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

[Remy Renault]

If you're wondering why the left won't let Hilary Clinton off the hook, it's due mainly to her foreign policy record (i.e. her reaction to Gaddafi's death when being interviewed on CBS). Many American progressives tend to give mainstream Democrats a pass when it comes to foreign policy.

[Tim Randal Walker]

I believe this has been mentioned before, nevertheless.....

Regarding Culture Wars, the USA may have means of escape in its federal structure. Devolution of these issues to state and local government. The end result would be a map that looks like a mish mash.

Unlike the ACW, I think devolution might work this time around because we have no one issue as divisive as slavery was.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-10-2020, 09:35 AM)LPDec63 Wrote: I believe the next election is going to be a major catalyst, not a resolution.  If there is to be violence, it will be because of Team Red's armed militias, or Team Blue raising up in anger if there are election shenanigans.  (I think the only way Red wins is Shenanigans.)  And I believe that Reds will not lay down gently with a Blue win.  They are fueled by Internet Trolls and Conspiracy theories that literally say Hillary Clinton leads a child sex slavery ring and that Bill Gates wants to inject control chips in everyone through vaccines.  (I'm not kidding, there are millions that believe things like this.)

If?  Don't you mean when?  The pertinent question is whether the shenanigans and the slavery compromises will be strong enough to rescue Trump.  The way it is looking now, the answer is no.

But middle America has been accepting election results.  I suspect also that many are leaning blue this time in order to get a scientific response to the bug and racist violence curbed in the police.  I don't doubt that many believe the conspiracy theories, but the crisis issues seem stronger.

[LPDec63]

(06-09-2020, 01:30 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-08-2020, 07:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-08-2020, 06:41 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-08-2020, 05:05 PM)sbarrera Wrote: A two pole regeneracy is a civil war. Which might be where we are - the blue state has the numbers and the red state has the weaponry.

H-m-m-m.  Sounds a lot like the ACW.

Except the Civil War had violent catalysts in Bleeding Kansas and Harper's Ferry leading up to it.  These days, the spiral of violence is going no where, and both sides have adopted the popular vote as good enough to peacefully hand over power.  Also, the Civil War was typical of the Industrial Age where both sides were eager to go to violence.  Peaceful means wasn't really common yet.  Thoreau wrote about it a little at the time of the Mexican War with his Civil Disobedience essay, but it was only with Ghandi and King that it took off.

These days, 'war' can be fought without the need of actual combat, because the 'war' itself can exist in a different context entirely.  Let's assume that this 'war' is economic.  What are the weapons?  A lot of them are productive units like factories that exist where they are.  On the other hand, some are totally mobile -- the analogy isn't precise.  But we do know where the people reside: more in Blue than Red areas by far.  If I'm wrong and it comes to actual violence, I suspect the 2nd Amendment folks won't rush to the battlements if it means fighting a modern military, so the 'war' may be self limiting.

(06-10-2020, 11:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-10-2020, 09:35 AM)LPDec63 Wrote: I believe the next election is going to be a major catalyst, not a resolution.  If there is to be violence, it will be because of Team Red's armed militias, or Team Blue raising up in anger if there are election shenanigans.  (I think the only way Red wins is Shenanigans.)  And I believe that Reds will not lay down gently with a Blue win.  They are fueled by Internet Trolls and Conspiracy theories that literally say Hillary Clinton leads a child sex slavery ring and that Bill Gates wants to inject control chips in everyone through vaccines.  (I'm not kidding, there are millions that believe things like this.)

If?  Don't you mean when?  The pertinent question is whether the shenanigans and the slavery compromises will be strong enough to rescue Trump.  The way it is looking now, the answer is no.

But middle America has been accepting election results.  I suspect also that many are leaning blue this time in order to get a scientific response to the bug and racist violence curbed in the police.  I don't doubt that many believe the conspiracy theories, but the crisis issues seem stronger.

I guess we'll see November 4th whatever follows this election.  I think it is a "Rendezvous with Destiny" moment.

