where we are at.  The Reagan Memes are an over reaction to the GI faith that Big Government can solve any problem if only enough money is thrown at it.  The truth is somewhere between the GIs and Reagan.  It is a question of finding a rational balance rather than deciding which extreme is going to triumph and run roughshod over the other extreme.  Neither extreme is desirable.

Which is problematic.  Only an extremist is going to break the status quo.  If we keep electing establishment politicians riding comfortably in the unravelling rut, existing very real problems will only continue to get worse.

Like a lot of folks, I'm not sure how to read Trump.  The easy if possibly shallow read is he's a high ego extrovert who will say whatever his followers will get enthusiastic about.  Most of his followers are still embracing the Reagan memes, angry and disappointed that the Republican establishment aren't chasing the Reagan memes to a great enough extreme.  I'm not confident, though, that Trump is a Reagan True Believer.  I'm not sure what he'll do if he actually wins it.  As a business man he was a doer with a touch of charlatan.  He doesn't seem to see the system in the Reagan way, a flawed mess that will lead inevitably to failure, thus one minimizes the system.  I get the sense he sees the system as a convoluted playground to be manipulated for profit.  He is willing to lend his name to con artists and use the bankruptcy system to dump his failures overboard.  I just don't trust his style or integrity.  I don't doubt that he will through out a lot of simplistic ideas that sound good to the potential Reagan Meme voters.  I don't know that he will be able to twist either establishment party in Congress to make any of the ideas actually work.

I liked your old Communist spin on Trump better than your current spin.  At one point you were backing Trump as he would mess things up so badly that a Communist Revolution would become more likely.  That made more sense to me than your current endorsement.

I know I'm not going to convince everyone to see things my way, but that's where I'm at.  The very long 3T is actually a 3T, failed 4T, 3T reprise.  The mood we are in, regardless of how we got there or whether the failed 4T is recognized or not, is of stagnation, inaction and filibuster.  There is no lack of extreme proposals.  There is a lack of enabled extremists actually able to start implementing far out ideas.  From my understanding of the T4T verbiage, that means we haven't reached a regeneracy yet.  We're still talking, not doing.


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Kinser79 - 05-16-2016

(05-16-2016, 02:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: To start, I don't see clockwork regularity in the turnings.  The classic S&H 4 stroke pattern works well enough for Anglo American Civilization during the Industrial Age.

The first four saecula were pre-industrial, unless you plan on throwing out S&H's work entirely.

Quote:Force fitting it anywhere else hasn't worked very well.

It was primarily developed for the Anlosphere, but it does fit quite well with Western Europe. Other civilizations are on their own cycles so expecting Russia to be in a 4T when the US/UK is doesn't really work. But they do have them. Same with China and other civilizations.

Quote:This means the 4 stroke pattern is not, repeat, not inevitable.

It is conceivable that the saeculum as we understand it requires certain material conditions which if not met would cause the pattern to break down. That being said a long term study of world history would indicate that history is not a liner progression, despite what many Whig Historians would want us to believe. Therefore a cycle will always develop eventually. It could have two strokes or four, or even six (though that would probably stretch the lifespan of humans past the 120 year mark).

Quote:  I also see computers, nuclear weapons and a need for renewable energy as arguably marking the end of the Industrial Age pattern, the beginning of something else.

I agree, which is one of the reasons I've been flailing around to work out an ideology that works as the material conditions that back up Marxism-Leninism are fading, and fast.

Quote:  (The Information Age?)  Thus, while I find the language of S&H very useful if you use it consistently, if there is a conflict between history as it is unfolding and The Theory, I am more inclined to question the theory than to cross my eyes and stand on my head to make the theory in its most simplistic form work.  Take it in the same was as I say the language of Marx is very useful, but you can't anticipate that history will rigidly follow his outline and time table.

I would argue that the theory should be used like a tide chart. You can predict the tide to within a quarter of an hour, but beyond that there are simply too many variables.

Quote:As I've said many times, I see September 11th as a Trigger for a failed regeneracy and crisis.

And you were wrong then, and wrong now if you still believe so. The simple fact of the matter is that in 2001 the old civic generation still had some lingering political and social power, and the new one was busy learning their multiplication tables. It is my feeling that the turning cannot change until at least half of the generation that is supposed to be in rising adulthood (I usually call it young adulthood) has to be in that stage. Assuming S&H's date for the start of the Millennial Generation, and assuming that Millies are in fact a Civic generation the oldest ones would be 19, and the youngest should have just finished being born on 11 September 2001.

Quote:Bush 43 attempted to implement a new set of values including neocolonialism and spreading western values at gunpoint.

Yes, and he failed, just as attempting to change someone else's values always does. People change their values because they want to (for whatever reason), they never change them because someone else wants them to. In fact if anything attempting to change the values of others makes them seek to "double down" on those values even if that course of action is self-destructive.

Quote:  His time in office was a referendum on 'stay the course' against 'cut and run'.  This was by far the dominant aspect of his two terms.  The resolution was 'peace with honor', a pull out of the conflict without quite admitting defeat coupled with a better understanding of how very difficult it is to achieve much of anything in the Middle East.  An awful lot of people do not want to acknowledge that a critical values issue was decided on the battlefield.  The left over post Vietnam tensions between hawks claiming they could have 'won' while the doves asserted there was no way to avoid quagmire was revisited in another environment.

Indicative of a 3T actually.

Quote: The post Bush 43 result is more nuanced than either of the conflicting dogmatic hawk and dove dogmatic certainties.  Cultures can be changed at gunpoint, but doing so is very expensive in gold, iron and blood.  The general conclusion was bring the boys home and avoid foreign entanglements without a very long hard look at Powell's Questions.

Part of that has to do with Nomad pragmatism, and perhaps a premature Nomad Presidency. Obama has attempted to rule the country as if we were in a 1T when we are in fact in a 4T. His 8 years have been pre-seasonal, but the alternatives were worse. This year the choice is between a return to the 3T (which is impossible, and you know it is HRC I'm speaking of) or trying something, anything that is different (aka Trump).

Quote:I understand the base aspects of a 3T is stagnation, endless debate and inaction, as no one having the power or influence to significantly change the status quo.  After Bush 43's failed crisis, I see the US as waddling like a duck, swimming like a duck, and quacking like a duck.  Obama may have wanted to push a progressive agenda, but he spent all his political capitol on health care.  After that, pure 3T.

Not quite. We were in a 4T, but the regeneracy stalled, as such the best thing possible was to slam on the breaks. Not only that he had to deal with a Boomer Dominated Congress and of all the generations the one most likely to "be stuck in the 90s" is in fact the Boomers. Since 2010 Xers have taken over the House and are making headway in the Senate. It is unfortunate that the President is a Democrat because Xers tend to be overwhelmingly Republican, and when not Republican Natural Conservatives.''

