(05-13-2017, 11:13 AM)Emman85 Wrote:(05-12-2017, 03:36 PM)Mikebert Wrote: The Boomer generation, who will age out of power by ca. 2025 are overseeing period that simply does not seem to be a 4T. We are 9 years into this social moment, which puts us like 1782, 1869, and 1938 in the last 4Ts. Were any of these years as "un-4t-like" as 2017? I would say no!
How is 2017 un 4T like, authoritarian populism won out in the US, the supply of order is low but the demand is rising, crime rates are low, birth rates are low, the generation gap is gone, civic trust is at a nadir(what one would expect in a pre regeneracy 4T). This is the most socially and politically tumultuous period in the US since the late '60s and '70s, the last "social moment", but all the trends I outlined are 4T trends.
Low crime is not a 4T indicator, at least not in the US:
![[Image: Crime-rates-fig.gif]](https://mikebert.neocities.org/Crime-rates-fig.gif)
It is true that the supply for order is low and the demand is high, but that has been true for a long time. Society continues to unravel.
As for 2T indicators we had 1st wave feminism two 2Ts ago, second wave in the last one, and now we are seeing third wave or "intersectional" feminism. Last 2T there was a movement calling for political rights for blacks, and today there is another one seeking the same thing. Gay liberation started out in the last 2T, but has achieved its greatest victory in this turning. The global warming movement can be thought of as a resurgence in the environmental movement initiated in the last 2T.
What you are *not* seeing are any rising movements emphasizing economic concerns. Even on the right, although they give lip service to the economic plight of white workers, the emphasis in on banning Muslims and other people of color from entering the country in order to preserve American culture. That is, social issues.
We have a president whose paranoia and habitual lying is being compared by his enemies to Nixon, following a president, who according to Skowronek's presidential typology, see as a pre-emptive president like Nixon was, who then is followed by a disjunctive type (Carter, Trump).
Since I see the 1896-1919 political moment as being of the "2T" type, another preemptive president, Wilson, was also a 2T president, as was Tyler. Pre-emptive presidents can occur in 4Ts but not as commonly (A Johnson was the only one) .
Finally, the rigging of the economy in favor of capital over labor happened in the last 2T and the riggers got away with it because everyone then was focused on social issue. Today we live with the consequences of that rigging and the focus is still on social issues.
Samuel Huntington developed a theory of political time in which there are periodic episodes of "Creedal passion". He identifies the 1830's the progressive era, and the late 1960's and early 1970's. Today observers on both the left and the right see the present era as possibly being another such period.
To get a 4T requires two things. It requires a dominant generation coming of age/coming into power (a social/political moment) and it requires a lengthy period of time before during which people begin to release that something is wrong organically with their society (a peak in inequality close to the start of this social moment).
Last cycle, the muckraker publications in the first decade of the 20th century marked the beginnings of this realization. People finally acted on this 25-30 years later. This cycle's version of the muckrakers might be books like "Nickel and Dimed" (2001). Today the plight of the working class described on both sets of works is only now dawning on people, making today closer to 1920 than 1932.
In 1912 a rising recessive generation was becoming awakened to the core issue of inequality. THey abandoned the corporatist Republican (Taft) and voted for a either a progressive Democrat (Wilson), a progressive former Republican (Roosevelt) or a Socialist (Debs). Wilson won and what followed was eight years of rising wages, and after 1916, falling inequality. Also massive violence, which was crushed by mass arrests and resulted in a return to normalcy (i.e. the status quo before WW I) by the conservative majority (today Donald Trump, then Harding) in 1920. By 1928 inequality was worse than ever.
When change came in 1932 you had Nomads who knew what the problems were and a rising generation of GI's whose youth had been influenced by this knowledge. When the crash hit in 1929, Communists and Socialists had well developed theories and the best available statistics on unemployment levels (obtained by surveys of union memberships). Government had neither and had to resort to hope. In such an environment it was possible for a charismatic Obama-like politician (FDR) to enact the sort of radical policies that had a chance of addressing the crisis.
This time the 2008 financial crisis took Millies by surprise. With no understanding of the crisis they put their faith in Obama and then failed to supply the push he himself said was necessary in his second slogan "We are the change we are looking for". There were no leftists pushing for radical solutions in 2008, only those on the right such as Austrians whose ideas fueled the Tea Party, and later the Alt Right whose ideas animate Trumpism. And now when it has come time for Millies to raise hell, what is it about? Social issues.
This is what you would expect if this social moment is developing along 2T lines.