[Bob Butler 54]

LPDec63 Wrote:

(06-10-2020, 11:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-10-2020, 09:35 AM)LPDec63 Wrote: I believe the next election is going to be a major catalyst, not a resolution.  If there is to be violence, it will be because of Team Red's armed militias, or Team Blue raising up in anger if there are election shenanigans.  (I think the only way Red wins is Shenanigans.)  And I believe that Reds will not lay down gently with a Blue win.  They are fueled by Internet Trolls and Conspiracy theories that literally say Hillary Clinton leads a child sex slavery ring and that Bill Gates wants to inject control chips in everyone through vaccines.  (I'm not kidding, there are millions that believe things like this.)

If?  Don't you mean when?  The pertinent question is whether the shenanigans and the slavery compromises will be strong enough to rescue Trump.  The way it is looking now, the answer is no.

But middle America has been accepting election results.  I suspect also that many are leaning blue this time in order to get a scientific response to the bug and racist violence curbed in the police.  I don't doubt that many believe the conspiracy theories, but the crisis issues seem stronger.

I guess we'll see November 4th whatever follows this election.  I think it is a "Rendezvous with Destiny" moment.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans have done their voter suppression thing too much, that it will become an issue worthy of promotion to the front burner in 2021.  

For example, the recent Iowa state primary was the most successful they ever had.  Many more votes were cast.  The election commissioner had noted the virus, asked how he should respond, then mailed out applications for vote by mail ballots.  Many responded.  The result was a record.  What was the Republican response?  They introduced a bill in the legislature which would ban the state from taking this approach in the future.

Most voting is under control of the states.  Congress can't write one bill to fix it.  Still, as they come to dominate in a hypothetical future, the Democrats might coordinate a response.

[David Horn]

(06-10-2020, 09:35 AM)LPDec63 Wrote: I believe the next election is going to be a major catalyst, not a resolution.  If there is to be violence, it will be because of Team Red's armed militias, or Team Blue raising up in anger if there are election shenanigans.  (I think the only way Red wins is Shenanigans.)  And I believe that Reds will not lay down gently with a Blue win.  They are fueled by Internet Trolls and Conspiracy theories that literally say Hillary Clinton leads a child sex slavery ring and that Bill Gates wants to inject control chips in everyone through vaccines.  (I'm not kidding, there are millions that believe things like this.)

Well within the realm of the possible, but let's hope it stays in fantasyland.

[David Horn]

(06-10-2020, 11:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-10-2020, 09:35 AM)LPDec63 Wrote: I believe the next election is going to be a major catalyst, not a resolution.  If there is to be violence, it will be because of Team Red's armed militias, or Team Blue raising up in anger if there are election shenanigans.  (I think the only way Red wins is Shenanigans.)  And I believe that Reds will not lay down gently with a Blue win.  They are fueled by Internet Trolls and Conspiracy theories that literally say Hillary Clinton leads a child sex slavery ring and that Bill Gates wants to inject control chips in everyone through vaccines.  (I'm not kidding, there are millions that believe things like this.)

If?  Don't you mean when?  The pertinent question is whether the shenanigans and the slavery compromises will be strong enough to rescue Trump.  The way it is looking now, the answer is no.

But middle America has been accepting election results.  I suspect also that many are leaning blue this time in order to get a scientific response to the bug and racist violence curbed in the police.  I don't doubt that many believe the conspiracy theories, but the crisis issues seem stronger.

I suspect he meant actual vote tampering, though the debacle this past weekend in Georgia comes very close to outright voter fraud.  Let's see if the courts take it seriously.  More to the point, will they act with due haste.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Well, so far this seems to be a mild 4T for the USA. Just barely reaching an actual Crisis mood because of Coronavirus.

Emphasis on "so far." For I all I know some spark might set off nuclear armageddon next week.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-12-2020, 02:59 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Well, so far this seems to be a mild 4T for the USA.  Just barely reaching an actual Crisis mood because of Coronavirus.  

Emphasis on "so far."  For I all I know some spark might set off nuclear armageddon next week.

Not sure some people have switched to sacrificing for the community. Some are sticking with the unraveling mind set. We will see how this holds when the hospitals overflow.

[Mikebert]

(06-06-2020, 12:18 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(06-06-2020, 12:14 PM)Isoko Wrote: Ghost,

These feel more like 3T events. They occurred, they offered minimal change in terms of people's lives and disappeared as quickly as they came. I'm talking about big changes here that lead to a big climax and quite frankly 2008 onwards feels like one big 3T.

