Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Political Cycle Article
#1
Great read!

https://medium.com/@mishaley/how-history...04e6ac19bd
Reply
#2
(01-23-2020, 07:26 PM)jleagans Wrote: Great read!

https://medium.com/@mishaley/how-history...04e6ac19bd

We've been discussing this for some time here. Quote:

The next President of the United States will be a transformational progressive. This person will shape American politics for the next 40 years. Here’s why.

As a first generation American, I’ve always loved learning U.S. history. I use presidents to help me remember what happened when. Since 2016, I’ve been thinking about a) historical cycles, b) what Trump tells us about where we are, and c) what history tells us about where we’re going.

I started by framing elections in terms of disruptive cycles, and which presidents represented a transformational era change. The ones who defined the political conversation for the next several decades. Going backwards, it seems like the consensus is: Reagan (1980), FDR (1932), TR (~1900), Lincoln (1860), Jackson (1828), and Washington (1788).

With the era starters set, I looked at the presidents in-between. I noticed patterns in how major parties trade off control. Based on my understanding of what each president represented, I noticed some archetypes repeat. And that era duration was somewhat predictable.

I’m a tech entrepreneur, and alum of MIT, Berkeley, and McKinsey. So naturally, I used all that data to built a model in a spreadsheet. I do try to be objective, but full disclosure that I personally lean left. Here’s the model, and then I’ll explain more about Roles and Eras.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#3
(01-23-2020, 07:26 PM)jleagans Wrote: Great read!

https://medium.com/@mishaley/how-history...04e6ac19bd

Excellent! For those who despair of the offensive, catastrophic Presidency of Donald Trump, this gives hope. 

I see Donald Trump is Jimmy Carter without the intelligence, integrity, moral compass, and personal decency: without those, Jimmy Carter would have been an unspeakable nightmare as President. 


[Image: 1*rsLtaO-QNose1nHfP1FjDA.png][Image: 1*0HOKJOYuMNAjnSXamOKkzw.png]

Maybe it is not comfortable to compare Barack Obama to Richard Nixon; if anything I would more likely compare him to Dwight Eisenhower for being similar in temperament and style and having squeaky-clean administrations. Obama proves to have been more of a hawk than Eisenhower -- then again, Osama bin Laden was still an infant when "the torch has been passed to a new generation". It could be the difference between a Civic type who thought wrongly that he could get away with almost anything (Nixon) as long as he got the desired results and a mature Reactive (Obama) who knew that he could get away with practically nothing -- as House and in turn Senate majorities for the other, increasingly-authoritarian Party made clear. That is a generational difference.  

Going back to the establishment of the Constitutional union:

[Image: 1*2yCJlqfTZPaSQ8Grq_8fjw.png]


The Founding era may be unclear, but it is safe to say that 

(1) each political era ranges from 32 to 48 years
(2) of them make a generational cycle out of Howe and Strauss
(3) each political era begins with either great promise (Awakening era) or great threat (Crisis era)
(4) the last leader of the era is a tired or pathological expression of what started the era.  

So Washington establishes the norms of the Republic and John Quincy Adams is as far as it can go before a populist, Jacksonian era that never tolerates a meaningful challenge to the cancer of chattel slavery. Jackson was a colorful populist and James Buchanan tried to keep the Republic from (imploding? exploding?) by appeasing the slave interests (Hey, Northerners -- you can keep your liberal ideas, but you must enforce the reality of slavery by arresting fugitive slaves!) Lincoln won the Civil War and restored the Union by treating the defeated South in as kindly a way as possible; the industrial basis that gave the North a compelling edge in the Civil War fostered the rise of Gilded Age plutocrats who fostered economic and technological progress that those plutocrats arrogated for themselves in a winner-take-all system. By the time of Teddy Roosevelt, America needed to drop its social myopia and its tolerance for bad business (child labor, horrible patent medicines, free-for-all for polluters)... and got the change. Had TR not done that, then maybe Taft would. Theodore Roosevelt's modest reforms petered out with the return of politics of the disastrous Harding-Coolidge-Hoover return to a "New Era" best compared to another Gilded Age with a bit more gilding. That Little Gilded Age ended with something commonplace in the Gilded Age -- a speculative boom that led to the very nasty economic meltdown that always ensues. (Paradoxically FDR took much from the Progressive Era and enhanced it, so he may be more a throwback to Theodore Roosevelt than to Woodrow Wilson... but that is practically a quibble.