Milo Yainnopoulos Wrote:Natural conservatives can broadly be described as the group that the intellectuals above were writing for. They are mostly white, mostly male middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritises the interests of their own demographic.

In their politics, these new conservatives are only following their natural instincts — the same instincts that motivate conservatives across the globe. These motivations have been painstakingly researched by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, and an instinct keenly felt by a huge swathe of the political population: the conservative instinct.

The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism. Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity. They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions.

That particular section continues on but the first few accurately describes Natural Conservatives. Furthermore Xers are dominant in this section of social thought for a reason. The vast majority of us had our formative years in the blazing inferno that was the 2T.

You can of course read the whole thing on Breitbart.

Quote:I see a regeneracy as an enabling of one of the systems of values created with fanfare in the prior 2T and debated the duration of the preceding 3T.

That is the S&H narrative. However, it is only a narrative--and remember they did write their books to sell and sell primarily to Boomers. What happens if the "new values systems" from the 2T are destructive, stupid or just plain garbage? What happens then? S&H are silent about that. It should be noted that the awakenings during the New World Saeculum didn't offer the Glorious Generation much to build on, and the Enlightenment 2T focused on the state in the Revolutionary Saeculum meaning that it brought forth reforms in England and revolutions where they weren't retarded back to the 1840s.

Quote:Traditionally it is the progressive values that are enabled by the regeneracy, while the conservatives attempt to maintain the status quo.  If someone like Bernie Sanders could get the presidency with a working majority in Congress, this sort of pattern could repeat.  

No that is the narrative that is sold. Lincoln wasn't really a progressive for his day. He was a Unionist primarily, he only wanted to change the status quo if that was what it took to get the states back together. Freeing Slaves and "Government of by and for the people" was an after thought to get Northerners to continue his war to preserve the Union. FDR was economically progressive, but conservative in that he preserved capitalism mostly intact. The American Patriots in the American Revolution were really conservative because they wanted to preserve the status quo of self-government and trading with whomever they felt like.

Whoever wins in the 4T is called progressive after it is over, whether they are called progressive or conservative or something else entirely at the time or not. That is how one can claim that "the progressive side always wins the 4T", it is a narrative that is sold after the fact.

Quote:The GIs attacked problems with everything they had, willing to bear any burden, pay any price, etc...  They achieved ever so much, and in doing so created Future Shock.  We haven't recovered from the GIs shaking up our culture yet.  The GIs arguably solved some problems that according to T4T theory ought to have been solved in the following crisis, but were solved 2 generations ahead of schedule in the awakening.

I think you assume that there were social problems solved in the 2T that were not solved. Jim Crow may be dead, but institutional racism is a live and well, the difference is that that institutional racism hits cisgender heterosexual white males instead of people who are not that. The result is a 4T that is nearly a perfect mirror image of the 2T. Or perhaps a negative image of the 2T where the light spaces look dark and the dark spaces look light. I'm going to go on a limb here and assume that you've seen developed negatives before since you're old enough to have had to deal with film cameras--I certainly am old enough. And assuming that '54 is your birth year would make you the same age as my mother, maybe a few months older than her.

Quote:  As a result, the 3T unraveling has had an element of 1T dogmatism.

Or maybe, Prophet Generations have a tendency toward dogmatism? The Awakeners if they were religious were pretty dogmatic, hell the Puritans gave their name to an adjective that is applied to anyone who is dogmatic religious or otherwise. Abolitionists were likewise dogmatic as were the Missionaries. Boomers are following suit as it is the nature of prophet generations.

Furthermore, wherever prophets seem to congregate dogmatism rears its head. It was in the 2T hippy communes, it was in the 3T and it is still here with us now. I believe you are confusing conformity with dogmatism.

Quote:  All is well, so there is no need to change.  The core of it is the Reagan memes.  The government is the problem not the solution.  Any attempt by the government to fix things makes it worse.  The best solution to most problems is to cut taxes, reduce regulation and let the private sector handle it.  The Reagan Memes are the antithesis of the GI values, the opposite of an enthusiastic bearing of any burden, paying of any price, fighting of any foe...

I would say that dogmatic application of the Reagan Memes as you put it results in a destructive society. Conversely the dogmatic application of so-called progressive memes has the same result. This is why I believe that the resetting of the GOP (arguably the party which will get reset since it hasn't been reset since the Guilded Age mostly, and the Democrats reset in 1932) will result in a divide between authoritarian and libertarian views as to governmental function.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE6ica0t95Q

The part important to my argument here starts at the 2 minute mark but the whole video itself is good. And it should be noted that Adam Carolla is a 1964 cohort which should make him an early Xer.

Quote:For a current day progressive to break the Reagan Memes will be very very difficult, but that's where we are at.  The Reagan Memes are an over reaction to the GI faith that Big Government can solve any problem if only enough money is thrown at it.  The truth is somewhere between the GIs and Reagan.  It is a question of finding a rational balance rather than deciding which extreme is going to triumph and run roughshod over the other extreme.  Neither extreme is desirable.

A current day progressive can't break the Reagan Memes because their program is based on trying to copy FDR. The simple fact of the matter is that much of the New Deal and WW2 interventionism is why we're in the mess we are in now.

Quote:Which is problematic.  Only an extremist is going to break the status quo.  If we keep electing establishment politicians riding comfortably in the unravelling rut, existing very real problems will only continue to get worse.

Sounds like an excuse to elect someone who isn't an establishment politician. I know of someone who fits the bill.

Quote:Like a lot of folks, I'm not sure how to read Trump.  The easy if possibly shallow read is he's a high ego extrovert who will say whatever his followers will get enthusiastic about.  Most of his followers are still embracing the Reagan memes, angry and disappointed that the Republican establishment aren't chasing the Reagan memes to a great enough extreme.  I'm not confident, though, that Trump is a Reagan True Believer.  

Actually Trump isn't embracing the Reagan Memes, at least not entirely, and no he is not a Reagan True Believer. His political positions have been laid out in statements and writings long before the 2016 presidential election began. He's been in favor of protectionism, isolationism and nationalism since the 1980s.

Quote:I'm not sure what he'll do if he actually wins it.

He'll build a wall and he'll fix the trade. If he does nothing else after that, he'll be a successful president. See above video.

Quote:  As a business man he was a doer with a touch of charlatan.

Trump's background is in real estate development. As such his first goal is to sell the project or property. All good salesmen have a touch of charlatan in them. After all if they were completely honest no one would trust them.

Quote:He doesn't seem to see the system in the Reagan way, a flawed mess that will lead inevitably to failure, thus one minimizes the system.  I get the sense he sees the system as a convoluted playground to be manipulated for profit.