But wouldn't that be a huge 3T (1980-2020)?

That would create a 91-year saeculum instead of the usual 80-88 year saeculua proposed by Strauss and Howe.

The average length of the saeculum is 92 years.

You are ignoring the 15 turnings before 1773 (average  saeculum length 104 years) and focusing entirely on the 12 turnings after 1773 (average length 78 years).

[Mikebert]

(06-06-2020, 12:21 PM)Isoko Wrote: Ghost,

Personally I don't think the 3T started in 1980. I think the 3T started in 2001. The reason for this is that by Western standards, life from 1950 - 2001 was one of the greatest periods to be alive in. Up until 2001 I would argue that in essence people's lives were actually improving. It feels entirely more like one big 2T if I'm honest.

After 2001 things just kept on slowly getting worse for the West. I remember quite well how each year, the West started to become even more worse off. Yet the "Crisis" never came. Not until 2020. 

It goes against Strauss and Howe but must we all be dogmatic about this and accept it as the literal truth? Can deviations not at all be possible?

I agree with you about the 2008 4T start being questionable. But a 2001 data for the 3T start is off the wall. The 2T is an Awakening, a period of cultural instability, usually accompanied by sociopolitical instability:



It is clear that this period of instability was over long before 2001.

3T is an unraveling. It starts when the outer world beings to degrade. This usually means the power of the state starts to decline. The states power comes from to things, a flourishing economy, as measure of productivity and the fraction of the GDP the state can access, whiich may be measures by the ration of state revenue to GDP.

According to this paper, economic productivity began to decline to pre-4T levels around 1990 see Figure 2 in this link. I fit a polynomial to the Revenue/GDP data to obtain a truing point for when this quantity peaked. It was the mid-1980's. So I would put the start of the 3T somewhere between 1986-1993,  Based on a Boomer gen born 1946-64, I would put the 1T/2Y break in 1968. 

So I would date the current saeculum as:
1t 1946-1968 - 24 yrs
2t 1968-1992 - 24 yrs
3. 1992-2014 - 22 yrs
4. 2014-????

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2020, 06:33 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-06-2020, 12:18 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(06-06-2020, 12:14 PM)Isoko Wrote: Ghost,

These feel more like 3T events. They occurred, they offered minimal change in terms of people's lives and disappeared as quickly as they came. I'm talking about big changes here that lead to a big climax and quite frankly 2008 onwards feels like one big 3T.

But wouldn't that be a huge 3T (1980-2020)?

That would create a 91-year saeculum instead of the usual 80-88 year saeculua proposed by Strauss and Howe.

The average length of the saeculum is 92 years.

You are ignoring the 15 turnings before 1773 (average  saeculum length 104 years) and focusing entirely on the 12 turnings after 1773 (average length 78 years).

The Revolution period changed society and speeded up the saeculum. It was a different world after the Revolution (industrial, political, romantic)

The earlier saecula lasted longer because change was slow. The saeculum is a cycle; it is a hurricane. More water, warmer water, more energy = faster spin. Society suddenly got a whole lot bigger, with a lot more people no longer doing just what their fathers did, and a lot more people involved in politics and society. Generation gaps got bigger, therefore. Much higher population, and more freedom. Progress speeded up.

I think the saeculum has slowed down a bit recently. The 3T went on for 24 years. That was probably because the preceding turnings started too quickly because of events. Hitler invaded Western Europe for one last throw in the Battle of the Bulge. But the bulge collapsed, and after that Hitler had nothing left. Then the A-bomb destroyed the Japanese empire. World War II ended too quickly and so the 4T ended too soon. Then the JFK assassinated ended the 1T too soon as well. But the cycle remains the cycle, because the average lifetime length has not changed all that much, apart from less infant mortality. The 84-year length is pretty much baked-in.

But it could also be that progress has slowed. We may be reaching some kind of equilibrium. Revolution is more rare, and less drastic. Violence and war are decreasing overall. And people are living longer, which slows down the transition to new leadership, and the turnings are starting to drag on because of this. I've mentioned all this before.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-15-2020, 04:53 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: But it could also be that progress has slowed. We may be reaching some kind of equilibrium. Revolution is more rare, and less drastic. Violence and war are decreasing overall. And people are living longer, which slows down the transition to new leadership, and the turnings are starting to drag on because of this. I've mentioned all this before.

