A broken cycle?

[Mikebert]

For the first point, the imprinting model already accounts for the phenomenon of elders staying active longer. Note the space between the predicted end of this turning (2022) and the last 2T (1980) is 42 years, whereas that between the previous 4T (1945) and 1980 is only 35 years. The 7 year increase in half-saecula length (14 years for a full saecula) is a direct effect of the older people still playing active roles. This fact does not account for how the current turning, although clearly a social moment, does not seem to be either a 4T or a 2T but has some characteristics of each.

For the second point all of your examples are coming from the recent saecula. The period when the 22 phase of life predicts new generations showing up too early refers to the ten turnings from 1435 to 1704.


As for the last point. Quite correct. This still could be a 4T its not over yet. But if a decade from now we still have the same situation, extreme polarization, ten more years of climate change with no action, perhaps another financial panic and continue lack of wage growth, it will not look like we had a 4T.

[pbrower2a]

(07-21-2019, 11:12 AM)Mikebert Wrote: For the first point, the imprinting model already accounts for the phenomenon of elders staying active longer. Note the space between the predicted end of this turning (2022) and the last 2T (1980) is 42 years, whereas that between the previous 4T (1945) and 1980 is only 35 years. The 7 year increase in half-saecula length (14 years for a full saecula) is a direct effect of the older people still playing active roles. This fact does not account for how the current turning, although clearly a social moment, does not seem to be either a 4T or a 2T but has some characteristics of each.

My focus is on this social moment and other Crisis Eras as models. I would not use any Awakening as a model for what goes on this time. Note well that the Lost got very different treatment as elders. They did not live as long as the GI, Silent, and (so far) first-wave Boom. They were the generation around as the nursing-home business expanded wildly, and they were the first mass inmates. They were often sent there because younger generations were moving like crazy at the behest of corporate employers and were not adaptable to that. With generally lower education, they were less adaptable to change.

Part of the reason for their short lifespans was their bad diets (heavy in fats and sugars) and heavy smoking. The current image of the elder active deep into his eighties did not apply to them as it did to the GI generation, especially in the middle-to-late waves. 

The wildness of the Boom Awakening/Conscience Revolution reflects that the Lost were largely cast-offs or drop-outs from public life if still alive. They are likely to be the last elder generation to be so treated.

Quote:For the second point all of your examples are coming from the recent saecula. The period when the 22 phase of life predicts new generations showing up too early refers to the ten turnings from 1435 to 1704.

I obviously have more examples on the last 200 years than on earlier years, and I consider myself daring enough by contemplating what went on in the 4T of Europe in the 1860s and early 1870s to the American Civil War. I did miss the end of the Brazilian monarchy and abolition of slavery there and I did miss the Lopez war in Paraguay. Maybe in 20 years we will be more concerned with the Awakening Eras than with the Crisis Eras. We must survive this Crisis Era as a civilization, if not as a nation, if an Awakening Era is to be possible around 2040-2050.

Youth may not be growing up economically as they once did; young adults laden with student debt may be slow to buy houses and other big-ticket objects and start businesses. The bureaucratic-plutocratic economy that we have ensures that the rich-and-powerful have first dibs on the economic cornucopia, and of course (to allude to Paul Samuelson) the princess' cat gets cream before the peasant's infant gets milk. Hardships and great responsibilities for the peons but unparalleled indulgence and soft rules for elites could be a recent revival that peters out or a norm that events freeze as a norm. We cannot tell whether the desire of elites or the needs of others will prevail this time; this Crisis will decide that for the next several decades.

Quote:As for the last point. Quite correct. This still could be a 4T its not over yet. But if a decade from now we still have the same situation, extreme polarization, ten more years of climate change with no action, perhaps another financial panic and continue lack of wage growth, it will not look like we had a 4T.

Another financial panic is likely because the cure for the last one did nothing to reform the politics and economic assumptions that made it possible and indeed inevitable. Economic inequality in America is approaching that of fascist dictatorships, plantation societies, traditional monarchies in which the royal families own the resources, and kleptocratic regimes. The rentier is king in the American economy -- and not the true entrepreneur and innovator. I see both Donald Trump (for incompetence and corruption) and Mike Pence (who would likely see a meltdown as Divine Judgment for abortion, same-sex marriage, and the lack of school prayer) as the worst sort of leaders in the event of such a meltdown. Dubya at least acceded to the Secretary of the Treasury, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Obama stayed the course.