The oddity about Nixon seemed that he was more a throwback to Teddy Roosevelt in his agenda than to Gilded Age or New Gilded Age politics. Reagan started America in earnest into the neoliberal ethos in which enrichment of economic elites would become the sole economic purpose while deprecation of the intellect (OK, "Bright Boy" Carter couldn't solve everything, so if people want to believe in young-earth creationism, snake-handling, "Flood geology", and a mythological history of America such as that the Founding Fathers were closet Fundamentalists even if the word Fundamentalism did not appear in the lexicon until 1926 and that the Founding Fathers were often best described as Deists) -- fine. If one wanted to be a dolt in the Individualist Era, then such was as much an expression of individualism as was indulging oneself like an aristocrat on executive compensation... or having a huge audio-video collection.

If Dubya seems like a telescoping of the three awful Presidencies of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover into eight years with a costly and inconclusive war thrown in, and Obama seems to have tried to be another FDR... Trump is beyond any question a moral and political disaster. Trump is Ronald Reagan (even down to possible senility) with far more personal cruelty, less regard for legal niceties, more contempt for learning and expertise, and no loyalty except to his own self esteem. Trump has been appeasing some nasty dictators overseas much as Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan appeased the slave-owning planters; I do not see that going well. 

With the exception of McKinley (who came close to being a one-term President, if through assassination instead of electoral defeat), the last Presidents in these cycles are one-term Presidents, Presidents associated with something tired (J Q Adams, Carter), unworkable (Buchanan, Hoover) or corrupt (Trump). Corruption and incompetence on the scale of Donald Trump is rare at the federal level in America; even at the state level it is not good for staying in office. We have no precedent for Trump for his scale of corruption, cruelty, and incompetence. 

Maybe I lack the imagination to see how Trump can redeem himself and establish himself as a pattern for the next forty or so years... but it is now about time for a President who can break some of the objectionable patterns of American life, make life good for more Americans, and create a consensus that completely repudiates what the Individualist Era became -- starting with a flawed, if transformational President and ending with a sick parody of the transformational President of the era. America will want an antithesis of Trump very soon if not already. The generational constellation is ill suited for any maintenance of exploitative individualism of the Trump style.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#4
Rating the Presidents:



Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Rankings[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]I wondered how this structure would align with the presidential rankings that historians do. So I graphed the average rank for each president from a list of major studies since 1982. Looks randomly distributed:[/color]

[Image: 1*EqTtFqZ3NSVOFWUeUl1SQw.png]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]But when we separate Eras, and give a trendline for each, we see something interesting. Each Era starts with a higher ranked president, then trends down. The pattern’s consistency may indicate that there’s something here.[/color]

[Image: 1*HCltvUMdZDle4qOKwbCcQw.png][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)][url=https://miro.medium.com/max/2818/1*HCltvUMdZDle4qOKwbCcQw.png][/url][/color]

 [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]One note on the Realignment Era. The reason it looks different is Johnson and McKinley. Johnson was bottom-tier, immediately following top-tier Lincoln, early in the Era. This happened because of assassination, not election. McKinley, as mentioned earlier, kind of straddled Eras, got assassinated, and was a mid-tier president who doesn’t really fit the bottom-tier Ender Role. If you remove those outliers, the trend line looks like the others.[/color]

(OK -- between Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, the federal government had a far-slighter role in America life than in subsequent times, so in general in the Realignment Era, the Presidents neither achieved much nor did much harm. It's not until about 1900 that the technologies of motion pictures, electric lights, phonographs, telephones, and automobiles become widespread enough to force radical change upon most aspects of life, including politics. 

Another anomaly is that what looks like the second-to-last President of the Individualist era (Obama) is the second-best of the lot (I expect that to stick!), but the fall from Reagan to Trump is as precipitous as any, and not even Obama can break (or brake) that trend. I expect Donald Trump to be acknowledged for a long time as one of the worst Presidents ever. His achievements are slight and his damage severe. Whether he is acquitted or removed, he will be despised except among those who share his ideology nearly 100% or show a love for roguish characters as leaders. I see little chance that he will be re-elected; I see him more likely to die in office (obesity, bad diet, age, and possible dementia).

