Trump as 4T Leader

[sbarrera]

I want to float the idea that Trump's tariff wars fulfill a Prophet archetype role. In the 4T, the Prophet leader is supposed to push society to resolve long developing issues of the 3T. The rise of China in unfair competition with the U.S. could be thought of as one such issue. Certainly many complained about it in the 3T. The loss of manufacturing jobs, the theft of intellectual property, human rights abuses - China is blamed for these.


Trump is confronting the issue with his trade war. The rising price of consumer goods and decline of the stock market that come with the tariffs are a sacrifice we as Americans must make in solidarity with our 4T leadership. That is also part of the Prophet's role in the 4T - demanding sacrifice.


Whether or not his policy will work, and whether or not he is a good person is not the point. The point is Trump is leading in a manner consistent with what turnings theory predicts for his generation in this turning.

[Mikebert]

T-his is true. But Trump's Trade War is in its nascent phase, and the economic issues to be resolved by this policy (and other things not yet addressed) will require time. The idea that the 2020 election could bring a flurry of change creating the structural change characteristic of a 4T in the next half dozen years allowing for an end to the 4T in the mid-2020's seems to me to be fantastical. There is no way progressive political forces will have the same legislative dominance in 2021 as they did in 2009. It seems a fools errand to expect structural change following the 2020 election.

Yet the accelerating disintegration of the ability of the American political system to deal with issues has become a pressing issue, which may need to be the central issue redressed by the 2020 election. Even if this happens, it does nothing to address the core issued needing redress from even before the turning began. It is increasingly hard to see how these issues could be even addressed much less resolved. before 2030. The reason for this is the lack of action in 2009, when Democrats had more power than they will likely seed for a couple of decades or more. 

Then when you combing this with an obvious turning change around 2000, it becomes  impossible to conceive of a single secular crisis turning consistent with modern generational length that can account for the beginnings of a police state in 2001 with the massive economic justice struggles that will have to take place in the 2020's. You cannot plausibly have an 17 yr turning (1929-46), an 18 year turning (1946-64), a 20 yr turning (1964-84) a 21 yr turning (1984-2005) with a 25+ year turning from 2005 to after 2030. It's too ad hoc.

[Warren Dew]

(08-24-2019, 01:46 PM)sbarrera Wrote: The point is Trump is leading in a manner consistent with what turnings theory predicts for his generation in this turning.

Absolutely.  In fact, Trump's victory in the 2016 election was a major victory for generational theory.

The major questions at this point are how the crisis war will start, and whether we'll be on the winning side or the losing side.

[pbrower2a]

Shaping a Crisis Era can be to the good (Abraham Lincoln) or to ill (Adolf Hitler).

[sbarrera]

(08-24-2019, 02:51 PM)Mikebert Wrote: T-his is true. But Trump's Trade War is in its nascent phase, and the economic issues to be resolved by this policy (and other things not yet addressed) will require time. The idea that the 2020 election could bring a flurry of change creating the structural change characteristic of a 4T in the next half dozen years allowing for an end to the 4T in the mid-2020's seems to me to be fantastical. There is no way progressive political forces will have the same legislative dominance in 2021 as they did in 2009. It seems a fools errand to expect structural change following the 2020 election.

Yet the accelerating disintegration of the ability of the American political system to deal with issues has become a pressing issue, which may need to be the central issue redressed by the 2020 election. Even if this happens, it does nothing to address the core issued needing redress from even before the turning began. It is increasingly hard to see how these issues could be even addressed much less resolved. before 2030. The reason for this is the lack of action in 2009, when Democrats had more power than they will likely seed for a couple of decades or more. 

Then when you combing this with an obvious turning change around 2000, it becomes  impossible to conceive of a single secular crisis turning consistent with modern generational length that can account for the beginnings of a police state in 2001 with the massive economic justice struggles that will have to take place in the 2020's. You cannot plausibly have an 17 yr turning (1929-46), an 18 year turning (1946-64), a 20 yr turning (1964-84) a 21 yr turning (1984-2005) with a 25+ year turning from 2005 to after 2030. It's too ad hoc.

If the Democratic party can't do it for wont of power, then it will be the Republican's 4T. Though I still think the change could happen remarkably quickly in just on election cycle. 2020-2024 could be insanely fast paced in terms of political change. It will be easier to tell with hindsight.

The obvious turning change in 2000 I do not see. I remember how we struggled on the old forum to decide if the turning had shifted after 9/11. I believe it did not. Just like WWI was not a turning change.

[sbarrera]

(08-24-2019, 03:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-24-2019, 01:46 PM)sbarrera Wrote: The point is Trump is leading in a manner consistent with what turnings theory predicts for his generation in this turning.