[David Horn]

I missed this, and it deserves a comment.

(07-19-2019, 01:21 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I think what drives the change from the third turning to the fourth turning is concentration of wealth reaching its maximum value.  To reverse course to the third turning would require peaceful deconcentration of wealth, which I doubt is possible.  In the present context, it would require antitrust actions that broke up Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.; I just can't envision antitrust actions going beyond fines, much as I would like them to happen.

The last great monopoly breakup was AT&T in 1984 -- certainly a 3T effort. The difference between then and now is the political climate. Reagan's 'Morning in America' rhetoric seems naïve and mundane in today's much harsher world. I should also note that the Bell Breakup was the last act of Carter's deregulation efforts, airlines being the most notable example. Since the Big Techs are already exempt from any meaningful regulation, breaking any of them apart would have to be justified by citing them as de facto monopolies. That would make them the opposite of the regulated variety of the past, and the breakup a repudiation of Laisse Faire. That is not a 3T effort.

[David Horn]

(07-21-2019, 11:12 AM)Mikebert Wrote: For the first point, the imprinting model already accounts for the phenomenon of elders staying active longer. Note the space between the predicted end of this turning (2022) and the last 2T (1980) is 42 years, whereas that between the previous 4T (1945) and 1980 is only 35 years. The 7 year increase in half-saecula length (14 years for a full saecula) is a direct effect of the older people still playing active roles. This fact does not account for how the current turning, although clearly a social moment, does not seem to be either a 4T or a 2T but has some characteristics of each.

I've been skeptical of this being a true 4T for a long time, though I tended to use the term 'failed 4T', which you discounted as inappropriate. Semantics aside, this is a major turning point in our domestic history, and one that's very contentious -- much moreso that the 4T that encompassed the GD and WW-II. In fact., that seems to be the defining element: a diametrically divided populous, with each side equally vehement about its view and preferred future path. Because our system is not configured to resolve issues that fractious, the only apparent resolutions are civil war or gridlock. We've tried the former, and it was a disaster. That doesn't preclude our trying it again, hopefully in some less violent form.

Mikebert Wrote:As for the last point. Quite correct. This still could be a 4T its not over yet. But if a decade from now we still have the same situation, extreme polarization, ten more years of climate change with no action, perhaps another financial panic and continue lack of wage growth, it will not look like we had a 4T.

I tend to see this as highly likely. A political resolution requires some degree of consensus. How does that occur?

[Mikebert]

(07-22-2019, 10:44 AM)David Horn Wrote: I tend to see this as highly likely.  A political resolution requires some degree of consensus. How does that occur?

It's hard to see how, which is why I doubt we are in a 4T. 

As for why I don't like the term "failed 4T", consider the generation who started coming of age in 1773 and finished doing so when the crisis era was resolved by calling the Constitutional Convention in 1787 (so they were born over 1752-66). Let's call them the Republicans to make them consistent with S&H's name for the 1743-66 generation. 

The Republicans are a Civic-type generation which is supposed to preside over a 2T like the GI's did for the last 2T.  This generation filled a majority of the leadership positions between ca. 1801 and 1815. According to McLoughlin, the Second Great Awakening began around 1800, so let's tentatively call this period a 2T. The generation who came of age during this time (analogous to the Boomers) were born over 1780-1794.  Let's call them Jeffersonians. They filled a majority of leadership positions around ca. 1830-44, just as Boomers do over ca. 2003-2023. 

Now we don't consider 1830-44 a failed 4T.  In fact, S&H place this whole period in an Awakening, even though McLoughlin holds that the Second Great Awakening ended about 1830.  Let's call the turning an "Awokening" because can think of era as one when a younger generation became "woke" to the evil of slavery. he Transcendental generation, who came of age over this time, were born over 1809-1823. They are analogous to the generation born over 1982-2002, i.e. the Millennials. 