So what if Pence becomes President due to removal, death, or resignation of Trump? He is very much part of the Individualist pattern, if with a huge infusion of religious extremism. He would be a poor match for what the author sees as characteristic of the Humanist era.  Pence is no secular humanist.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#5
(01-23-2020, 09:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-23-2020, 07:26 PM)jleagans Wrote: Great read!

https://medium.com/@mishaley/how-history...04e6ac19bd

We've been discussing this for some time here. Quote:

The next President of the United States will be a transformational progressive. This person will shape American politics for the next 40 years. 
-- so you're saying Bernie will win then
Heart  Bernie/Tulsi 2020    Heart
Reply
#6
(01-25-2020, 01:29 AM)Marypoza Wrote:
(01-23-2020, 09:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-23-2020, 07:26 PM)jleagans Wrote: Great read!

https://medium.com/@mishaley/how-history...04e6ac19bd

We've been discussing this for some time here. Quote:

The next President of the United States will be a transformational progressive. This person will shape American politics for the next 40 years. 
-- so you're saying Bernie will win then

No, that is what the theory referred to by jleagans and also discussed here before says.

If the theory is correct though, I would think it would follow-- IF the next president is chosen in 2020 (if Trump is not re-elected, or Pence doesn't become the "next president" after Trump's re-election)

If 2024 is when this "next president" will be elected, then it could be McAuliffe or Landrieu.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#7
(01-25-2020, 02:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-25-2020, 01:29 AM)Marypoza Wrote:
(01-23-2020, 09:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-23-2020, 07:26 PM)jleagans Wrote: Great read!

https://medium.com/@mishaley/how-history...04e6ac19bd

We've been discussing this for some time here. Quote:

The next President of the United States will be a transformational progressive. This person will shape American politics for the next 40 years. 
-- so you're saying Bernie will win then

No, that is what the theory referred to by jleagans and also discussed here before says.

If the theory is correct though, I would think it would follow-- IF the next president is chosen in 2020 (if Trump is not re-elected, or Pence doesn't become the "next president" after Trump's re-election)

If 2024 is when this "next president" will be elected, then it could be McAuliffe or Landrieu.

-- then l think l like jleagan's theory
u do know Louisiana pols r corrupt af right?
Heart  Bernie/Tulsi 2020    Heart
Reply
#8
(01-25-2020, 01:29 AM)Marypoza Wrote:
(01-23-2020, 09:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-23-2020, 07:26 PM)jleagans Wrote: Great read!

https://medium.com/@mishaley/how-history...04e6ac19bd

We've been discussing this for some time here. Quote:

The next President of the United States will be a transformational progressive. This person will shape American politics for the next 40 years. 
-- so you're saying Bernie will win then

Who will win in 2020 is not clear, but the President inaugurated in 2021 (unless Pence for a very short time until the expiration of the Trump term) will find going along with a drastic reform of the American political and economic order will be infinitely more satisfying and successful than standing in the way. Figure that the GOP would lose a raft of Senate seats, some that seem highly unlikely now. We will be ready for a 2020's version of the New Deal. America will fully repudiate the neoliberal ideology that has dominated political discourse and economic orthodoxy since 1980 (just make the rich richer and let everyone else make sacrifices on their behalf, and all will turn out well) that ensured monopolization, vertical integration, outshoring of industrial production, marginalization of small business, and exorbitant levels of executive compensation  all to be rewarded with tax cuts for the Master Class. For those whose adult lives began just before 1980, life has often not improved from the conditions that we saw as stopgaps.

The one thing that is certain: Donald Trump is more a relic of the disreputable past than a portent of any future. 

Donald Trump will be repudiated as no other President in the past.   Even Buchanan was shown to have had benign intentions that he could not make work. All that would have satisfied the slave-owning interests would have been the expansion of slavery, not only in the USA but perhaps also into Mexico and Cuba and what was then British North America (now Canada). Hoover was personally a good and upright person, but he simply had the wrong political orthodoxy for the time. Trump stands more of the same failure, only harder. Trump will be hated for his corruption, cruelty, and for his debasement of the mind. 

The Millennial Generation is just getting its start in electoral politics at a high level.  They are getting their starts as Congressional Representatives, mayors, state Governors, and US Senators. If X, Boomers, and the surviving Silent are similarly about 5% more R than D, Millennial voters are about 20% more D than R. Of people over 55, typically about 1.5% die off each year or go senile  and thus drop out of the electorate; meanwhile, most of the new voters will be Millennial and Homelander. To be sure, Homelander adults (which will start to include people born in the Double-Zero decade) will eventually spin off from the Millennial Generation in time, the first wave of an Adaptive generation follows the political and cultural lead of the Civic (Millennial) generation. The new voters at least this time will be heavily Millennial, and that will be enough to flip many Congressional districts and States. 

