11-12-2020, 05:38 PM
(11-12-2020, 09:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Worth highlighting this video with Neil Howe
Some points where I agree. I have said to folks like Teejay who disagree, that the turnings and generations are becoming more global since the global war.
And of course, that we are half way through the fourth turning which began in late 2008. I think in fact that it is the date he preferred as the predicted date before the 4th turning began, but his partner insisted on 2005.
I think Mr. Howe is looking great, and he has a bit more insight that his partner William Strauss had. He has a better view of Awakenings too. But unfortunately, he did not have Strauss's willingness to interact with his readers and fans on forums like this. On the old forum he only made a few posts, and then finally shut it down. We could never get his backing for this newer version. I got to interview Mr. Strauss on the radio show I used to have. I wish I had a show now and I hope I could interview Mr. Howe.
But the interesting part is that I don't think he ever took thoughts coming from the old and new forum which improve his theory. But we have developed them here over the years. This includes the idea that there are cusps, in which those born a few years on either side of the boundary have something of the neighboring archetype in their generational makeup. Also, the idea of the double rhythm, which makes our 4T more akin to the civil war than world war II, although both involve a great economic crisis. Indeed it is a bit of a hard sell to compare our times, which are so fractured and unlikely to see our two sides get along, to the consensus and strength of institutions during the American High 1T in the 1940s to the early 60s. He tries here, but it falls pretty flat. And our attempts to resolve the civil war anomaly, which make our times more like the 1850s-- a much better comparison than to the 1930s and 40s, and still not the 1860s yet.
As Howe points out, we have divided ourselves even more sharply in this 2020 election, and have not resolved which Party will dominate and create the new consensus and make the great changes that 4Ts are supposed bring. Was this question resolved in 1855? No, not yet; and not yet today either. But as Howe points out, it would be in 1860, once the opposition party fractured and allowed Lincoln to take full power. Could this happen this time, Howe asks, if like with TR in 1908, a discredited but still popular Donald Trump runs again and can't defeat two opponents? He also forgets that there is a blue boomer contingent that also respects strong government action to solve problems, left over from sixties and seventies activism; we are not all just individualists, and this still makes some blue boomers and boomer/nomad cuspers gray champion material. But not, I have to always mention, Kamala Harris.
He makes an interesting predictive possibility that Republican governors may nullify regulations commanded by a national Democratic administration, as has happened before, and that this could be a spark for secession or civil war-like enforcement. What he does not mention is that it could happen the other way as well if the Republicans take power, and California wants to make stronger regulations about gas mileage, for example. He sees more engagement with allies abroad under a Biden administration. More interesting comments are made in the video.
In agreement with you on many points. I’m still not sure I accept the notion of a “double rhythm.” But I do understand the concept, and to some extent your rationale. Many pundits are, of course, tossing off the term “civil war” with increasing frequency. But at least in historical terms, civil war has usually involved armed conflict between two clearly defined sides. I don’t see a clear demarcation, especially geographically, as with the American Civil War. Virginia went “blue” politically years ago, and Georgia may not be far behind, two former states of the Confederacy. So even the old Mason-Dixon Line has been rubbed out.
Yes, there are various militia groups pining for civil war—or worse, a race war. (Take your pick.) But those groups are all over the place, with respect to their individual makeup and objectives. If armed insurrection does break out, it will likely be racialized violence with mass casualty targets, I fear. And that would be bad enough. But I doubt that that violence would escalate to the level of a civil war, and would likely be put down in relatively short order by state and local law enforcement—and federal forces, if need be.
If by “civil war” you mean a soft civil war between Democrats and Republicans, well, that’s been going on for some time now. The hyperpartisanship of the two parties and the electorate feels more like a Cold War, having dragged out for years with neither party able to sustain a unified government. And much like the Cold War between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, our Cold War is being fought with competing propaganda and proxies (e.g., Fox vs MSNBC, or “Hate, Inc.” as Matt Taibbi calls them). And as with the real Cold War, it will likely not end until one side has been so discredited as to go out of existence altogether. That’s the possibility I’m putting my money on.
I can somewhat see Howe’s speculation about nullification. We’ve had glimmers of that already during the pandemic. Suppose Biden issues a national mask mandate, but a Republican governor defies the executive order. What then? And even if said Republican governor complies, what about maverick mayors who refuse to go along? What we have, really, are Blue Islands in a Red Sea (Austin, TX) or Red Islands in a Blue Sea (Bakersfield, CA). How does that geographical dispersion of competing political affiliations conveniently sort itself out? Rich Republican Californians who move to my very red town for political solidarity can certainly afford to do so. As for those without the means to do the same, well, it’s “tough luck, Chuck.”
The last time we saw a mass migration of Americans from one region to another were the Okies fleeing the Dust Bowl for California during the Great Depression and, later, Blacks leaving the former plantation South for the industrial North after World War II, the latter of which was ostensibly motivated for both political and economic reasons. Given the recent decline in mobility, is that kind of mass migration even possible today?
Eric, by my own back-of-the-envelope calculations, I agree with Howe that this crisis era could well last another 10 years (2030) with additional crises developing along the way. Plenty of messy stuff can happen in the interval—another economic collapse, financial meltdown, constitutional crisis and, yes, even a war of whatever nature.