The Transcendentals came to power over 1861-76, which is clearly a 4T. The millennials will come to power over ca. 2044-65. Maybe that will be a 4T.

Alternatively, this turning could still pan out as a 4T and the saeculum have four turnings like the last one.

[pbrower2a]

(07-22-2019, 10:44 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-21-2019, 11:12 AM)Mikebert Wrote: For the first point, the imprinting model already accounts for the phenomenon of elders staying active longer. Note the space between the predicted end of this turning (2022) and the last 2T (1980) is 42 years, whereas that between the previous 4T (1945) and 1980 is only 35 years. The 7 year increase in half-saecula length (14 years for a full saecula) is a direct effect of the older people still playing active roles. This fact does not account for how the current turning, although clearly a social moment, does not seem to be either a 4T or a 2T but has some characteristics of each.

I've been skeptical of this being a true 4T for a long time, though I tended to use the term 'failed 4T', which you discounted as inappropriate.  Semantics aside, this is a major turning point in our domestic history, and one that's very contentious -- much moreso that the 4T that encompassed the GD and WW-II.  In fact., that seems to be the defining element: a diametrically divided populous, with each side equally vehement about its view and preferred future path.  Because our system is not configured to resolve issues that fractious, the only apparent resolutions are civil war or gridlock.  We've tried the former, and it was a disaster.  That doesn't preclude our trying it again, hopefully in some less violent form.

At this point the potential for violence is high, and we have seen some nasty lone-wolf terrorism. The President shows unprecedented tendencies toward despotism. American politics is polarized to an extent not known since the years just preceding the Civil War. On the other hand, Crises can resolve peacefully as did the Revolutionary War Crisis with the establishment by consensus of a new political paradigm.

I see the Republican Party as it now exists fully consolidating power or disintegrating. There is little possibility in the middle.

Quote:

Mikebert Wrote:As for the last point. Quite correct. This still could be a 4T its not over yet. But if a decade from now we still have the same situation, extreme polarization, ten more years of climate change with no action, perhaps another financial panic and continue lack of wage growth, it will not look like we had a 4T.

I tend to see this as highly likely.  A political resolution requires some degree of consensus. How does that occur?

Catastrophic, obvious failure by the other side?

[Eric the Green]

Agreed, pbrower. And I think the less violent civil war option is what's coming. Gridlock will break. The 2020s will break the logjam. As I have predicted that it would for decades now. The "stars" will align.

[Eric the Green]

(07-22-2019, 10:44 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-21-2019, 11:12 AM)Mikebert Wrote: For the first point, the imprinting model already accounts for the phenomenon of elders staying active longer. Note the space between the predicted end of this turning (2022) and the last 2T (1980) is 42 years, whereas that between the previous 4T (1945) and 1980 is only 35 years. The 7 year increase in half-saecula length (14 years for a full saecula) is a direct effect of the older people still playing active roles. This fact does not account for how the current turning, although clearly a social moment, does not seem to be either a 4T or a 2T but has some characteristics of each.

I've been skeptical of this being a true 4T for a long time, though I tended to use the term 'failed 4T', which you discounted as inappropriate.  Semantics aside, this is a major turning point in our domestic history, and one that's very contentious -- much moreso that the 4T that encompassed the GD and WW-II.  In fact., that seems to be the defining element: a diametrically divided populous, with each side equally vehement about its view and preferred future path.  Because our system is not configured to resolve issues that fractious, the only apparent resolutions are civil war or gridlock.  We've tried the former, and it was a disaster.  That doesn't preclude our trying it again, hopefully in some less violent form.

Mikebert Wrote:As for the last point. Quite correct. This still could be a 4T its not over yet. But if a decade from now we still have the same situation, extreme polarization, ten more years of climate change with no action, perhaps another financial panic and continue lack of wage growth, it will not look like we had a 4T.

I tend to see this as highly likely.  A political resolution requires some degree of consensus. How does that occur?