He doesn't see it in the same way because no matter what the system was before, it has since Reagan's time been turned into a convoluted playground to be manipulated for profit. If it is such then let us manipulate it to profit the most people. After all promoting the general welfare is in the preamble of the constitution.

Quote:He is willing to lend his name to con artists and use the bankruptcy system to dump his failures overboard.

*coughWhitewatercough*

Trump has had hundreds of businesses, some failed and went other, four filed bankrupcy. However, many were also greatly successful. I know of at least 10 off that are and I bet if I look into it I'll find scores of subsidiaries and secondary projects he's been involved in, invested in or similar.

“Winners are not afraid of losing. But losers are. Failure is part of the process of success. People who avoid failure also avoid success.” - Robert T. Kiyosaki

Quote:  I just don't trust his style or integrity.

But you trust Hillary's style and integrity? Of the latter she has none and on the former she has very little. There is a reason I backed Bernie before it became mathematically impossible for him to get the nomination.

Quote:  I don't doubt that he will through out a lot of simplistic ideas that sound good to the potential Reagan Meme voters.  I don't know that he will be able to twist either establishment party in Congress to make any of the ideas actually work.

When we have a trans-formative president, and Daddy will be such, their party either falls in line, or the decedents join the other party. I expect the Dems to move right as the #NeverTrump people bail on the GOP. However they will be replaced with culturally libertarian minded others.

Quote:I liked your old Communist spin on Trump better than your current spin.  At one point you were backing Trump as he would mess things up so badly that a Communist Revolution would become more likely.  That made more sense to me than your current endorsement.

He still could, but I doubt we'll have a communist revolution in this country. The material conditions for that aren't present.

Quote:I know I'm not going to convince everyone to see things my way, but that's where I'm at.  The very long 3T is actually a 3T, failed 4T, 3T reprise.  The mood we are in, regardless of how we got there or whether the failed 4T is recognized or not, is of stagnation, inaction and filibuster.  There is no lack of extreme proposals.  There is a lack of enabled extremists actually able to start implementing far out ideas.  From my understanding of the T4T verbiage, that means we haven't reached a regeneracy yet.  We're still talking, not doing.

Well with HRC being elected we'll definitely be stuck in talking rather than doing. With Trump it is certain people are going to be doing something, even if that something is an open revolt against the president by congress critters of his own party. As for being in a prolonged 3T, no I don't think so. Of course I place the Catalyst as Katrina with a full blown explosion in the 2008 Great Recession (which is still on going regardless what the Wall Street Journal says).


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Bob Butler 54 - 05-16-2016

We're getting into a striped post here.  I'll answer a some points, but I'm not a huge fan of the striped style.

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: It is conceivable that the saeculum as we understand it requires certain material conditions which if not met would cause the pattern to break down.  That being said a long term study of world history would indicate that history is not a liner progression, despite what many Whig Historians would want us to believe.  Therefore a cycle will always develop eventually.  It could have two strokes or four, or even six (though that would probably stretch the lifespan of humans past the 120 year mark).

I see technological advances as a significant factor in forcing culture change.  We've had that for quite a while, keeping a steady pressure on cultures, making sure there won't be a lengthy steady state.  It may be that over the period of Anglo-American development the technology based pressure has been steady enough that the four cycle pattern was stable.  At this point I see factors like computer networks and nukes are actually increasing the pressure.  The 1960s period was as intense as a crisis, might have some aspects of a crisis.  The recent unraveling might have some aspects of a high in an intense resistance to additional change and big government.  I don't see a stop to cultural mood changes.  If there are four basic moods -- high, awakening, unraveling, crisis -- I don't see getting stuck in one and unchanging.  After a generation or so things are apt to change.  I'm just not seeing the 4 stroke pattern as still active and think 20 20 hindsight will be required to spot any new pattern that might or might not develop.

Bob Butler Wrote:As I've said many times, I see September 11th as a Trigger for a failed regeneracy and crisis.

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: And you were wrong then, and wrong now if you still believe so.  The simple fact of the matter is that in 2001 the old civic generation still had some lingering political and social power, and the new one was busy learning their multiplication tables.  It is my feeling that the turning cannot change until at least half of the generation that is supposed to be in rising adulthood (I usually call it young adulthood) has to be in that stage.  Assuming S&H's date for the start of the Millennial Generation, and assuming that Millies are in fact a Civic generation the oldest ones would be 19, and the youngest should have just finished being born on 11 September 2001.

Different people emphasize different aspects of the S&H system.  You are emphasizing the generation personality aspect.  I emphasize the political mood and values changing aspect.  With the four stroke pattern breaking down, I don't think either of us might be entirely convincing.

Bob Butler Wrote:Bush 43 attempted to implement a new set of values including neocolonialism and spreading western values at gunpoint.

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Yes, and he failed, just as attempting to change someone else's values always does.  People change their values because they want to (for whatever reason), they never change them because someone else wants them to.  In fact if anything attempting to change the values of others makes them seek to "double down" on those values even if that course of action is self-destructive.

Through the bulk of the Anglo-American development, it has been the progressives who have achieved the regeneracy and driven the agenda.  For the most part their agendas have succeeded.  Bush 43 tried as a conservative to push a different sort of agenda and failed.  I have described it as a 'false regeneracy' and 'failed crisis'.  I can pretty much agree with the above paragraph as to how and why he failed.  We're seeing the history in a similar way.  We're disagreeing on how to label it.


(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not quite.  We were in a 4T, but the regeneracy stalled, as such the best thing possible was to slam on the breaks.  Not only that he had to deal with a Boomer Dominated Congress and of all the generations the one most likely to "be stuck in the 90s" is in fact the Boomers.  Since 2010 Xers have taken over the House and are making headway in the Senate.  It is unfortunate that the President is a Democrat because Xers tend to be overwhelmingly Republican, and when not Republican Natural Conservatives.''

Stalled regeneracy rather than False regeneracy?  Different language, but yah...  Again, I'm more into the values shifts than generational stereotypes.  I see stagnation and inaction.  I'll put the turning boundaries where the mood and values change, not when certain age groups start getting into office.

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: That is the S&H narrative.  However, it is only a narrative--and remember they did write their books to sell and sell primarily to Boomers.  What happens if the "new values systems" from the 2T are destructive, stupid or just plain garbage?  What happens then?  S&H are silent about that.

Well, perhaps S&H were silent on stupid and destructive 2T values as such hasn't happened recently.  I see the anti-war, racial equality, gender equality and environmental changes of the recent 2T as necessary and appropriate.  I see neocolonialism and changing cultures at gunpoint as destructive, stupid and just plain garbage, but Bush 43 tried his push in a late 3T, not 2T.