Absolutely.  In fact, Trump's victory in the 2016 election was a major victory for generational theory.

The major questions at this point are how the crisis war will start, and whether we'll be on the winning side or the losing side.

Yeah, 2016 was the first time I thought "Oh, so this is what a Fourth Turning is like..."

And I don't think there necessarily has to be a war simply because it is the Crisis Era.

[Warren Dew]

During the whole of the 2016 election, I was thinking, "okay, the polling data say Trump is going to lose ... but generational theory says he will win." I stayed on the fence, but it's clear I should have gone with generational theory.

We've never had a crisis era without a crisis war, but sure, there can always be a first time, I suppose. I'm not going to bet on it, though. I don't see a way for the elites to be winnowed without a war.

[Warren Dew]

Relevant to this topic:

At the G7, Trump is One of the Popular Ones

Shinzo Abe 48.8%
Donald Trump 43.3%
Justin Trudeau 41%
Angela Merkel 32%
Boris Johnson 31%
Emmanuel Macron 28%
Guiseppe Conte "just resigned, so ... don't think he can really be counted as riding on a wave of approval."

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articl...nd=opinion

[sbarrera]

(08-24-2019, 09:16 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Relevant to this topic:

At the G7, Trump is One of the Popular Ones

Shinzo Abe 48.8%
Donald Trump 43.3%
Justin Trudeau 41%
Angela Merkel 32%
Boris Johnson 31%
Emmanuel Macron 28%
Guiseppe Conte "just resigned, so ... don't think he can really be counted as riding on a wave of approval."

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articl...nd=opinion

This just in: "World hates its leaders."

[sbarrera]

Also relevant to this topic, this video that was posted as a comment on the FB version of this post. The signs were visible back in the 3T, in 2005.

[Hintergrund]

Maybe Trump is willing to do a trade war just like he was making wars for real estate in the past. Let's see whether the old Silent lobbyists can stop him from it or whether he'll make them drop dead from a heart attack first. Buffett (etc.) should be careful, a trade war could become more expensive for them than higher taxes.

[David Horn]

(08-24-2019, 02:51 PM)Mikebert Wrote: T-his is true. But Trump's Trade War is in its nascent phase, and the economic issues to be resolved by this policy (and other things not yet addressed) will require time. The idea that the 2020 election could bring a flurry of change creating the structural change characteristic of a 4T in the next half dozen years allowing for an end to the 4T in the mid-2020's seems to me to be fantastical. There is no way progressive political forces will have the same legislative dominance in 2021 as they did in 2009. It seems a fools errand to expect structural change following the 2020 election.

Yet the accelerating disintegration of the ability of the American political system to deal with issues has become a pressing issue, which may need to be the central issue redressed by the 2020 election. Even if this happens, it does nothing to address the core issued needing redress from even before the turning began. It is increasingly hard to see how these issues could be even addressed much less resolved. before 2030. The reason for this is the lack of action in 2009, when Democrats had more power than they will likely seed for a couple of decades or more. 

Then when you combing this with an obvious turning change around 2000, it becomes  impossible to conceive of a single secular crisis turning consistent with modern generational length that can account for the beginnings of a police state in 2001 with the massive economic justice struggles that will have to take place in the 2020's. You cannot plausibly have an 17 yr turning (1929-46), an 18 year turning (1946-64), a 20 yr turning (1964-84) a 21 yr turning (1984-2005) with a 25+ year turning from 2005 to after 2030. It's too ad hoc.

Yes, the real issues needing resolution are well outside the reach of any political movement in existence, and not quite pressing enough to force a change by some magic form of acclamation, so I agree.  We aren't likely to see an end to the crisis until it manifests in full, so what will that take?  A total collapse of the economic system seems far fetched, but maybe not in a decade or two.  Climate is changing unabated, but the pace isn't THAT fast.  Again, this looks like a 2050+ crisis, at least as we define a crisis today.  Loss of faith in our leaders is already well advanced, but no alternative has emerged to address issues in the political sphere.

In short, we seem to be screwed in the near term, and extremely exposed in the mid to long term.  Wonderful legacy we've deeded our progeny.

[David Horn]

(08-24-2019, 06:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Shaping a Crisis Era can be to the good (Abraham Lincoln) or to ill (Adolf Hitler).

A point not to be ignored.  If Trump is the leader of our 4T effort, we're in worse shape than I thought.

[Eric the Green]

(08-25-2019, 03:48 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-24-2019, 06:24 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Shaping a Crisis Era can be to the good (Abraham Lincoln) or to ill (Adolf Hitler).

A point not to be ignored.  If Trump is the leader of our 4T effort, we're in worse shape than I thought.