Agreed Mikebert. David, what "consensus" did Lincoln have? The consensus required is enough unity on the Democratic side to at least vote out the Republicans, as in 1860 (the Democrats were the party to vote out then, of course). It occurs if the Democrats can stop the voter suppression going on, and nominate candidates who have a chance to win, not stiff or weak wonkies (for 2020, it appears that's Bernie or Biden as nominees who have a chance, since Landrieu, McAuliffe and Brown bowed out; chicken ckicken.....). Even a win by a slight majority will be enough, especially if the Democrats can get the Senate back and revise the filibuster.

We'll have a 4T; that's all but guaranteed. The question is whether it will be a "failed" 4T, like Germany's in the last round. I guess there's another question: can anyone rescue us, like we did for them? But if we fail, then the next 1T will be a "recovery" and a slide into banana republic status, not an "American High." I am predicting success for us, from the solar system indicators.

[David Horn]

Eric the Green Wrote:... David, what "consensus" did Lincoln have? The consensus required is enough unity on the Democratic side to at least vote out the Republicans, as in 1860 (the Democrats were the party to vote out then, of course). It occurs if the Democrats can stop the voter suppression going on, and nominate candidates who have a chance to win, not stiff or weak wonkies (for 2020, it appears that\'s Bernie or Biden as nominees who have a chance, since Landrieu, McAuliffe and Brown bowed out; chicken ckicken.....). Even a win by a slight majority will be enough, especially if the Democrats can get the Senate back and revise the filibuster.

We'll have a 4T; that's all but guaranteed. The question is whether it will be a "failed" 4T, like Germany's in the last round. I guess there's another question: can anyone rescue us, like we did for them? But if we fail, then the next 1T will be a "recovery" and a slide into banana republic status, not an "American High." I am predicting success for us, from the solar system indicators.

I think you missed my point.  Political solutions require consensus building.  When that's impossible, only two conditions can arise:

• No solution emerges.  Typically, this means that the issues at hand are not that critical to the two (or more?) sides,  and gridlock is acceptable, or
  
• Violence erupts, possibly leading to outright war.  Resolution though violence is possible, as history has shown many times.
  

[pbrower2a]

The solution could still be as subtle as an election followed by major reforms. We might even have a Constitutional convention at which even our political order changes structure -- let us say to a parliamentary system. The British parliamentary system that our Founders so abhorred was flawed due to its lack or representative character, with many British parliamentarians essentially flunkies of the King. Paradoxically we had a solution in a Census for establishing districts similar in the states in population that could be representative. The British had many 'rotten boroughs' in which had few residents -- even ghost towns. That came to an end, and the British parliament became representative. The American model of government applied, paradoxically to Switzerland (which copied our federal republic) and most countries of Latin America -- but to no other part of the former British Empire.

A parliamentary system has two salient advantages. One is that the Prime Minister will always be a known character before appointment by the legislature. It is inconceivable that someone would become Prime Minister without political experience. Yes, that would preclude Dwight Eisenhower -- except that if he had any political ambition at all he would run for Parliament.It would forestall a Donald Trump. The second is the vote of no confidence, which would ensure that we would not end up with a four-year disaster.

But I get ahead of myself. Major reforms could result from a consensus that closing the seams of our political system be necessary, possible, and desirable.

[Mikebert]

(07-23-2019, 12:36 PM)David Horn Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:... David, what "consensus" did Lincoln have? The consensus required is enough unity on the Democratic side to at least vote out the Republicans, as in 1860 (the Democrats were the party to vote out then, of course). It occurs if the Democrats can stop the voter suppression going on, and nominate candidates who have a chance to win, not stiff or weak wonkies (for 2020, it appears that\'s Bernie or Biden as nominees who have a chance, since Landrieu, McAuliffe and Brown bowed out; chicken ckicken.....). Even a win by a slight majority will be enough, especially if the Democrats can get the Senate back and revise the filibuster.

We'll have a 4T; that's all but guaranteed. The question is whether it will be a "failed" 4T, like Germany's in the last round. I guess there's another question: can anyone rescue us, like we did for them? But if we fail, then the next 1T will be a "recovery" and a slide into banana republic status, not an "American High." I am predicting success for us, from the solar system indicators.