Trump fits Millennial values of rationality, equality, integrity, intellectuality, responsibility, and fair play as badly as any President  that any of us can remember. He is the expression of the ideology perfectly fitting the Individualist era -- one in which one is free to have one's own reality and in which no human suffering can ever be too severe if it enforces, yields, or indulges elite gain. If one wants to be proudly and aggressively stupid, then such is fine in the Individualist age, but such paradoxically leads to pointless conformity within polarized communities. 

Humanist ways will mostly succeed on their own without difficulties of promotion.  Figure that the American economy will work better for people not in the elite, especially in places that have been economically ravaged. It will not take gentrification to make places like some seemingly-dying urban wrecks to revive. People will not have to go to high-rent cities just to get good opportunities. America might begin to look more like America in the 1950's (but without Jim Crow, the male chauvinism, homophobia, and a red scare, and with better infrastructure (Interstate highways instead of the infamous Blood Alleys) in place. 

Americans will find ways in which to deal with the end of scarcity. I expect changes in tax laws so that small business gets breaks, and vertically-integrated trusts and monopolies get taxed more heavily. I expect higher taxes on executive compensation.  We might have heavier taxes on conspicuous consumption, which could include low-brow Kitsch... if anything, I would expect even taste in  interior decoration to become more austere as more of life becomes "virtual" so that people no longer need huge displays of the wares of their consumerism. Such is a consequence of the technologies that emerged in the Individualist Era. 

People will be streaming their music, video, and reading instead of collecting recordings and books. I forget which science-fiction author suggested this (Clarke? Asimov? Heinlein? Bradbury?) said that at some point the distinction between the well-off and the pauper will be that the pauper has clutter and that the fortunate person will have a tasteful, if austere, image in interior design. More people have the need to downsize instead of any desire to accumulate. To be sure, smaller living space per capita is likely to play a role. People reasonably well off will be buying art to fit in... maybe artists will not be 'starving'.

Some things will be scarce, such as gemstones, precious metals, and places with waterfront views. But consider this: even if one lives in a thoroughly un-scenic place and especially in an inside apartment with no outward-facing window, one will at least have a virtual window and have an enviable view of (if such is one's taste) the Pacific coast near Big Sur -- or perhaps Central park in New York City or Boston Commons -- or Mount Everest -- or even outer space from the space telescope if you so desire. That is one way to deal with the class distinction of the old distinction of the value real-estate (location, location, location!).  Maybe if you are to be punished you will be compelled to have a view onto an automobile wrecking yard... 

Material scarcity allowed people to live well by meeting scarcity through industrial work. That is over. People need less of a material base, and most of what they will be buying will be irreducible consumables such as food and fuel, or replacements for things that go broke or obsolete. 

We could be on the brink of the Marxist dream of communism. No, not quasi-Stalinist regimes, and not the quack demagoguery of such types as Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro. The defining feature of communism as Marx saw as a human achievement was the end of poverty and scarcity. Capitalism as Marx knew it used grinding poverty as a tool of command and control, and even if the commanders and controllers of the Individualist era have been more bureaucratic elites than the old-fashioned tycoons, the need for poverty as a means of getting people to do jobs that they loathe under fear of people who see Humanity other than itself as livestock at best and vermin at worst will vanish. People will need to spend far fewer hours at work than they used to do just to meet their needs (and in the last forty years indulge a cruel and rapacious Master Class).

Oddly this can be scary. Cutting back on work hours has been a commonplace threat of employers against employees. But what if such is necessary to meet the economic reality of economic efficiency that we thought possible only in science-fiction novels? What if we no longer need to show off luxuries to show that we are doing well?

It may be that the capitalist system has achieved the material conditions necessary for Marx' dream in ways that central planning could never do. Maybe people will do things because they like it. Maybe people will keep learning because such is more satisfying than playing mindless video games or watching celebrities on the idiot screen. People will be able to block time so that they can take cheap travel to locations that they think interesting. 