Bob Butler Wrote:Traditionally it is the progressive values that are enabled by the regeneracy, while the conservatives attempt to maintain the status quo.  If someone like Bernie Sanders could get the presidency with a working majority in Congress, this sort of pattern could repeat.  

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I think you assume that there were social problems solved in the 2T that were not solved.

Guilty.  Wrote too fast.  Didn't word it properly.  The problems of the last 2T were not completely solved.  Red resistance to change capped what could be done.  Still, significant progress was made, enough for Future Shock.  As a broad principle, I don't think any crisis or awakening will completely solve anything.  There will always be leftovers and polishing to be done.  Periods of transition can only flow so long before the perceived need for change fades and an odd numbered turning is apt to kick in.

Getting edit dizzy.  Might pick it up again later.


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Kinser79 - 05-16-2016

(05-16-2016, 12:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: It is conceivable that the saeculum as we understand it requires certain material conditions which if not met would cause the pattern to break down.  That being said a long term study of world history would indicate that history is not a liner progression, despite what many Whig Historians would want us to believe.  Therefore a cycle will always develop eventually.  It could have two strokes or four, or even six (though that would probably stretch the lifespan of humans past the 120 year mark).

I see technological advances as a significant factor in forcing culture change.  We've had that for quite a while, keeping a steady pressure on cultures, making sure there won't be a lengthy steady state.  It may be that over the period of Anglo-American development the technology based pressure has been steady enough that the four cycle pattern was stable.  At this point I see factors like computer networks and nukes are actually increasing the pressure.  The 1960s period was as intense as a crisis, might have some aspects of a crisis.  The recent unraveling might have some aspects of a high in an intense resistance to additional change and big government.  I don't see a stop to cultural mood changes.  If there are four basic moods -- high, awakening, unraveling, crisis -- I don't see getting stuck in one and unchanging.  After a generation or so things are apt to change.  I'm just not seeing the 4 stroke pattern as still active and think 20 20 hindsight will be required to spot any new pattern that might or might not develop.

If we assume that the S&H model only works with a certain criteria of material conditions (which are not necessarily industrial given the pattern arising at the end of the Middle Ages in England) then changes in those material conditions which cause the certain criteria to pass away would disrupt the S&H pattern. Should something of that nature happen it should be expected to only be able to detect it hindsight.

If we use the tide metaphor again it would be like the moon's gravitational pull abruptly changing for an unknown reason--tide charts would have to be reworked from the new data drawn from new observations.

Quote:
Bob Butler Wrote:As I've said many times, I see September 11th as a Trigger for a failed regeneracy and crisis.

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: And you were wrong then, and wrong now if you still believe so.  The simple fact of the matter is that in 2001 the old civic generation still had some lingering political and social power, and the new one was busy learning their multiplication tables.  It is my feeling that the turning cannot change until at least half of the generation that is supposed to be in rising adulthood (I usually call it young adulthood) has to be in that stage.  Assuming S&H's date for the start of the Millennial Generation, and assuming that Millies are in fact a Civic generation the oldest ones would be 19, and the youngest should have just finished being born on 11 September 2001.

Different people emphasize different aspects of the S&H system.  You are emphasizing the generation personality aspect.  I emphasize the political mood and values changing aspect.  With the four stroke pattern breaking down, I don't think either of us might be entirely convincing.

Political mood changes with the wind. There is a reason it is said "A week is an eternity in politics". I find that if one uses political mood as the metric by which one determines turnings and saecula they never really can accurately pin down beyond the micro-turning level. The reason being, political mood changes with the wind. And like the wind, knowing what direction it is blowing from you might be able to predict the weather for that day, but for a month or a year on...impossible.

I will admit that on that day I was in the military and as such have a minority opinion. My BF was in university when it happened--he was a Freshman. According to him the political mood was fear for a few days, then anger for a few months and then everything suddenly returned to normalcy.

Over all, I stress generation archetype because when we're dealing with masses of people and their movement in masses it is best to think in terms of archetype. Honestly I wish I could break it down into mathematics--I could be Hari Sedon. The S&H theory seems to work best when we're examining large groups of people who are largely ignorant of the forces at work.

Quote:
Bob Butler Wrote:Bush 43 attempted to implement a new set of values including neocolonialism and spreading western values at gunpoint.

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Yes, and he failed, just as attempting to change someone else's values always does.  People change their values because they want to (for whatever reason), they never change them because someone else wants them to.  In fact if anything attempting to change the values of others makes them seek to "double down" on those values even if that course of action is self-destructive.

Through the bulk of the Anglo-American development, it has been the progressives who have achieved the regeneracy and driven the agenda.  For the most part their agendas have succeeded.  Bush 43 tried as a conservative to push a different sort of agenda and failed.  I have described it as a 'false regeneracy' and 'failed crisis'.  I can pretty much agree with the above paragraph as to how and why he failed.  We're seeing the history in a similar way.  We're disagreeing on how to label it.

I actually don't think so. As I pointed out Lincoln was a unionist first and foremost. Unionism that Andrew Jackson agreed with and Andy J was not exactly a "progressive". (Awesome President, but definitely not a progressive, you should hear some of the shit those people say about him sometime.) The Founders largely had the American revolution to not pay taxes to Parliament (which they never had to do before), the UK government trying to enforce their trade laws (which they never had before--for a century I might add), and imposing laws from without (prior to the 1760s all the colonies were essentially self governing with the Crown just appointing the governor, and often a local at that). Given these facts it seems that the revolutionary war was fought to maintain a status quo rather than to create something new. Even the argumentation of the Declaration of Independence all has content that any person literate in English would have likely have read at the time. FDR did many progressive things but did so for inherently conservative reasons--the preservation of capitalism, and later democracy.

What happened with Bush 43 was there was a tragic event, it gave him some political capital and he spent it like a drunken sailor. There was no "false regeneracy" because someting like a regeneracy would have to have happened to confuse people into thinking it was a real one. Likewise there was no false crisis because 9-11 ultimately did not set into motion an existential threat to the nation. The terrorism and the wars were things that happened "over there".

Quote:
(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not quite.  We were in a 4T, but the regeneracy stalled, as such the best thing possible was to slam on the breaks.  Not only that he had to deal with a Boomer Dominated Congress and of all the generations the one most likely to "be stuck in the 90s" is in fact the Boomers.  Since 2010 Xers have taken over the House and are making headway in the Senate.  It is unfortunate that the President is a Democrat because Xers tend to be overwhelmingly Republican, and when not Republican Natural Conservatives.''

Stalled regeneracy rather than False regeneracy?  Different language, but yah...  Again, I'm more into the values shifts than generational stereotypes.  I see stagnation and inaction.  I'll put the turning boundaries where the mood and values change, not when certain age groups start getting into office.

