Political Cycle Model for Saeculum

[Mikebert]

Eric Wrote:Seems all correct. One thing to note is that Strauss and maybe Howe too compared 1919 to 2001 because the Wall Street bombing paralleled 9-11.

Of course I would extend the civil war 4T back to the early 1850s at least, and thus the preceding "crisis era" you interestingly describe back a bit further. I have never thought that a 5-year turning can be correct.

I had forgotten about the first point until you mentioned it, but you are right.

I know you extend the Civil War 4T back further than I or S&H do. I however, following Dave Krein, I extend the Civil War 4T forward to include Reconstruction. I adopted this before I came up with the political cycle model, as did your old sparring partner Brian Rush, Requiescat in pace.

With the development of the model the issue becomes more urgent. If we move up the start of the Civil War 6-10 years, we move up the 2T start up the same amount from ca. 1894-96 to ca. 1886, which is exactly when S&H have it. But if we have the dominant generation starting to come of age then, then given that national leaders averaged age 55 in the 1910’s, the generation that started to come of age in 1886 came to power in 1919. The problem of the crisis era (inequality) had been first identified by Jacob Riis in 1890, and a crisis trigger was present the revolutionary situation in 1919. So why did no 4T occur? According to the S&H theory, the reason must be that the constellation was not present. But if the Civil War 4T began a decade or more earlier, this constellation would have been present. You see, changing the turning/generational designation of the past has repercussions on the future turnings/generations. The idea that a 4T could have begun before 1860 is inconsistent with what happened afterward, according to the S&H theory.