Multitudes are finding the current deal between the elites and us insufferable and absurd. That largely describes the current reality. Individualism and individuality are very different things. Individualism has people competing for the means of survival; individuality means expression of self. Individualism enforces rigid conformity, and individuality is the antithesis of conformity in abject fear.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#9
(01-25-2020, 09:27 AM)Marypoza Wrote:
(01-25-2020, 02:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-25-2020, 01:29 AM)Marypoza Wrote:
(01-23-2020, 09:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-23-2020, 07:26 PM)jleagans Wrote: Great read!

https://medium.com/@mishaley/how-history...04e6ac19bd

We've been discussing this for some time here. Quote:

The next President of the United States will be a transformational progressive. This person will shape American politics for the next 40 years. 
-- so you're saying Bernie will win then

No, that is what the theory referred to by jleagans and also discussed here before says.

If the theory is correct though, I would think it would follow-- IF the next president is chosen in 2020 (if Trump is not re-elected, or Pence doesn't become the "next president" after Trump's re-election)

If 2024 is when this "next president" will be elected, then it could be McAuliffe or Landrieu.

-- then l think l like jleagan's theory
u do know Louisiana pols r corrupt af right?

It's a good theory.

No, Landrieu is not corrupt.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#10
(01-23-2020, 07:26 PM)jleagans Wrote: Great read!

https://medium.com/@mishaley/how-history...04e6ac19bd

This is basically Skowronek's Presidential time cycle. It also dovetails with Key's critical election cycle. Only problem is he missed Jefferson, which is usually given as one of these transitional points.

A good way to identify Transformer presidents is by noting presidents who began a string of three or more terms won by their party. This gives:

1788 Washington, Federalist, 3 terms
1800 Jefferson, Democratic-Republican, 6 terms
1828 Jackson, Democratic, 3 terms
1860 Lincoln, Republican, 6 terms
1896 McKinley, Republican, 4 terms
1932 Roosevelt, Democratic, 5 terms
1980 Reagan, Republican, 3 terms

The one exception to this rule is 1920, which also began a string of 3 GOP terms in a row, but did not start a new era.

The elections 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932 and 1980 are known as critical elections.

The scheme presented has some problems due to its attempt to hold to a 40 year period. For example, it has Republican McKinley as an Ender of a Republican era, when the very next president is his Republican VP, which is a continuation of the era. Similarly, it has JQ Adams as an Ender of the Federalist Era, while Adams was not a Federalist. Then there is the Reimaginer, which is Party A's second wind. Good examples are Kennedy-Johnson and GW Bush. But this category also incudes James Madison, who was not from party A (Federalist) but rather a co-founder of the opposing party. Finally the Precursor to the next president does not work for Monroe, and it is missing entirely from the progressive era.

Adding Jefferson as a Founder-type (Reconstructive in Skrowneks scheme) helps with some of these problems. Also Skowronek has only four kinds of presidents: Reconstructive (Transformer), Disjunctive (Ender), Articulative (Party A presidents between the start and end of the cycle corresponding to Continuer and Reimaginer types) and Premptive (party B presidents inside the cycle corresponding to Triangular & Precursor).

Basically, an Articulative president articulates Party A's message. As long as it works, presidents form the A party will be articulative.  If it articulation no longer works, they will try to retool it. If they fail they become a Disjunctive president like J Adams, JQ Adams, Pierce-Buchanan, Hoover, and Carter. Such presidents at then followed by a Reconstructive (Transformer) president from Party B.

If they succeed, they will start as new cycle as a new Transformer-type (e.g. McKinley-Roosevelt).

Now it is clear that Trump did not run as an Articulative president, he basically rejected the neoconservative consensus coming out of Reagan's muscular foreign policy. Therefore he is rolling the dice. If he & Pence succeed they will become new Transformer-type presidents like McKinley-Roosevelt. If Trump fails he will be Disjunctive/Ender type like Pierce-Buchanan, and Democrats will begin a new cycle.

Or, Trump could win in 2020, followed by Democrats in 2024 & 2028, and a Republican in 2032, ruling out any Transformer president. This would invalidate the cycle.
Reply
#11
I believe it is not a good idea to look at individuals to understand history, it's a huge distraction. This was the Achilles' heel of Generations and The Fourth Turning, since Strauss & Howe tried to guess individual life paths and failed in this regard. Individuals are interesting to review and discuss about, but like I said, they can distract from the larger movements of the masses. To make a metaphor out of this: individuals are the spices of history, but definitely not the main ingredient.