I say stalled because had the Great Recession deepened at the start (like Great Depression) the need for a change in the status quo would have become apparent sooner. This naturally lead to stagnation and inaction. The Civil War Saeculum had something similar following the Dred Scott decision as both the North and South were too evenly balanced in the Senate. In the more modern case following 2010 the natural conservatives in the House managed to block much of the President's proposed legislation. Mostly because they don't share his particular vision.

Quote:
(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: That is the S&H narrative.  However, it is only a narrative--and remember they did write their books to sell and sell primarily to Boomers.  What happens if the "new values systems" from the 2T are destructive, stupid or just plain garbage?  What happens then?  S&H are silent about that.

Well, perhaps S&H were silent on stupid and destructive 2T values as such hasn't happened recently.  I see the anti-war, racial equality, gender equality and environmental changes of the recent 2T as necessary and appropriate.  I see neocolonialism and changing cultures at gunpoint as destructive, stupid and just plain garbage, but Bush 43 tried his push in a late 3T, not 2T.

Anti-war movements are not new, and Boomers certainly didn't start them. Racial and gender equality are pretty much the same thing. Environmentalism was actually started by Missionaries. According to S&H it is the prophet generation in the 2T that come up with the new ideas, the new paradigms and so forth. Much of the 60s was recycling Missionary materials and most of the effective leadership was conducted by Silents. From what I've seen the new ideas that Boomers are responsible for are largely equated to mass marketed watered down occultism (aka New Age), fad diets, and various cults. There is a lot of destructive, stupid and just plain garbage to go around from that generation, it wasn't Bush 43 alone.

Furthermore I would argue that Bush 43 failed not because of the turning, but rather because of a complete misunderstanding of human nature and how values interplay with that nature.

Quote:
Bob Butler Wrote:Traditionally it is the progressive values that are enabled by the regeneracy, while the conservatives attempt to maintain the status quo.  If someone like Bernie Sanders could get the presidency with a working majority in Congress, this sort of pattern could repeat.  

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I think you assume that there were social problems solved in the 2T that were not solved.

Guilty.  Wrote too fast.  Didn't word it properly.  The problems of the last 2T were not completely solved.  Red resistance to change capped what could be done.  Still, significant progress was made, enough for Future Shock.  As a broad principle, I don't think any crisis or awakening will completely solve anything.  There will always be leftovers and polishing to be done.  Periods of transition can only flow so long before the perceived need for change fades and an odd numbered turning is apt to kick in.

Getting edit dizzy.  Might pick it up again later.

You could of perhaps worded it better. I would say that a large part of the Red Resistance you allude to comes from Boomers mostly. As long as the GIs were in charge they could push through an agenda you'd call progressive and the Silents would go along with them--mostly. That being said, one needs to understand that when we're dealing with political movements, even if we're not talking about movement politics, Natural Conservatives are always going to try to "hit the breaks", that is what Natural Conservatives do. Furthermore, Natural Conservatives exist in all generations, they just tend to be over-represented in Nomad generations for some pretty good reasons.

That being said, 2Ts largely do not result in structural social change. Even today we see that some are calling for a re-institution of Jim Crow but on different lines.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261912/black-lives-matter-banning-racial-segregation-daniel-greenfield


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Bob Butler 54 - 05-16-2016

(05-16-2016, 01:21 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Over all, I stress generation archetype because when we're dealing with masses of people and their movement in masses it is best to think in terms of archetype.  Honestly I wish I could break it down into mathematics--I could be Hari Sedon.  The S&H theory seems to work best when we're examining large groups of people who are largely ignorant of the forces at work.

I think you’re dreaming, unless and until you reduce values and emotion to numbers.  Values have a huge amount of momentum.  They don’t change without large pressures applied and blatant failures of principles that likely worked quite well at one time.  It would be very difficult to objectively assign mass weights to existing cultural memes and force vectors to new technologies or ideas that might cause change, especially if one’s own values are part of the system one is trying to objectively and mathematically model.  Being objective enough to play Hari Seldon is way beyond you and me.  We are both far too wedded to our own perspectives.

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I actually don't think so.  As I pointed out Lincoln was a unionist first and foremost.  Unionism that Andrew Jackson agreed with and Andy J was not exactly a "progressive". (Awesome President, but definitely not a progressive, you should hear some of the shit those people say about him sometime.)  The Founders largely had the American revolution to not pay taxes to Parliament (which they never had to do before), the UK government trying to enforce their trade laws (which they never had before--for a century I might add), and imposing laws from without (prior to the 1760s all the colonies were essentially self governing with the Crown just appointing the governor, and often a local at that).  Given these facts it seems that the revolutionary war was fought to maintain a status quo rather than to create something new.  Even the argumentation of the Declaration of Independence all has content that any person literate in English would have likely have read at the time.  FDR did many progressive things but did so for inherently conservative reasons--the preservation of capitalism, and later democracy.

At one time I was challenged to identify an ‘arrow of progress’.  If a doctrinaire Whig were to identify what type of progress is more or less inevitable, what would it be?
  • People who did not have rights acquire them.  There is a step towards equality.
  • Elites who control a new area of business, often the result of new technology, take political power from established interests.  The largest of these involved loss of influence by the old royalty and nobility, with increased influence by the Robber Barons.
  • In general, the new elites demonize the old elites, and make promises to The People.  Inequality in political power is often linked to inequality in wealth.  Thus, there is generally an element of class struggle wrapped into it somewhere.

This perspective is often rejected by the conservatives who try to make the conservatives into the heroes…  or rather make the heroes into conservatives.  I remain dubious.  While one can always and justly cast doubt on the motivations of the new elites, on the idea side the Revolution implemented the Enlightenment ideas, the Civil War was about slavery, the New Deal about government serving the working people more the elites less, while Fascism was a modernized authoritarian tyranny, Agricultural Age militaristic tyranny with different trappings.  The key is that the new elites can’t usurp power without the backing of the People.  To get this backing they have to make badly wanted concessions.


(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: What happened with Bush 43 was there was a tragic event, it gave him some political capital and he spent it like a drunken sailor.  There was no "false regeneracy" because someting like a regeneracy would have to have happened to confuse people into thinking it was a real one.  Likewise there was no false crisis because 9-11 ultimately did not set into motion an existential threat to the nation.  The terrorism and the wars were things that happened "over there".

Ideas entirely at odds with either George Washington’s isolationism or the World War / Cold War containment policies were tried.  They failed.  These bad new policies have hopefully been purged from the playbook.  The competing memes of stay the course against avoid quagmire were resolved.  I see this as a major trial of values with a resolution that was expensive in gold, iron and blood.  I don’t think you are actually disagreeing with me on this?  You just don't want to acknowledge it as important?

