(01-06-2017, 03:49 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:Quote:I am talking about the S&H model not M&T. They are different.
I know what you are talking about. I was referencing Britain's 4T during that period, which on the homefront wasn't particularly dramatic. There was what, the Crimean War (pushing towards the 3T/4T boundary), the Indian Mutiny (which didn't really affect the average Britain) and... what?
Quote:Of course things will change. Obama's world was different from Clinton's and Bush II's different from his father's (as he found out).
What I am pointing out is the possibility that the country doesn't change according to T4T model.
Which would preclude an endless repetition of Bush, Obama, Bush, Obama, which is what I was arguing against. As to the notion that T4T would be a dud? Sure, it's possible. I don't see why you're so fixated on it, though, other of course than disappointment that Obama's presidency didn't seem to realign the country the way you might have hoped.
So what do you really want to talk about? What if nothing happens?
None of these things. Change can happen and it not be a dud. We can even have something that folks will call a 4T, but it might not be consistent with the theory.
The idea that there is a cycle that S&H call the saeculum, and the generational theory are two different things. One of these can be true and not the other, or neither could be true, or both could be true. What I am suggesting is that this last possibility, that both are true is a lot less likely to be true today than it was in 2000 when I first came to the S&H site. In 1991 S&H had detected the nomad/hero transition from a distance of 9 years suggesting that these transitions would be evident in less than a decade after the fact. They had identified the current era as the inner-directed era (which they would later call a 3T) which implied that the next period would be a secular crisis (later called a 4T). They forecasted this transition for 2003.
Now the 4T turning in the American nation (which has always been their focus*) have been distinctive. Within half a decade of the trigger, major structural changes had occurred. Big events like 911 can serve as 4T triggers, but the fact that the Bush-inaugurated changes were not retained by successors like the Reagan, FDR or Lincoln changes were argues against a 4T starting in 2001. Obama came in as an anti-Bush and not as a continuation like Bush I/Clinton or Truman/Eisenhower did after Reagan and FDR, respectively. Trump and the entire Republican party has very much promised to undo the Obama era. Do you think they are lying? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Trump plans on undoing the Obama changes as much as possible and starting his own new program. If he is not lying (and I see no reason to believe that he is) Trump will be the start of a new era. His election, a surprise like 911 and the financial crisis, is a potential trigger. If what he does gets traction with the public (and this will take some time to happen) the THAT would be a regeneracy. If so, it will follow a short period after the trigger just like the
three previous 4Ts.
*Note they did not call GenX the 17ers (they are the 17th of the generations listed in Generations). Instead they called them the 13ers as they were the 13th American generation, that is the generations that were born in the 3 complete saecula ending in the Revolutionary, Civil War and Depression 4Ts, plus the not yet complete Millennial saeculum.