But it is fruitful to look at how generations have voted on average. This stat is from my generational hormone theory's chapter 3.2.7, indicating that breastfeeding levels can predict generational voting averages:

[Image: Generations-voting-breastfeeding-2.png]

The red boxes correlate with each other in regard to birth cohorts. (Source) Blue and red colored areas indicate predominantly leaning sections. Middle section of Boomer generation is only the exception inside the red box by being a left-leaning birth cohort. The idea is that the less a baby/child receives physical and social attention from the parents, the more likely he or she will have right-wing ideological views. This is because oxytocin is the bonding hormone, and less physical contact as a child leads to less oxytocin receptors. Breastfeeding levels indicate the amount of oxytocin the parents have, thus affecting their parenting intensity style, and the breastfeeding statistics correlates with the graph from Generations.

[Image: type-of-nurture.png]

I've added the turnings and generations afterwards for clarity.

It's important to note that the breastfeeding statistics largely correlate between Western nations, with Eastern Europe lagging by about 15 years, just like their generations do (this depends largely how far to the East you go, Russia is lagging by about 20 years in the statistics).
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#12
Breast-feeding looks as if it has a connection to cultural values. I suspect that around 1932, when GI adults started to take over from the Lost as the majority of mothers, that the 'scientific' consensus in America was that the use of 'sophisticated' baby formulas were preferable to 'primitive' breast-feeding. Breast-feeding in public became a violation of cultural norms -- oh, how terrible it is that a woman would show a nipple even when such was feeding a child. The social attitude was something like "Quick! Get that baby a bottle!"

Around 1970, when the counterculture became influential in raising children, something so "scientific" as highly-refined baby formulas started going out of vogue. I remember in my college days that Nestle Corporation got into the same league as war contractors in winning the affection of young adults for pushing baby formulas in the Third World as "scientific", "sophisticated", and "modern" as the trend was toward breast-feeding in America.

Formula feeding is more complicated, and of course more lucrative. Nobody makes money off breast-feeding, but Big Business certainly can in selling baby formula. Over time, America has become much more tolerant of breast-feeding. It is simpler and better -- if possible.

The prime era for formula-feeding seems over. There is likely but one such time in human history -- unless corporate power can use the political process to compel the lucrative norm of formula-feeding as somehow 'patriotic' -- that is, loyal to the economic elites that really rule at the time. Formula-making and even formula-preparing both rely heavily upon energy use, and that may prove a compelling reason to weed it out.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#13
(01-25-2020, 02:08 PM)Mikebert Wrote:
(01-23-2020, 07:26 PM)jleagans Wrote: Great read!

https://medium.com/@mishaley/how-history...04e6ac19bd

This is basically Skowronek's Presidential time cycle. It also dovetails with Key's critical election cycle. Only problem is he missed Jefferson, which is usually given as one of these transitional points.

A good way to identify Transformer presidents is by noting presidents who began a string of three or more terms won by their party. This gives:

1788 Washington, Federalist, 3 terms
1800 Jefferson, Democratic-Republican, 6 terms
1828 Jackson, Democratic, 3 terms
1860 Lincoln, Republican, 6 terms
1896 McKinley, Republican, 4 terms
1932 Roosevelt, Democratic, 5 terms
1980 Reagan, Republican, 3 terms

The one exception to this rule is 1920, which also began a string of 3 GOP terms in a row, but did not start a new era.

The elections 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932 and 1980 are known as critical elections.

The scheme presented has some problems due to its attempt to hold to a 40 year period. For example, it has Republican McKinley as an Ender of a Republican era, when the very next president is his Republican VP, which is a continuation of the era. Similarly, it has JQ Adams as an Ender of the Federalist Era, while Adams was not a Federalist. Then there is the Reimaginer, which is Party A's second wind. Good examples are Kennedy-Johnson and GW Bush. But this category also incudes James Madison, who was not from party A (Federalist) but rather a co-founder of the opposing party. Finally the Precursor to the next president does not work for Monroe, and it is missing entirely from the progressive era.

Adding Jefferson as a Founder-type (Reconstructive in Skrowneks scheme) helps with some of these problems. Also Skowronek has only four kinds of presidents: Reconstructive (Transformer), Disjunctive (Ender), Articulative (Party A presidents between the start and end of the cycle corresponding to Continuer and Reimaginer types) and Premptive (party B presidents inside the cycle corresponding to Triangular & Precursor).

Basically, an Articulative president articulates Party A's message. As long as it works, presidents form the A party will be articulative.  If it articulation no longer works, they will try to retool it. If they fail they become a Disjunctive president like J Adams, JQ Adams, Pierce-Buchanan, Hoover, and Carter. Such presidents at then followed by a Reconstructive (Transformer) president from Party B.