I think you missed my point.  Political solutions require consensus building.  When that's impossible, only two conditions can arise:

• No solution emerges.  Typically, this means that the issues at hand are not that critical to the two (or more?) sides,  and gridlock is acceptable, or
  
• Violence erupts, possibly leading to outright war.  Resolution though violence is possible, as history has shown many times.
  

There is also the "fifth horseman" to Walter Schiedel's Four, financial/economic collapse. See the paper I posted most recently on the FB group.

[Eric the Green]

(07-23-2019, 12:36 PM)David Horn Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:... David, what "consensus" did Lincoln have? The consensus required is enough unity on the Democratic side to at least vote out the Republicans, as in 1860 (the Democrats were the party to vote out then, of course). It occurs if the Democrats can stop the voter suppression going on, and nominate candidates who have a chance to win, not stiff or weak wonkies (for 2020, it appears that\'s Bernie or Biden as nominees who have a chance, since Landrieu, McAuliffe and Brown bowed out; chicken ckicken.....). Even a win by a slight majority will be enough, especially if the Democrats can get the Senate back and revise the filibuster.

We'll have a 4T; that's all but guaranteed. The question is whether it will be a "failed" 4T, like Germany's in the last round. I guess there's another question: can anyone rescue us, like we did for them? But if we fail, then the next 1T will be a "recovery" and a slide into banana republic status, not an "American High." I am predicting success for us, from the solar system indicators.

I think you missed my point.  Political solutions require consensus building.  When that's impossible, only two conditions can arise:

• No solution emerges.  Typically, this means that the issues at hand are not that critical to the two (or more?) sides,  and gridlock is acceptable, or
  
• Violence erupts, possibly leading to outright war.  Resolution though violence is possible, as history has shown many times.
  

Some degree of consensus is needed for one political party or coalition to defeat the other without major war. The consensus must exist among those on the winning side.

That could happen in this 4T, but more likely (since it's a 4T) there will be violence this time from the defeated side. It will happen after the resolution occurs, and will be defeated. That's my prediction and it's entirely possible.

Of course, in a sense the Revolution in 1776 and the Civil War in 1862 had also reached a resolution; it just thereupon had to defeat the enemy in a war to sustain it.

[Eric the Green]

(07-24-2019, 11:30 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(07-23-2019, 12:36 PM)David Horn Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:... David, what "consensus" did Lincoln have? The consensus required is enough unity on the Democratic side to at least vote out the Republicans, as in 1860 (the Democrats were the party to vote out then, of course). It occurs if the Democrats can stop the voter suppression going on, and nominate candidates who have a chance to win, not stiff or weak wonkies (for 2020, it appears that\'s Bernie or Biden as nominees who have a chance, since Landrieu, McAuliffe and Brown bowed out; chicken ckicken.....). Even a win by a slight majority will be enough, especially if the Democrats can get the Senate back and revise the filibuster.

We'll have a 4T; that's all but guaranteed. The question is whether it will be a "failed" 4T, like Germany's in the last round. I guess there's another question: can anyone rescue us, like we did for them? But if we fail, then the next 1T will be a "recovery" and a slide into banana republic status, not an "American High." I am predicting success for us, from the solar system indicators.

I think you missed my point.  Political solutions require consensus building.  When that's impossible, only two conditions can arise:

• No solution emerges.  Typically, this means that the issues at hand are not that critical to the two (or more?) sides,  and gridlock is acceptable, or
  
• Violence erupts, possibly leading to outright war.  Resolution though violence is possible, as history has shown many times.
  

There is also the "fifth horseman" to Walter Schiedel's Four, financial/economic collapse. See the paper I posted most recently on the FB group.

It is interesting to compare the 4Ts in the history of the United States (leaving aside the earlier ones for the moment) from an astrological perspective referring to the Return cycles which have coincided with 4Ts. Each 4T is a cyclic Return of the Revolution in which the USA was born. Uranus returning every 84 years, returns every time. The Civil War broke out when Uranus returned to the same degree of the ecliptic it had been in in 1776. The Great Depression and World War II 4T happened during the time of Neptune's Return in about 1939, the year the war broke out. Uranus returned to the same degree as 1776 on D-Day. In that Return, the USA returned the favor France had given her in the Revolution, by liberating her on D-Day from the German conqueror. The foreign enemy was uppermost as an issue in this Return in 1939-1944.