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Anti-war movements are not new, and Boomers certainly didn't start them.  Racial and gender equality are pretty much the same thing.  Environmentalism was actually started by Missionaries.  According to S&H it is the prophet generation in the 2T that come up with the new ideas, the new paradigms and so forth.  Much of the 60s was recycling Missionary materials and most of the effective leadership was conducted by Silents.  From what I've seen the new ideas that Boomers are responsible for are largely equated to mass marketed watered down occultism (aka New Age), fad diets, and various cults.  There is a lot of destructive, stupid and just plain garbage to go around from that generation, it wasn't Bush 43 alone.

Was it Sturgeon who propose that 95% of anything is garbage?  Generations have different styles and obsessions.  It’s traditional and easy to diss on other generations.  

While the Boomers didn’t invent the various causes they fought for, they pushed for necessary and appropriate changes that were in time made.  Still, these changes happened with the GIs in control.  I doubt blindly following of the Domino Theory would have stopped without loud obnoxious objection.  The time for a big step forward in gender and racial equality had come.  I don’t know that the Boomers should be exalted as they were the kids on the ground when it happened, but they were the kids on the ground when it happened.  Similarly, while others were concerned about the environment before the awakening, the awakening was a time of a vast change in policy.

You are not the worst of the Boomer Bashers here, but you seem to be indulging yourself with this post.  Personally, I don’t see the point of placing the blame on generations.  The original S&H put an emphasis on the positive aspects of each generation, and projected that one could expect great things when the various positive aspects of several generations lined up in a constructive way.  Many of those who come to this forum dwell on the negatives.  I see it as about as constructive as dwelling on the alleged negative stereotypes of this race or that gender.  I hope I don’t have to explain to you how stereotyping and prejudice have their down sides?

I could pick on other generations.  Most of what I’d rather see the youngsters change is in complaining less and working for change more.  Things aren’t going to change without more people pushing for change.  That was the Blue Boomer’s role in their younger days.  Still, that was then.  These days the Blue Boomers are sitting on the sidelines while griping just as much as any other generation.  It’s a problem for the whole culture, not just the Blue Boomers.


(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Furthermore I would argue that Bush 43 failed not because of the turning, but rather because of a complete misunderstanding of human nature and how values interplay with that nature.  

Are you trying to trick me into saying something good about Bush 43?  Ha!  No way.

Actually, during the Cold War the United States played some imperialistic hardball, using military and political methods to gain economic advantage.  The rest of the world let us get away with it as we were picking up a lot of the cost of containing communism.  Many in the Bush 43 administration thought the world would continue to let us get away with it.  They did not anticipate the degree with which the world recognized and opposed neo colonialism in a post Cold War world.  They should have.  A little bit of empathy would have served them very well.  I won't object to the description of 'complete misunderstanding of human nature and how values interplay with that nature.  They were just used to the idea of being a superpower and drunk with the idea of being the sole superpower.

(05-16-2016, 08:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: You could of perhaps worded it better.  I would say that a large part of the Red Resistance you allude to comes from Boomers mostly.  As long as the GIs were in charge they could push through an agenda you'd call progressive and the Silents would go along with them--mostly.  That being said, one needs to understand that when we're dealing with political movements, even if we're not talking about movement politics, Natural Conservatives are always going to try to "hit the breaks", that is what Natural Conservatives do.  Furthermore, Natural Conservatives exist in all generations, they just tend to be over-represented in Nomad generations for some pretty good reasons.

That being said, 2Ts largely do not result in structural social change.  Even today we see that some are calling for a re-institution of Jim Crow but on different lines.

A lot of stuff happened in the Awakening.  When you were a Communist, you indulged in the usual business of ignoring certain aspects of history while emphasizing others.  You’re still doing it.  I do it too.  Everyone with a strong political worldview is apt to do it.  If someone has a world view centered on a set of broad principles, they will see clearly the events that support said principles while dismissing or ignoring events fitting conflicting principles.  I’m a fan of Jefferson.  I’ll see the echoes of his self-evident Truths.  You’ve got other Truths to chase.

In this exchange I’m not disagreeing much with the history you are emphasizing, but we’re emphasizing different patterns in said history.  Likely inevitable.


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Kinser79 - 05-16-2016

(05-16-2016, 06:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I think you’re dreaming, unless and until you reduce values and emotion to numbers.  Values have a huge amount of momentum.  They don’t change without large pressures applied and blatant failures of principles that likely worked quite well at one time.  It would be very difficult to objectively assign mass weights to existing cultural memes and force vectors to new technologies or ideas that might cause change, especially if one’s own values are part of the system one is trying to objectively and mathematically model.  Being objective enough to play Hari Seldon is way beyond you and me.  We are both far too wedded to our own perspectives.

I would argue that it is beyond any human. At best we can use mass psychology to understand, and perhaps manipulate the course of history. Beyond that, anything even close to Asimov's Psychohistory is a pipe dream. But a good dream never hurt anyone.

Quote:At one time I was challenged to identify an ‘arrow of progress’.  If a doctrinaire Whig were to identify what type of progress is more or less inevitable, what would it be?
  • People who did not have rights acquire them.  There is a step towards equality.
  • Elites who control a new area of business, often the result of new technology, take political power from established interests.  The largest of these involved loss of influence by the old royalty and nobility, with increased influence by the Robber Barons.
  • In general, the new elites demonize the old elites, and make promises to The People.  Inequality in political power is often linked to inequality in wealth.  Thus, there is generally an element of class struggle wrapped into it somewhere.

And a doctrinaire Whig would be right, in so far as that list would conform to their ideology. The question is, however, does that happen in history. Does the transfer of one old elite automatically confer social/economic/political "progress"? I would say largely no. After all to a serf does it matter if the king is a Saxon or is a Norman?

Quote:This perspective is often rejected by the conservatives who try to make the conservatives into the heroes…  or rather make the heroes into conservatives.  I remain dubious.  While one can always and justly cast doubt on the motivations of the new elites, on the idea side the Revolution implemented the Enlightenment ideas, the Civil War was about slavery, the New Deal about government serving the working people more the elites less, while Fascism was a modernized authoritarian tyranny, Agricultural Age militaristic tyranny with different trappings.  The key is that the new elites can’t usurp power without the backing of the People.  To get this backing they have to make badly wanted concessions.

I would argue that all men are combinations of conservative and progressive ideas and forces, particularly those men who act upon the stage of politics. What is often called progressive historically is the side which one the argument at the time. Remember history is written by the victors.

