Report Card for Donald Trump

[SomeGuy]

Yeah, like I said, it'll need to be pretty dramatic.  So, you are going with a decade long 4T, then?

[Mikebert]

Some Guy Wrote:Sure, if you are looking for a 4T that's 12 years long.  If so, that would be the place to date it.

Suppose your prediction comes through except for the Democratic implementation of universal health insurance (a tall order that may not ever be possible in America).  Suppose the Democrat is just another run-of-the-mill Dem like Clinton or Obama who serves two terms. Why would a 2008 4T start be favored more than other dates?  One could just as soon have the 4T start in 2016 and extend through the Republican who follows the two-term Dem, i.e. 2016-2044. 
This particular 4T would overlap the Macrodecision phase and could see the end of US hegemony.  Then you would have two eventful “anchors” to the 4T, whatever Trump does that gets 3 GOP terms over 2016-2028 as the first one and the resolution of the hegemony question as the second. 

Several 4T’s have had this two anchor structure: the Glorious had Metacomet’s war and the rebellions in the 1670’s followed by the Glorious Revolution itself 10-15 years later.  The Revolutionary 4T had the war & installation of a failed regime, and then after some years, the solution to the failed regime in the Constitution.  The Civil War had the war and then the Reconstruction.  The Depression & WW II had the Depression, the failure of the New Deal to completely solve the Depression problem, and its resolution by massively radical New Dealer policies during WW II.

[SomeGuy]

(02-07-2017, 07:51 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

Some Guy Wrote:Sure, if you are looking for a 4T that's 12 years long.  If so, that would be the place to date it.

Suppose your prediction comes through except for the Democratic implementation of universal health insurance (a tall order that may not ever be possible in America).  Suppose the Democrat is just another run-of-the-mill Dem like Clinton or Obama who serves two terms. Why would a 2008 4T start be favored more than other dates?  One could just as soon have the 4T start in 2016 and extend through the Republican who follows the two-term Dem, i.e. 2016-2044. 
This particular 4T would overlap the Macrodecision phase and could see the end of US hegemony.  Then you would have two eventful “anchors” to the 4T, whatever Trump does that gets 3 GOP terms over 2016-2028 as the first one and the resolution of the hegemony question as the second. 

Several 4T’s have had this two anchor structure: the Glorious had Metacomet’s war and the rebellions in the 1670’s followed by the Glorious Revolution itself 10-15 years later.  The Revolutionary 4T had the war & installation of a failed regime, and then after some years, the solution to the failed regime in the Constitution.  The Civil War had the war and then the Reconstruction.  The Depression & WW II had the Depression, the failure of the New Deal to completely solve the Depression problem, and its resolution by massively radical New Dealer policies during WW II.

Which would tend to move away from the generational model.  And the 80-year rule, independent of that.  And at that point, why are you using S & H terminology at all?

[SomeGuy]

Xymox,

I'm pretty sure "bear" and "daddy" (in the parlance of our times) are not synonyms.  But, sure, why not?  I'm sure if you tried, you could work Putin (and Xi Jinping?) in there somewhere, too.  

[SomeGuy]

Sure, why talk about the theory when we can post Political slash fic, now in picture form. 

[David Horn]

(02-07-2017, 03:11 PM)Mikebert Wrote: ...  If Trump undoes all Obama did, then Obama ceases to be a consequential president. He won't even be consequential in the Hoover sense since he failed to lose in 2012.  If Trump fails to undo the ACA for example, and then becomes consequential in the Hoover sense by dragging down his party in an epic defeat in 2020, allowing a Democratic to come in, implement the public option and begin the gradual transition to single payer then Obama will remain relevant because the post-2020 policies will be continuation of what he started, sort of how Nixon began the shift of the GOP to a red party, while Reagan built on that.

But suppose Trump is successful, wins a second term and is followed by a Republican.  Obama will look like another 3T president like Clinton or Bush.

And then suppose Trump undoes most of what Obama did, serves two turns, if followed by a Democrat who undoes much of what he did, and so on. In that case Trump could join the parade of 3T presidents who can't make anything they implement stick, unless the WOT is still going on, in which case, it would be Bush(!) as the most consequential, simply because some of his bad policy is still stinking up the joint.

Mike, why is failure to cement change not a potential 4T result as much as success?  The actions were still taken, even though they didn't have legs.  The battle was fought to a draw ... that happens sometimes.  I agree that the result will be muddy at best, but the back-and-forth will eventually end, and an unsettled but resigned mood will have to prevail.  It will be a somber 1T, but no worse than those endured by the losers of earlier 4Ts.  Humans only have so much tolerance for upheaval.

[SomeGuy]

I think a null result would raise serious questions as to whether there is anything to the model at all.

[TeacherinExile]

(02-08-2017, 01:23 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I think a null result would raise serious questions as to whether there is anything to the model at all.