Yes. Trump is just some kind of barbarian or misfit who has taken over a successful country and his only effect will be to drive it to ruin. The 4T is, and has been ever since its coming in the days of Dubya, all about getting rid of the Republicans from power. That's the whole thing; they ARE the crisis, not in any way the champion. That's what I've been saying for many years here now. The 4T champions are the ones now rising up to throw him and his party out for good. Donald is just the logical and full conclusion of the whole Republican program; only on fair trade is he any different than the whole southern and trickle-down strategy since Nixon and Reagan. And he messes that one issue up too.

[Eric the Green]

(08-25-2019, 03:47 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-24-2019, 02:51 PM)Mikebert Wrote: T-his is true. But Trump's Trade War is in its nascent phase, and the economic issues to be resolved by this policy (and other things not yet addressed) will require time. The idea that the 2020 election could bring a flurry of change creating the structural change characteristic of a 4T in the next half dozen years allowing for an end to the 4T in the mid-2020's seems to me to be fantastical. There is no way progressive political forces will have the same legislative dominance in 2021 as they did in 2009. It seems a fools errand to expect structural change following the 2020 election.

Yet the accelerating disintegration of the ability of the American political system to deal with issues has become a pressing issue, which may need to be the central issue redressed by the 2020 election. Even if this happens, it does nothing to address the core issued needing redress from even before the turning began. It is increasingly hard to see how these issues could be even addressed much less resolved. before 2030. The reason for this is the lack of action in 2009, when Democrats had more power than they will likely seed for a couple of decades or more. 

Then when you combing this with an obvious turning change around 2000, it becomes  impossible to conceive of a single secular crisis turning consistent with modern generational length that can account for the beginnings of a police state in 2001 with the massive economic justice struggles that will have to take place in the 2020's. You cannot plausibly have an 17 yr turning (1929-46), an 18 year turning (1946-64), a 20 yr turning (1964-84) a 21 yr turning (1984-2005) with a 25+ year turning from 2005 to after 2030. It's too ad hoc.

Yes, the real issues needing resolution are well outside the reach of any political movement in existence, and not quite pressing enough to force a change by some magic form of acclamation, so I agree.  We aren't likely to see an end to the crisis until it manifests in full, so what will that take?  A total collapse of the economic system seems far fetched, but maybe not in a decade or two.  Climate is changing unabated, but the pace isn't THAT fast.  Again, this looks like a 2050+ crisis, at least as we define a crisis today.  Loss of faith in our leaders is already well advanced, but no alternative has emerged to address issues in the political sphere.

In short, we seem to be screwed in the near term, and extremely exposed in the mid to long term.  Wonderful legacy we've deeded our progeny.

Once it gets going, things will happen fast. Ocasio-Cortez may be the harbinger. And she can close her eyes and see a better day; she said so on her famous video. Not that's she's a future president, just an indicator of where things may go. For once a 4T change gets going, there's no telling how far it will go. The 2010s were always the 1850s redux. I've predicted that and said that for years here and elsewhere. The 2010s are the phony 4T. The real thing gets going next year and in the following 2 years. It reaches it climax at mid-decade, and only ends in 2028 or 2029. Again, just stick with what I have said, and it's all clear. No need for despair yet; no need to throw out any theories yet. 

Are we up to it? Well, the resistance is up and running. So we'll see if it can clear the blocks, and how fast. My prediction stands; they will be cleared, the 40-year stall will end and our nation will roll on forward.

[pbrower2a]

(08-24-2019, 10:05 PM)sbarrera Wrote: Also relevant to this topic, this video that was posted as a comment on the FB version of this post. The signs were visible back in the 3T, in 2005.

Ain't it the truth? I remember paying MSLP (manufacturer's suggested list price) at mom-and-pop merchants and having to decide whether what I got was worth the price. I had to decide whether something was truly better than what I already had, whether it fit in, and whether sticking with what I had was a viable alternative. One had to do some sort of cost-to-benefit ratio. If that ratio wasn't high enough, I did not buy it. Impulse purchases were strictly from the grocery store. Entertainment? It had to be good. A vacation? Likewise. 

Marketing was heavily making one like what one was getting. It's probably not original on my part, but happiness comes not so much from getting what one wants but instead in liking what one gets. I had the questionable experience of selling stereo equipment... and it seemed a good fit because I enjoyed the music that put the greatest demands upon a sound system. Classical, of course. Basically, if a string quartet (two violins, viola, and cello) do not sound good on speakers, then the speakers were crap. Put that combination is close to the ratio of the majority of instruments in a symphony orchestra. Other instruments are far easier to reproduce well, which explains the Big bands relying heavily on saxophones and brass instruments with an occasional clarinet, with of course the usual vocals. Those came off well enough on the radios and phonographs of eighty years ago -- unlike a string quartet. Glenn Miller did not write for string quartet, and for good reason.  With the pricey stereo speakers of the 1970's and 1980's, one could enjoy music for string quartet on a stereo. With the crap sold today at "Big Box Mart" that is impossible. But who needs music written for string quartet? One needs some education to recognize that music with a generic title can be delightful. 