In our 4T, we have another Uranus Return due in 2027, and a Pluto Return due in 2022. So this cycle indicates a Return of the Revolution.

In addition in 2025-26, Neptune Returns to its position on the day the Civil War broke out, which also begins (and on that day April 13, 1861, began) a new zodiacal cycle by entering Aries 0 degree (the spring equinox point).

So we have three returns going on, and it's much more about the nature and rulership of our nation than about a foreign threat or liberation from a foreign oppressor.

[Eric the Green]

About the fifth horseman, I have been thinking about Pluto today. So why not share my thoughts?

It occurred to me about the discovery of Pluto, which happened almost immediately after the great crash in 1929 which brought about the Great Depression. This was NOT like other depressions and recessions. This was an event unprecedented since the fall of civilizations in millennia past, like the Roman or Byzantine empires. As it developed in the early 30s, there was no future except free fall into poverty and chaos for almost all people. No such Depression had ever occurred before. Capitalism had failed. Liberal democracy as it had been known could not deal with it. It required an accretion of group power, which is what Pluto came to represent. In the USA, this was the democratic socialism of the New Deal. In Russia, it was the great plans under Stalin. In Germany it was Hitler's Nazi regime. Only socialism or fascism of various types could get us out of this mess. It was the exact opposite of liberalism's ideal that the best government is the one that governs least.

So since then the two parties in America and many elsewhere have been divided between the original liberals (now conservatives and neo-liberals) and the new social liberals. And the world divided for 45 years between liberal capitalism and totalitarian communism. Socialism had been the rising trend and increasingly taking power since the 1890s. But in the 1930s it was put into effect.

Every 4T, I think, includes an economic recession or depression severe enough to help plunge the nation into the political crisis that follows. I think economic problems help spur on the colonists revolt against the king's taxes. The recession of 1857 may have been the worst up to that time. The 1929 and 2008 crashes we all know. Since Pluto's discovery, then, these depressions in 1929 and 2008 put the issue of the power of government squarely on the table. In the 1930s, there had been virtually no government power sufficient enough to help structure the economy and society, so once the need was glaringly obvious, it was established.

But this is the second time around. There was a neo-liberal revival to which half our country is now loyal. And it has naturally mixed with ethnic issues. So this time it's more complicated, and with Neptune's return to its place in the 1850s, a divided nation and an inability to compromise has returned as well, and has become the nature of the crisis itself; just further intensified by the preceding crash of 2008, which was handled better than the one of 1929 because enough government had been put in place since 1930 to deal with it. At least what was left after the neo-liberal revival (which arguably had caused the recession).

And there's another wrinkle in this picture, because Pluto is unique among discovered planets. It is unique in that it took 48 years to really discover it. Only when Charon was discovered, and Pluto's status as a fully-binary planet was confirmed, did we even know what Pluto was. Several resulting trends happened during Pluto's long period of discovery, and are symbolized by it. The nature of Pluto as a binary planet itself indicates the two phases of Pluto's discovery, and its 2-sided nature.

First of all, Charon's discovery in 1978 coincided with the rising power of the neo-liberal movement and its social conservative ally. This has resulted in our current political stalemate.

Second, Pluto's conjunction with Uranus which defines "the sixties" was the first such conjunction among invisible planets since all 3 were known. This era of the early blue Awakening resulted in the two new movements (along with the need for government to deal with economic inequality and breakdowns already shown in the Great Depression and New Deal) that are pushing the other side of the stalemate: first, the civil rights and black power movement pushing for ethnic identity and post-modern pro-diversity movements and liberation from discrimination movements. These ethnic movements help push the reaction on the other side too. And second, what is also associated with the nature of Pluto itself, the environmental and ecology movement and the growing threats of pollution and climate change posed by our industrial lifestyle and its use of fossil fuels. And so combined together, this is called the Green New Deal, proposed by the Green Party (the first Green parties were founded at the time of Charon's discovery), and its USA presidential candidate Jill Stein, and now adopted by factions in the congress.

And so, the battle lines are drawn, and the Revolution is about to happen, as Pluto returns to its place in 1776 in the year 2022.