I totally agree.  That would cast the validity of S&H theory into serious question.  And I have always had some doubts, as with any simple model that can never account for all complexities.

[David Horn]

(02-08-2017, 01:51 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 01:23 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: I think a null result would raise serious questions as to whether there is anything to the model at all.

I totally agree.  That would cast the validity of S&H theory into serious question.  And I have always had some doubts, as with any simple model that can never account for all complexities.

Let me make a counter case.  In sports, ties are possible* though rare.  In politics, they should be even less common, but that's not the same as never.  We have an energized right already, and the left seems to be joining the fray now.  They are roughly equivalent in size.  Social media make base-management much easier, and discipline much more immediate, so what's to stop an evenly balanced match-up from going 15 rounds with both fighters still standing?  Both bases will assume they won, but were denied the victory.  The not-base members of society will simply move on, with power being alternately ping-ponged with declining intensity, or a new "center" party takes charge through a reverse-Trump play. 

Note: I'm not pitching this as a solution, just as a possibility.

* assuming the sport actually allows ties, of course.

[Mikebert]

(02-07-2017, 09:23 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-07-2017, 07:51 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

Some Guy Wrote:Sure, if you are looking for a 4T that's 12 years long.  If so, that would be the place to date it.

Suppose your prediction comes through except for the Democratic implementation of universal health insurance (a tall order that may not ever be possible in America).  Suppose the Democrat is just another run-of-the-mill Dem like Clinton or Obama who serves two terms. Why would a 2008 4T start be favored more than other dates?  One could just as soon have the 4T start in 2016 and extend through the Republican who follows the two-term Dem, i.e. 2016-2044. 
This particular 4T would overlap the Macrodecision phase and could see the end of US hegemony.  Then you would have two eventful “anchors” to the 4T, whatever Trump does that gets 3 GOP terms over 2016-2028 as the first one and the resolution of the hegemony question as the second. 

Several 4T’s have had this two anchor structure: the Glorious had Metacomet’s war and the rebellions in the 1670’s followed by the Glorious Revolution itself 10-15 years later.  The Revolutionary 4T had the war & installation of a failed regime, and then after some years, the solution to the failed regime in the Constitution.  The Civil War had the war and then the Reconstruction.  The Depression & WW II had the Depression, the failure of the New Deal to completely solve the Depression problem, and its resolution by massively radical New Dealer policies during WW II.

Which would tend to move away from the generational model.  And the 80-year rule, independent of that.  And at that point, why are you using S & H terminology at all?

Not at all  A 4T ending in 2044 would complete a 97 year saeculum.  This is hardly unusual.  The five complete saeculum (1T through 4T) ranged from 71 to 110 years in length, with average 92 and standard deviation 17.  S&H said the dating of the recent generations (Boomers, Xers) was iffy and could change depending on what they do in the coming secular crisis. 

What is a bit different in the long spacing between what appears to be a very obvious 2T-type social moment in ca 1963-1980 and what obvious period eventually is seen as the secular crisis. From 1964 to 2016 is 52 years.  But I would point out that from the Armada (1588) to the start of the English Civil War (1642)  was 54 years.  THe distance between 2016 and 1932 is 84 years, but the distance between the Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation proclamation was 87 years.  There certainly is plenty of precedent for a 4T beginning in 2016.  What I am getting at is such a "late" 4T doesn't invalidate the saeculum as a cycle.  It does invalidate the mechanism based on generational imprinting around age 21.

As I pointed out before.  There is a difference between the observation of a cycle, and the explanation they (or I) have proposed for it.  Schlesinger proposed a cycle but never provided any empirical evidence for its existence or a mechanism to described how or why it happens.  Kondratiev identified his cycle in plots of prices and interest which showed obvious cycles, and speculated on causes. Turchin's fathers and sons cycle shows up in plots of the frequency of sociopolitical instability events and he did provide a mechanism.  What I am working on is the possibility of using coming of age generational imprinting as an alternate mechanism. What I don't want is to publish a paper proposing this concept only to see it invalidated a few years later.

My model calls for a 4T start in the 2001-2008 period, 2016 cannot be accomodated.  A 2016 start is certainly possible and has plenty of precedent, as I point out above, it simply would not be created by a generational mechanism of a type that has been discussed here, or that I can think of.

[Mikebert]

(02-08-2017, 01:10 PM)David Horn Wrote: Mike, why is failure to cement change not a potential 4T result as much as success?  The actions were still taken, even though they didn't have legs.  The battle was fought to a draw ... that happens sometimes.  I agree that the result will be muddy at best, but the back-and-forth will eventually end, and an unsettled but resigned mood will have to prevail.  It will be a somber 1T, but no worse than those endured by the losers of earlier 4Ts.  Humans only have so much tolerance for upheaval.