Quote:Ideas entirely at odds with either George Washington’s isolationism or the World War / Cold War containment policies were tried.  They failed.  These bad new policies have hopefully been purged from the playbook.  The competing memes of stay the course against avoid quagmire were resolved.  I see this as a major trial of values with a resolution that was expensive in gold, iron and blood.  I don’t think you are actually disagreeing with me on this?  You just don't want to acknowledge it as important?

On the contrary. I think that interventionism is largely going to be reduced to the role of involving the nation-state that is the US to those interests that directly involved the nation-state. This becomes even more clear when one takes into account the social experiment in multiculturalism which will end in disaster. One culture will have to dominate all the others if a nation is to survive as a nation is not the same thing as a state, but rather is a historically constituted group of people which must have national psychology that manifests itself as culture.

Quote:Was it Sturgeon who propose that 95% of anything is garbage?  Generations have different styles and obsessions.  It’s traditional and easy to diss on other generations.  

Something I know all too well being from Generation Slacker...I mean X.

Quote:While the Boomers didn’t invent the various causes they fought for, they pushed for necessary and appropriate changes that were in time made.

During the 2T as I pointed out these changes were initiated by Silents and implmented by GIs. The Boomer role was relegated to that of petulent children screaming in the background. The end in Vietnam didn't come about because college kids protested (even though the anti-war movement at the time was largely returning vets with those college kids getting in the way). It ended because the GIs got tired of seeing body bags on the evening news.

Quote:  Still, these changes happened with the GIs in control.  I doubt blindly following of the Domino Theory would have stopped without loud obnoxious objection.  The time for a big step forward in gender and racial equality had come.

My grandfather was a WW2 vet, and black WW2 vet at that. He told me in no uncertain terms that steps toward racial equality were initiated by the GI generation (as the bulk of it was accomplished during the 1T--in fact I consider the Civil Rights act of 1964 be the last act of the 1T) because of the horrors of racism that they saw in Europe and the Pacific.

Quote: I don’t know that the Boomers should be exalted as they were the kids on the ground when it happened, but they were the kids on the ground when it happened.  Similarly, while others were concerned about the environment before the awakening, the awakening was a time of a vast change in policy.

If we are going to talk about civil rights, the Boomers were literal children, complete with diaper shitting and all. They had NOTHING to do with it not even as expendable foot soldiers. The environmentalist movement wouldn't have gotten started without major environmental disasters such as the Cuyahogoa River catching fire. At the time most boomers were too busy smoking pot and practicing free love lust to really involve themselves.

Quote:You are not the worst of the Boomer Bashers

I don't bash boomers, I merely tell the truth about them.

Quote:here, but you seem to be indulging yourself with this post.

Nah. If I wanted to indulge myself in pointing out factual and logical inconsistencies of the narratives Boomers tell themselves I'd argue with Eric, or my mother.

Quote: Personally, I don’t see the point of placing the blame on generations.  The original S&H put an emphasis on the positive aspects of each generation, and projected that one could expect great things when the various positive aspects of several generations lined up in a constructive way.  Many of those who come to this forum dwell on the negatives.  I see it as about as constructive as dwelling on the alleged negative stereotypes of this race or that gender.  I hope I don’t have to explain to you how stereotyping and prejudice have their down sides?

I could pick on other generations.  Most of what I’d rather see the youngsters change is in complaining less and working for change more.  Things aren’t going to change without more people pushing for change.  That was the Blue Boomer’s role in their younger days.  Still, that was then.  These days the Blue Boomers are sitting on the sidelines while griping just as much as any other generation.  It’s a problem for the whole culture, not just the Blue Boomers.

And I don't see the point of giving people credit where it isn't due. It seems to me that doing such is the equivilant of handing out trophies for participation. That only happened to me once, when I was 12. I promptly threw that trophy in the trash because it was meaningless (and yes my mother still has my collection of school trophies, ribbons and so on). After all what does it matter if you show up for every football game if you just lose every single one. If you don't win, you don't deserve a trophy; that was true when I was 12 it will be true when I'm 112.

As for Millies today and their antics. I think a large part of it is millies of a certain economic class acting as rebels without a clue in precisely the manner that they have been trained to act by their boomer parents. If they are lucky real life will kick the shit out of them and they'll grow up. If not, then there is no hope. As for Boomers pushing for change, I think you over estimate their young years, which they primarily spent smoking pot, burning bras and practicing free love lust.

Quote:Are you trying to trick me into saying something good about Bush 43?  Ha!  No way.

You mean there is conceivably something good to be said about Bush 43? Seriously if the man wasn't such a blundering idiot I'd call him evil.

Quote:Actually, during the Cold War the United States played some imperialistic hardball, using military and political methods to gain economic advantage.  The rest of the world let us get away with it as we were picking up a lot of the cost of containing communism.  Many in the Bush 43 administration thought the world would continue to let us get away with it.  They did not anticipate the degree with which the world recognized and opposed neo colonialism in a post Cold War world.  They should have.  A little bit of empathy would have served them very well.  I won't object to the description of 'complete misunderstanding of human nature and how values interplay with that nature.  They were just used to the idea of being a superpower and drunk with the idea of being the sole superpower.

I think you're over estimating the good will of the Europeans, Japanese and Koreans. For the most part prior to the 1970s they couldn't do anything about US imperialism because they were not economically strong enough to. Imperialism is expensive. By the time they had the economic means to the so-called communist threat was pretty much over. The USSR's economic means to build empires were exhausted, China was moving capitalist, which left the only countries attempting to actually construct socialism to be Tiny Albania, Isolated DPRK (though Juche should not be confused with M-L), and maybe Cuba (which was heavily revisionist to start with as Castro really isn't a commie). Vietnam and Laos are not now and never have been socialist of any type. The communist parties of both exist because Russia not the US helped them in ending colonialism--they are vestigial organs.

Quote:In this exchange I’m not disagreeing much with the history you are emphasizing, but we’re emphasizing different patterns in said history.  Likely inevitable.

I think we largely agree that we are not disagreeing. I've started to think that when dealing with all the big issues, the really important issues (you know the ones that you're not supposed to talk about in mixed company but are really the only issues worth talking about--seriously you have no idea how much I hate "chit-chat" and "small talk") the result always reminds me of the parable of the blind men and the elephant.


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Bob Butler 54 - 05-17-2016

(05-16-2016, 07:37 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I would argue that it (objective psycho-history) is beyond any human.  At best we can use mass psychology to understand, and perhaps manipulate the course of history.  Beyond that, anything even close to Asimov's Psychohistory is a pipe dream.  But a good dream never hurt anyone.

Well...  Idealist dreams have been known to fail disastrously, but in general I'll not argue against dreams.