The revolution period was near the cusp of an age boundary. The printing press, gunpowder, steam engine and democracy altered the basic patterns of how human cultures worked. Many of the crises we have had since then are adjustments, moving into the new age.

But we switched ages again before many cultures adapted fully into the Industrial Age pattern. Already nukes, computer networks, and renewable energy is causing another transition.

So I would differ on our slowing down. Yes, democracy has replaced war as to how changes are made. Yes, machine guns, nukes and insurrections have made war less cost effective than in the past, making crisis war triggers more rare. Sensible leaders avoid conflict.

But slow down? Not if you judge by age boundaries. Each pattern of civilization lasts less long.

[Mikebert]

(06-15-2020, 04:53 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Revolution period changed society and speeded up the saeculum. It was a different world after the Revolution (industrial, political, romantic)

The earlier saecula lasted longer because change was slow. The saeculum is a cycle; it is a hurricane. More water, warmer water, more energy = faster spin. Society suddenly got a whole lot bigger, with a lot more people no longer doing just what their fathers did, and a lot more people involved in politics and society. Generation gaps got bigger, therefore. Much higher population, and more freedom. Progress speeded up.

I think the saeculum has slowed down a bit recently. The 3T went on for 24 years. That was probably because the preceding turnings started too quickly because of events. Hitler invaded Western Europe for one last throw in the Battle of the Bulge. But the bulge collapsed, and after that Hitler had nothing left. Then the A-bomb destroyed the Japanese empire. World War II ended too quickly and so the 4T ended too soon. Then the JFK assassinated ended the 1T too soon as well. But the cycle remains the cycle, because the average lifetime length has not changed all that much, apart from less infant mortality. The 84-year length is pretty much baked-in.

But it could also be that progress has slowed. We may be reaching some kind of equilibrium. Revolution is more rare, and less drastic. Violence and war are decreasing overall. And people are living longer, which slows down the transition to new leadership, and the turnings are starting to drag on because of this. I've mentioned all this before.

This is more of an ad-hoc rationalization of apparent changes in saeculum length, rather than an explanation.  I agree with you that turning length shortened after the Revolution, and then lengthened somewhat more recently.  I have an explanation for the recent lengthening (political actors are older today than in the past, stretching out the saeculum) but not for why the length should have changed in the late 18th century (it can't be the Revolution per se, because turnings in Europe also shortened).

[David Horn]

(06-14-2020, 06:33 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-06-2020, 12:18 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(06-06-2020, 12:14 PM)Isoko Wrote: Ghost,

These feel more like 3T events. They occurred, they offered minimal change in terms of people's lives and disappeared as quickly as they came. I'm talking about big changes here that lead to a big climax and quite frankly 2008 onwards feels like one big 3T.

But wouldn't that be a huge 3T (1980-2020)?

That would create a 91-year saeculum instead of the usual 80-88 year saeculua proposed by Strauss and Howe.

The average length of the saeculum is 92 years.

You are ignoring the 15 turnings before 1773 (average  saeculum length 104 years) and focusing entirely on the 12 turnings after 1773 (average length 78 years).

There's also the issue of the first major culture delta in the history of civilized man, when the Industrial Age emerged after 12 millennia of the Agricultural Age.  It's simply too important to ignore, and the post-AgAge is too brief a period (roughly three saecula) to be significant in any statistical sense.  So we're at a bit of a disadvantage from that perspective.  On the other hand, we're free to assume that the two are tightly linked or not.  I'm certainly in the loose-link camp.   It seems you're in the former. Since no one alive today will be around to see how this plays-out in the next 4 or 5 saecula, we should all be a bit more circumspect about dating turnings, until it's a bit more obvious. That said, your offered dates:

• 1t 1946-1968 - 24 yrs
  
• 2t 1968-1992 - 24 yrs
  
• 3t 1992-2014 - 22 yrs
  
• 4t 2014-????
  

are still possible.  But why 2014?