But that was when young adults were buying stereo sets that cost as much as about a four-year-old used car. Those stereos were expensive. But if one bought them the right way, they were keepers. They almost never end up in sale in second-hand stores. 

So now we buy stuff from "Big Box-Mart", and we load ourselves with clutter. Garden gnomes, "Big-Mouth Billy Bass", memes as decorations ("Home is Where the Love Is" -- if everyone buys it it isn't imaginative to display it)... 

So you worked at a factory and lost your well-paying job because you bought stuff manufactured cheaply in China.. are you a schmuck? Sure. Or maybe you have lost meaningful alternatives. 

OK, we will probably end up with economic relations closer to those of the 1950's even if the technology is more sophisticated. Maybe we will insist upon individuality in our purchases, which could mean a boom in the most individual of all economic activities: the creation of honest-to-Degas art. OK, most of us will be stuck with not-so-great art, but we will at the least have some unique expressions in our houses. Maybe we will discover classical music again now that we have plenty of spare time in which to savor a Bruckner symphony. 

We will have to be selective shoppers just to avoid getting inundated with junk. Quality will matter not so much for its durability as for its quality and characteristic of not being disposable junk. The 1950's, a stereotypical 1T, were brutal to clutter, and I expect aesthetics to be similar in mass culture. People who endured the Great Depression had little use for throw-away stuff. 

At this point I go to "Big Box-Mart" and come home depressed much of the time. There isn't that much that I really want there. Something that has some complexity is unsuited to purchase there. I will not buy a computer, tires, or any sound equipment more sophisticated than a transistor radio there. (I did go there last night to get away from a family argument -- and you if live in a hick town you can go either there or to a bar at 9:30 PM. As I take medicines that preclude drinking, guess what was available? I bought... nothing. Even its book selection is incredibly awful).    

[pbrower2a]

...and, yes, this was from before the Panic of 2008. People do not seem so ebullient about shopping at "Big Box Mart" as they once were. On the other hand, Montgomery-Ward (which was its biggest competitor for its class of customers) went extinct, and other retailers seem to be dying too (Sears).

[Bill the Piper]

(08-24-2019, 03:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-24-2019, 01:46 PM)sbarrera Wrote: The point is Trump is leading in a manner consistent with what turnings theory predicts for his generation in this turning.

Absolutely.  In fact, Trump's victory in the 2016 election was a major victory for generational theory.

The major questions at this point are how the crisis war will start, and whether we'll be on the winning side or the losing side.

You can look it from another angle. Whether Clinton or Trump, the election of 2016 was destined to be a major victory for 90s nostalgia and going back to 3T values. Bernie would have been different, but he is a Silent. Ideally, Silents should have presided over 3T and Boomers over 4T, but in fact Boomers dominate both.

[David Horn]

(08-27-2019, 09:28 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(08-24-2019, 03:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-24-2019, 01:46 PM)sbarrera Wrote: The point is Trump is leading in a manner consistent with what turnings theory predicts for his generation in this turning.

Absolutely.  In fact, Trump's victory in the 2016 election was a major victory for generational theory.

The major questions at this point are how the crisis war will start, and whether we'll be on the winning side or the losing side.

You can look it from another angle. Whether Clinton or Trump, the election of 2016 was destined to be a major victory for 90s nostalgia and going back to 3T values. Bernie would have been different, but he is a Silent. Ideally, Silents should have presided over 3T and Boomers over 4T, but in fact Boomers dominate both.

Whether Trump wins a second term or not, we are officially a different country than we were in 2015.  If he loses in a major way, we'll almost certainly move in a progressive path.  If he wins, it will be the start of something authoritarian -- moreso than he's managed to date.  In either case, the election of 2016 was a watershed; we just aren't certain what kind.

I think we an discount both Biden and Bernie, so the next leg of the journey will be lead by a Boomer or an Xer.  Which will determine the tenor of the next few years, but it won't be path back to what was no matter who wins.  The American Century is done.

[Anthony '58]

Trump is a 3T leader from the word "Go."

His economics are classic 3T (despite the pack of lies he told to get elected), and the "scorched-earth Culture Wars" (S&H's own words) he wages are also classic 3T.