(08-27-2016, 05:47 PM)Einzige Wrote: Assuming that the GC has any validity as a concept as outlined in The Fourth Turning, it isn't applicable to either Clinton or Trump.
The Book (doesn't one feel like a Friend of Bill, discussing it that way?) is pretty specific that what makes a Grey Champion a Grey Champion is overwhelming support from the ascending generation.
Thanks for the clarification. The Wide Awakes conform to your description. And I'll buy that FDR had strong support amongst youth because of his stance as a wet. I don't see how this concept maps into Ben Franklin or Sam Adams, GC's of the Revolution. Washington had it, but he is explicitly NOT a GC. And it certainly does not apply to the definitional GC archetype, Hawthorne's Gray Champion, upon which the concept is based. I would suggest overwhelming Hero support just one of the properties GCs tend to have.
In any case, Obama would qualify on this account, and Clinton is essentially running as Obama's third term (she has not presented a vision of her own). She will win the Millennial vote regardless of their lack of enthusiasm (and just how enthusiastic were GIs about FDR in 1940 after eight years of shitty job prospects). If she is successful she could still gain enthusiasm from the Obama coalition in 2020. If she is not then Republicans will have one last chance to win the next half-saeculum.
If Clinton fails to address the economic problem, making her a one term president, and her successor fails as well, which certainly seems possible, then this will require a re-examination of this 4T. In this case we will have two large problems (terrorism and economic collapse) emerge in rapid success, neither of which were addressed effectively by either party. In this case there is no reason to differentiate between the two issues, and go with the fact that in 2001 there began "an era...when people perceive that historic events are radically changing their social environment" (Generations p 71). That puts the 4T start in 2001 and means it would come to an end early in the 2020's as a "failed" 4T.
On the other hand, that resolution is achieved by Clinton or a successor, then the two problems will be different in that one (terrorism) was NOT successfully addressed, while the other (economic) was. In this case it would make sense for the first unsuccessfully-resolved problem to be part of a 3T and the second one being part of a 4T, so we would see the 4T start in 2008 in which case it could run until close to 2030.
Here's how I see the economic problem. It is similar to last 4T. The solution last time was stimulus combined with a number of other policies we don't have in place now. In rpg terms, Bill Clinton left us a Rod of Stimulus with three charges. (The Rod was Al Gore's "Lockbox"). Bush expended the first charge to no effect. Obama expended the second charge to save himself from certain defeat in 2012, but at the cost of a Republican takeover everywhere else besides the Presidency. There is only one charge left. Either Clinton or Trump is going to get that item. Trump is promising to expend it futilely as Bush promised to do (and then did). Clinton is keeping mum. Hopefully she is biding her time, but who the hell knows?