Because it assumes things like 4T exist.  The S&H  cycle concept has not been validated.  It won't be validated unless there is an obvious 4T that happens when it is supposed to. And this could easily happen.  And, depending on how it happens we can backdate the 4T from today in a way that will be obvious, and readily accepted by people unfamiliar with S&H theory.

This cycle is about history.  History can be done as a humanity discipline or as social science.  S&H were working in the latter approach.  As a science it is subject to the rules of scientific investigation.  Theories have to be verifiable, otherwise they are not science.  Therefore what they proposed has to be falsifiable.  If it doesn't work, this should be acknowledged.

[SomeGuy]

Mike,

Quote:It does invalidate the mechanism based on generational imprinting around age 21.

and (me):

Quote:Which would tend to move away from the generational model.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:THe distance between 2016 and 1932 is 84 years, but the distance between the Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation proclamation was 87 years.  There certainly is plenty of precedent for a 4T beginning in 2016.

If you're dating from social moment to social moment, a start in 2016 would imply an end in the late 2020s.  You're mixing and matching terminology again.

Quote:But I would point out that from the Armada (1588) to the start of the English Civil War (1642)  was 54 years.

That is not the formal start of the Awakening per S & H.

Quote:My model calls for a 4T start in the 2001-2008 period, 2016 cannot be accomodated.  A 2016 start is certainly possible and has plenty of precedent, as I point out above, it simply would not be created by a generational mechanism of a type that has been discussed here, or that I can think of.

Once again, are you using a roughly 20 year 4T (as per T4T) or the Generations bit on a "social moment" lasting roughly a decade?

[Mikebert]

(02-08-2017, 05:09 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: and (me):

Quote:Which would tend to move away from the generational model.

Correct.  It invalidates the model I favor (and the S&H one), but not all possible model, but it does make it less likely that a plausible model can be found that will work.

There is no 80-year rule.  Exactly one of the five standard saecula is 80 years long.

[SomeGuy]

(02-08-2017, 05:15 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 05:09 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: and (me):

Quote:Which would tend to move away from the generational model.

Correct.  It invalidates the model I favor (and the S&H one), but not all possible model, but it does make it less likely that a plausible model can be found that will work.

There is no 80-year rule.  Exactly one of the five standard saecula is 80 years long.

The roughly 80 year rule, Poindexter! 

[Mikebert]

Quote:If you're dating from social moment to social moment, a start in 2016 would imply an end in the late 2020s. You're mixing and matching terminology again.

No I am not. If there is something to the generation concept, it should be possible to discuss this with someone not initiated into S&H and so not use their nomenclature. The comparison here is between two important elections.  That 1932 was an important election is obvious.  If Trump is so successful as to be succeeded by another Republican, then that election will be obviously important, just like 1932, or 1980 (and unlike all the others in between).  It is a way to date a cycle using commonly agreed upon facts.

Quote:That is not the formal start of the Awakening per S & H.

Both are important 4T and 2T events, that would be readily acknowledged as important by someone without knowledge of S&H.  In contrast, the turning/social moment dates are mental constructs asserted by S&H. They have no validity outside their theory and so cannot be considered as facts or data.

[SomeGuy]

Are you positing a 20 year 4T, or 10-12 year one?  If a 20 year one, are you positing a 100 year saeculum?

[David Horn]

(02-08-2017, 04:26 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(02-08-2017, 01:10 PM)David Horn Wrote: Mike, why is failure to cement change not a potential 4T result as much as success?  The actions were still taken, even though they didn't have legs.  The battle was fought to a draw ... that happens sometimes.  I agree that the result will be muddy at best, but the back-and-forth will eventually end, and an unsettled but resigned mood will have to prevail.  It will be a somber 1T, but no worse than those endured by the losers of earlier 4Ts.  Humans only have so much tolerance for upheaval.

Because it assumes things like 4T exist.  The S&H  cycle concept has not been validated.  It won't be validated unless there is an obvious 4T that happens when it is supposed to. And this could easily happen.  And, depending on how it happens we can backdate the 4T from today in a way that will be obvious, and readily accepted by people unfamiliar with S&H theory.

This cycle is about history.  History can be done as a humanity discipline or as social science.  S&H were working in the latter approach.  As a science it is subject to the rules of scientific investigation.  Theories have to be verifiable, otherwise they are not science.  Therefore what they proposed has to be falsifiable.  If it doesn't work, this should be acknowledged.

You are also assuming that the concept of a 4T is well defined and fixed.  That was my point.  If you loosen the bounds a bit, many solutions can emerge.  The mid-19th century British 4T could also be considered an anomaly, albeit of a totally different nature.  We also have a feature at work that is similar to the Heisenberg principle, where observation impacts the result.  We're not the only ones looking for a result.

[SomeGuy]

He's saying that if you loosen the bounds too much, it becomes unfalsifiable, and thus dogma rather than a model with real predictive power.

[Eric the Green]

"Trump report card" lol

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF--------------------------------------------