If they succeed, they will start as new cycle as a new Transformer-type (e.g. McKinley-Roosevelt).

Now it is clear that Trump did not run as an Articulative president, he basically rejected the neoconservative consensus coming out of Reagan's muscular foreign policy. Therefore he is rolling the dice. If he & Pence succeed they will become new Transformer-type presidents like McKinley-Roosevelt. If Trump fails he will be Disjunctive/Ender type like Pierce-Buchanan, and Democrats will begin a new cycle.

Or, Trump could win in 2020, followed by Democrats in 2024 & 2028, and a Republican in 2032, ruling out any Transformer president. This would invalidate the cycle.

Even if 1920 led to three Presidents, one of those became President due to a "death in the family" -- the family of Warren G. Harding. Whether Harding would have been re-elected after the breaking of the Tea Pot Dome scandal is a matter of speculation. OK, so he would have resigned in favor of Coolidge? What looks like an exception isn't so much one. 

It could also be that such technologies as automobiles, motion pictures, phonographs, radios, electric lights, and telephones -- and such patterns as the near-abolition of child labor, extension of schooling, female suffrage, great reductions of illiteracy, and urbanization --  have so changed the cultural patterns of modern life in the early twentieth century so that political life has changed irreversibly.  Later innovations such as television and the internet basically supplant the use of the radio; people use cell phones much as they used landline phones; people may replace incandescent lights with LED or other technologies that are more efficient. I did not mention cooking equipment, but even something like a microwave oven does much that a conventional oven does. The new technologies of roughly 100 to 120 years ago forced cultural changes of the sort that we have not since known. (OK, we have outlawed Jim Crow practice and have come to accept homosexuality as mainstream -- but such is simply morally right).

Should Donald Trump be re-elected (I cannot imagine him being re-elected in a free and fair election!) then something has broken the theory. In view of the despotic character of Donald Trump, such would be about as sharp a break in the American political heritage as Commie takeovers were in Central and Balkan Europe in the 1940's. (Paradoxically, Commie dominance of political life throughout that area was about as long as one of the aforesaid cycles, but such certainly does not apply to China [70 years under CCP rule and counting], North Korea [about 75 years and counting], northern Vietnam [70 to 75 depending on the definition, and counting] or Cuba [60 years and counting]. Commie rule in southern Vietnam and in Laos [45 years and counting] is approaching a long Skowroneck cycle. 

Would Trump solidify the Individualist Era or cause it to morph into something new (and definitely not improved) --  authoritarian, and blatantly undemocratic order? I could easily imagine such an order becoming as harsh in its means of repression as Communist, fascist, Ba'athist, or monarchical-absolutist regimes. A veneer of democracy in the form of rigged elections or elections in which few can participate might remain, but meaningful opposition would be outlawed, co-opted, or marginalized.   

I have my own grounds for hope. Americans have historically shown little tolerance for political corruption even in "safe" districts against wave elections (think of former Representative William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, the only incumbent Congressional  Representative from the Democratic Party to lose a re-election bid during the near-landslide of Barack Obama in 2008, because he took bribes)... and Governor Thomas Corbett, the only Republican incumbent Governor to lose in the 2014 wave (Jerry Sandusky and the Penn State football scandal)... Trump could lose in a 2010- or 2014-style wave for Republican politicians. Second, Trump's approval ratings have been horrid for an incumbent President throughout his first term, and he needs an incredible rally to draw even close to winning re-election. Third, such a word of vilification of left-leaning tendencies (socialism) has lost its sting among younger voters. Fourth, the assessments of professional historians that he is inexcusably awful demonstrates that he will win little more than the partisan base of the GOP. 

Trump looks like an "Ender" in accordance with the theory -- someone who has taken an ideology to its extreme while it has become 'tired', while generational change guts the recent support, and who has proven unable to prevent chaos. Trump is not simply an awful human being, so it is not  a matter of replacing him with a different variety of the same ideology, the "new wine in an old skin". (Mark 2:22 -- the new wine will ferment and tear the old skin asunder, or traces of the old wine and its stale yeasts will contaminate and debase the new wine). The ideology itself is tired, and a more energetic exponent of the same ideology will bring failure just as severe. 