[Eric the Green]

(07-23-2019, 08:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The solution could still be as subtle as an election followed by major reforms. We might even have a Constitutional convention at which even our political order changes structure -- let us say to a parliamentary system. The British parliamentary system that our Founders so abhorred was flawed due to its lack or representative character, with many British parliamentarians essentially flunkies of the King. Paradoxically we had a solution in a Census for establishing districts similar in the states in population that could be representative. The British had many 'rotten boroughs' in which had few residents -- even ghost towns. That came to an end, and the British parliament became representative. The American model of government applied, paradoxically to Switzerland (which copied our federal republic) and most countries of Latin America -- but to no other part of the former British Empire.

A parliamentary system has two salient advantages. One is that the Prime Minister will always be a known character before appointment by the legislature. It is inconceivable that someone would become Prime Minister without political experience. Yes, that would preclude Dwight Eisenhower -- except that if he had any political ambition at all he would run for Parliament.It would forestall a Donald Trump. The second is the vote of no confidence, which would ensure that we would not end up with a four-year disaster.

But I get ahead of myself. Major reforms could result from a consensus that closing the seams of our political system be necessary, possible, and desirable.

I have indeed predicted that these changes are all possible during this 4T, which now means in the next 10 rather-lively years!

[David Horn]

(07-24-2019, 11:30 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(07-23-2019, 12:36 PM)David Horn Wrote: I think you missed my point.  Political solutions require consensus building.  When that's impossible, only two conditions can arise:

• No solution emerges.  Typically, this means that the issues at hand are not that critical to the two (or more?) sides,  and gridlock is acceptable, or
  
• Violence erupts, possibly leading to outright war.  Resolution though violence is possible, as history has shown many times.
  

There is also the "fifth horseman" to Walter Schiedel's Four, financial/economic collapse. See the paper I posted most recently on the FB group.

Good point, and not dissimilar to the GD in the last 4T. That's almost violence-by-other-means. I guess I'll miss your paper, because I avoid FB like the plague.

[tg63]

(07-24-2019, 12:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ...Some degree of consensus is needed for one political party or coalition to defeat the other without major war. The consensus must exist among those on the winning side.
...

your definition of consensus is, well, creative. I think you're really saying that there must be consensus on one side.

[Eric the Green]

(07-26-2019, 12:18 PM)tg63 Wrote:

(07-24-2019, 12:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ...Some degree of consensus is needed for one political party or coalition to defeat the other without major war. The consensus must exist among those on the winning side.
...

your definition of consensus is, well, creative. I think you're really saying that there must be consensus on one side.

Yeah, I think that's it!

We're a divided nation now. 2 nations in effect. National consensus is about as possible to achieve now as it was in 1860.

[Eric the Green]

(07-24-2019, 02:09 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-24-2019, 11:30 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(07-23-2019, 12:36 PM)David Horn Wrote: I think you missed my point.  Political solutions require consensus building.  When that's impossible, only two conditions can arise:

• No solution emerges.  Typically, this means that the issues at hand are not that critical to the two (or more?) sides,  and gridlock is acceptable, or
  
• Violence erupts, possibly leading to outright war.  Resolution though violence is possible, as history has shown many times.
  

There is also the "fifth horseman" to Walter Schiedel's Four, financial/economic collapse. See the paper I posted most recently on the FB group.

Good point, and not dissimilar to the GD in the last 4T.  That's almost violence-by-other-means.  I guess I'll miss your paper, because I avoid FB like the plague.

Avoid FB? You're so smart

[Mikebert]

(07-24-2019, 02:09 PM)David Horn Wrote: Good point, and not dissimilar to the GD in the last 4T.  That's almost violence-by-other-means.  I guess I'll miss your paper, because I avoid FB like the plague.

Well you can access my most recently published paper here:

https://escholarship.org/uc/irows_cliodynamics

Here is my previous paper on the same topic:

https://escholarship.org/uc/irows_cliodynamics/8/1

The work I referenced is the manuscript for my 4th paper that references these two. You can go here directly to access it

https://www.facebook.com/groups/4TFriend...988863158/