(05-16-2016, 07:37 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: And a doctrinaire Whig would be right, in so far as that list would conform to their ideology.  The question is, however, does that happen in history.  Does the transfer of one old elite automatically confer social/economic/political "progress"?  I would say largely no.  After all to a serf does it matter if the king is a Saxon or is a Norman?

An argument over land between Saxon and Norman has nothing to do with progress.  That's just humans being humans, the bloody Agricultural Age status quo.  If Robber Barons are trying to take power away from agricultural land owners, or if advocates of democracy are taking power away from kings, then you can talk about progress from the perspective of a Whig.  I see many crises in the Anglo-American series being about a transition from the basic Agricultural Age pattern to the Industrial Age pattern.  If you go back before the Black Plague and printing press, the Whig march of progress hasn't really started.

Arguably, with the suppression of the last fascist and communist major powers, the Robber Barons have essentially won the contest with the autocratic tyrants.  It is time and past time when the arrow of progress involves taking power away from the Robber Barons.  How to go about that successfully is the question.

But within the time where the democracies were suppressing the tyrants, yes, there was an arrow of progress.

(05-16-2016, 07:37 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I don't bash boomers, I merely tell the truth about them.

Do you ever go back and re-read your own posts?

(05-16-2016, 07:37 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: You mean there is conceivably something good to be said about Bush 43?

There are rumors that he once loved his mother?

(05-16-2016, 07:37 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I think you're over estimating the good will of the Europeans, Japanese and Koreans.  For the most part prior to the 1970s they couldn't do anything about US imperialism because they were not economically strong enough to.  Imperialism is expensive. By the time they had the economic means to the so-called communist threat was pretty much over.  The USSR's economic means to build empires were exhausted, China was moving capitalist, which left the only countries attempting to actually construct socialism to be Tiny Albania, Isolated DPRK (though Juche should not be confused with M-L), and maybe Cuba (which was heavily revisionist to start with as Castro really isn't a commie).  Vietnam and Laos are not now and never have been socialist of any type.  The communist parties of both exist because Russia not the US helped them in ending colonialism--they are vestigial organs.

I don't see it as good will.  I see it as self interest.  During the bipolar Cold War era, it was in the interests of the Europeans, Japanese and Koreans to support the US.  After the Berlin Wall came down, not so much.  This is one of those things that ought to be obvious with 20 20 hindsight but might be impossible to see in real time when one is a veteran politician who has seen the world work in a particular way for his entire career.  This is the blindness of a long established world view in action.

Or at least that's the closest I can come to an excuse for the Bush 43 administration.  They had a lot of experienced and well educated people setting their policies, yet they blew it and their leader is commonly perceived of as an idiot.  I tried at the time to find a plausible reason for the mistake.  The best I could come up with is a Cold War world view setting up an expectation of how the world would react, when in fact the world had changed...  big time.

(05-16-2016, 07:37 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I think we largely agree that we are not disagreeing.  I've started to think that when dealing with all the big issues, the really important issues (you know the ones that you're not supposed to talk about in mixed company but are really the only issues worth talking about--seriously you have no idea how much I hate "chit-chat" and "small talk") the result always reminds me of the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

Good parable.  We are still emphasizing different things, but seem to be listening to each other better.


RE: Has the regeneracy arrived? - Mikebert - 05-18-2016

The period since 2000 can very much be seen as a political crisis.  The 2000 election campaign was solidly 3T.  The country was finishing a two decade period of peace and prosperity.  Social indicators were improving.  These decades were the opposite of the tumultuous sixties and seventies.  Adverse trends such as rising inflation, frequent recessions (in 1970, 1973, 1980, 1981), rising crime and worsening budget deficits had reversed itself.  The Korean and Vietnam wars had not been followed by more like them in the 27 years since 1973 and we had won the Cold War.  Wages had finally started to rise, especially for black people.

In 2000 the candidate with fewer votes won the presidency.  The new president had run on a moderate program featuring a "humble foreign policy".  I recall posting at the T4T site my approval of the new foreign policy team of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell, who I believed had done a good job in the Gulf War. Boy was I wrong.  Why was I wrong, because I was extrapolating the past (a 3T) into a future (4T) that would be nothing like it.

This country is a radically different place today than it was in 2000.  Back in 2000, Americans could still believe that we were the good guys.  Americans could see Soviet demands as ridiculous and could easily see how we had the better argument.  The Soviet collapse proved our ideology works whereas theirs did not. Today many Americans no longer feel that our leaders are usually right, or even mostly right.
 
Before 2001 we had no state security apparatus (SS).  We did not arrest, incarcerate or even torture people without charging them with a crime or any sort of due process in 2000. Now we do.  Before 2001 there would be a debate before we engaged in war.  The first Iraq war was discussed and voted on. it was framed as a limited war with clear objective in accordance with the "Powell doctrine".  Today we start a third war in Iraq without even giving and the Powell doctrine, forget about it.

Our politics is crazy and broken, the people are offered no choice. In 1952 and 1968 we had a choice to continue or end the Korean and Vietnam wars.  We chose to end them and they were ended. This year were have a choice of Clinton who wants status quo in Iraq III (gradually escalation)  and Trump calls for putting the Iraq III on steroids  Web live in a world in which the Russian leader makes more sense that our own leaders, and the "the hawk party" now embraces Russia.

The economy has been in a downtrend since 2000.  The 2001-2007 expansion was the worst since the Depression, until the current expansion began, which was even worse.  The stock market is about where it was in 2000 in terms of constant dollars, and is currently very overvalued and likely to fall in the near future.  Our surplus was quickly converted into an enormous deficit.  We have racked up an enormous national debt mostly to fund wars and tax cuts.  On the other hand, significant expansions of the welfare state were created by both parties.

What I am getting at is the last 16 years have shown a much greater amount of political change than the twenty years before.  You have to go back to the 2T to match the level of political change we have seen. The post-2000 period truly seems to be a "political moment" as the 1964-1980 period was.  Political moments tend to correspond closely to S&H "social moments", that is 2T's and 4T's.

Generationally, those in power in 2001 were born in the years centered on 1942, and had come of political age in 1964.  Those in power today were born in the years around 1954 and had come of political age in 1976.  That is since 2000 the "average leader" have been those born from 1942 to 1954, and who came of age in 1964-1976.  This is they are prophets and play the leader role in 4T, implying that the people since 2000 has been a 4T.
 
After 2020, the average leader will have come of age in 1980.  After 2020, a new generation, who views of political will have been forged by the Reagan revolution, will be coming to power.  Politically this generation would be a nomad one, and the era they will create would be a 1T. Now if one considers the 1980-1984 period as a continuation of the 1964-1980 political/social moment, then those would make the generation coming to power after 2024 a Nomad generation.  Either way this current 4T should be ending in the next 4-8 years, and Howe is planning to come out with a 1T book.