01-28-2017, 04:25 PM
Mike,
Some points. I do NOT see the turning cycle as operating on a global scale, I think it roughly corresponds to nation states. I am just noting that a lot of countries seem to have their cycles roughly aligned, most particularly Western Europe/the US outside Ireland.
I largely agree with your remaining assessment. Britain in the 1850s-1860s is unusual, in that it had lots of things going on overseas, but managed to avoid getting tangled in any of them. The Chartist movement kind of evaporated in this time frame, and the economy was booming (This period is generally thought of as the "Golden Age" of Victorian Britain.
So, since the US and Britain were presumably on the same secular track up through the Revolution, and then again with WWII, and have had similar social movements since (the 60s in both places, Thatcher/Reagan, Blair/Clinton, Trump/Brexit), we are left with the conclusion that Britain either decided to take the rest of the 19th century off, or it just had unusually competent leadership during the period when the rest of the West was in crisis, defusing both social movements like the Chartists and war scares with the US, France, Prussia, or what have you.
Take your pick.
Some points. I do NOT see the turning cycle as operating on a global scale, I think it roughly corresponds to nation states. I am just noting that a lot of countries seem to have their cycles roughly aligned, most particularly Western Europe/the US outside Ireland.
I largely agree with your remaining assessment. Britain in the 1850s-1860s is unusual, in that it had lots of things going on overseas, but managed to avoid getting tangled in any of them. The Chartist movement kind of evaporated in this time frame, and the economy was booming (This period is generally thought of as the "Golden Age" of Victorian Britain.
So, since the US and Britain were presumably on the same secular track up through the Revolution, and then again with WWII, and have had similar social movements since (the 60s in both places, Thatcher/Reagan, Blair/Clinton, Trump/Brexit), we are left with the conclusion that Britain either decided to take the rest of the 19th century off, or it just had unusually competent leadership during the period when the rest of the West was in crisis, defusing both social movements like the Chartists and war scares with the US, France, Prussia, or what have you.
Take your pick.