[Ghost]

(06-15-2020, 12:23 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-14-2020, 06:33 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-06-2020, 12:18 PM)Ghost Wrote:

(06-06-2020, 12:14 PM)Isoko Wrote: Ghost,

These feel more like 3T events. They occurred, they offered minimal change in terms of people's lives and disappeared as quickly as they came. I'm talking about big changes here that lead to a big climax and quite frankly 2008 onwards feels like one big 3T.

But wouldn't that be a huge 3T (1980-2020)?

That would create a 91-year saeculum instead of the usual 80-88 year saeculua proposed by Strauss and Howe.

The average length of the saeculum is 92 years.

You are ignoring the 15 turnings before 1773 (average  saeculum length 104 years) and focusing entirely on the 12 turnings after 1773 (average length 78 years).

There's also the issue of the first major culture delta in the history of civilized man, when the Industrial Age emerged after 12 millennia of the Agricultural Age.  It's simply too important to ignore, and the post-AgAge is too brief a period (roughly three saecula) to be significant in any statistical sense.  So we're at a bit of a disadvantage from that perspective.  On the other hand, we're free to assume that the two are tightly linked or not.  I'm certainly in the loose-link camp.   It seems you're in the former. Since no one alive today will be around to see how this plays-out in the next 4 or 5 saecula, we should all be a bit more circumspect about dating turnings, until it's a bit more obvious. That said, your offered dates:

• 1t 1946-1968 - 24 yrs
  
• 2t 1968-1992 - 24 yrs
  
• 3t 1992-2014 - 22 yrs
  
• 4t 2014-????
  

are still possible.  But why 2014?

To make it all even, it's probably going to look like this:

1T: 1945-1968
2T: 1968-1991
3T: 1991-2014
4T: 2014+

I think he chose 2014 because that was when SJWs and the alt-right started to rise (along with the right and left getting more polarized) along with ISIS, "incels", and Ukraine becoming issues.

[User3451]

There are so many mental backflips required to get to this idea that the 4T began this year in 2020.

The American High began 74 years ago! 

The core of this 4T did start in earnest around 2014. That's the regeneracy. 2020 is the beginning of the crisis.

[Eric the Green]

(06-15-2020, 07:08 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-15-2020, 04:53 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Revolution period changed society and speeded up the saeculum. It was a different world after the Revolution (industrial, political, romantic)

The earlier saecula lasted longer because change was slow. The saeculum is a cycle; it is a hurricane. More water, warmer water, more energy = faster spin. Society suddenly got a whole lot bigger, with a lot more people no longer doing just what their fathers did, and a lot more people involved in politics and society. Generation gaps got bigger, therefore. Much higher population, and more freedom. Progress speeded up.

I think the saeculum has slowed down a bit recently. The 3T went on for 24 years. That was probably because the preceding turnings started too quickly because of events. Hitler invaded Western Europe for one last throw in the Battle of the Bulge. But the bulge collapsed, and after that Hitler had nothing left. Then the A-bomb destroyed the Japanese empire. World War II ended too quickly and so the 4T ended too soon. Then the JFK assassinated ended the 1T too soon as well. But the cycle remains the cycle, because the average lifetime length has not changed all that much, apart from less infant mortality. The 84-year length is pretty much baked-in.

But it could also be that progress has slowed. We may be reaching some kind of equilibrium. Revolution is more rare, and less drastic. Violence and war are decreasing overall. And people are living longer, which slows down the transition to new leadership, and the turnings are starting to drag on because of this. I've mentioned all this before.

This is more of an ad-hoc rationalization of apparent changes in saeculum length, rather than an explanation.  I agree with you that turning length shortened after the Revolution, and then lengthened somewhat more recently.  I have an explanation for the recent lengthening (political actors are older today than in the past, stretching out the saeculum) but not for why the length should have changed in the late 18th century (it can't be the Revolution per se, because turnings in Europe also shortened).

Uh, I think the Revolution was mostly European.....

[Tim Randal Walker]

Come the 1T we may conclude that this 4T was non-standard/atypical, but a 4T nevertheless.

[David Horn]

(06-16-2020, 03:46 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: Come the 1T we may conclude that this 4T was non-standard/atypical, but a 4T nevertheless.

... or it may be the model for future 4Ts.  We can't live long enough to know, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.