Trump has tried to add a new spirit to the Individualist Era, but his innovations are a calamity.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#14
(01-26-2020, 07:35 AM)Ldr Wrote: I believe it is not a good idea to look at individuals to understand history, it's a huge distraction. This was the Achilles' heel of Generations and The Fourth Turning, since Strauss & Howe tried to guess individual life paths and failed in this regard. Individuals are interesting to review and discuss about, but like I said, they can distract from the larger movements of the masses. To make a metaphor out of this: individuals are the spices of history, but definitely not the main ingredient.
What Strauss and Howe did was study a lot of biographies and then developed a theory about the movements of the masses. It successfully predicted the nature of the millennial generation and the coming of the 4th turning. That is all they predicted.

Quote:[Image: Generations1.jpg]
https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-conten...tions1.jpg
Blue and red colored areas indicate predominantly leaning sections. Middle section of Boomer generation is only the exception inside the red box by being a left-leaning birth cohort.
I have often referred to this chart and can't always find it, so thanks for posting.

I don't agree with your theory, and never could, but it is a typical civic tendency to prefer physical explanations for social behavior so I'm sure you can probably make it work pretty well for those who accept this premise.

What I notice about the Skowronek cycle is that transformational presidents are elected during 4th turning crises and 2nd turning awakenings. This can happen pretty much anytime during the turning. Historically, the Awakening transformative presidents have been lower on the scale of historian opinion, and less transformative, than the Crisis ones. This cycle does jell with the S&H turnings cycle.

The Fourth Turning and Generations authors have always predicted a transformational president during the fourth turning. They called him or her a gray champion. It remains to be seen whether (s)he will appear in 2020 or 2024.

The new cycle beginning soon should be called Green, not Humanist.

Humanism is a relic of Renaissance times.

Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions occurred at the start of some of these eras: 1861, 1901 and 1981. There is one in Dec. 2020.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#15
OK, Green Humanist might fit.

The next era will be much less material simply as a consequence of technology. The late Paul Fussell wrote the book Class, relating the distinct behaviors of the social classes in America. Back then in the 1970's class distinctions were more strictly cultural than they are now.  Fussell had nine classes:

1. Upper Out-of-Sight -- very old money among people usually very secretive about their presence.
2. Upper -- generally inherited income to the exclusion of all else, including professional and business income. If it does work it is slight and well remunerated, a function of ownership (corporate directorships, at one time politics).
3. Upper middle -- really, rich, having made its fortune in its own lifetime and still active in business, the higher professions, and perhaps entertainment or culture. Upper ranks in the Armed Services (Generals and Admirals)
4. Middle -- successful small-business owners, "lower" professions (engineering, dentistry, accountancy, research scientists, computer programmers), successful salespeople and junior executives, school teachers

===== THERE IS NO LONGER A REAL LOWER-MIDDLE CLASS* =====  

Three categories of the working class  

5. Upper proletarians -- skilled workers, blue-collar supervisors, nurses, police officers, fire-fighters, mechanics, medical technicians
6. Middle proletarians -- semi-skilled workers  such as machine operators (cabbies, truck drivers, bus drivers; boat captains, aircraft pilots, heavy-equipment operators and train engineers are skilled workers) and assembly-line workers, workers paced by machines
7. Low proletarians -- unskilled workers, janitors, retail sales clerks, servants, warehouse workers, orderlies, agricultural laborers, even if their work is only seasonal

... then the down-and-out

8. the Destitute -- persons living on welfare or disability payments; people with suspect sources of income such as begging or illicit income (bootleggers, fences, drug dealers, bookmakers making illegal income) who avoid being institutionalized
9. the Bottom Out-of-Sight  -- persons incarcerated or institutionalized for extreme handicaps, the senile and insane, and convicted criminals  

Few of us know the top two classes, and  the bottom two are people that most of us try to avoid. It's not income; highly-skilled workers can at times earn as well as the upper middle class. But income less shapes culture than one might expect. A plumbing contractor and a college professor might have similar incomes -- but one might rather travel around in an RV to mass-marketed experiences (amusement parks and gambling casinos) while the other might prefer going on an archaeological dig in Turkey or witness Buddhist temples for oneself in Thailand. A suggestion: don't match the two on a date; they will clash for having little in common. The costly RV might impress blue-collar workers, but not the intelligentsia. If you prefer a sailboat to a motorcycle, then you probably can't relate to people who prefer the other. 

The working classes are well distinguished among each other for differences in living conditions more than culture. High proletarians are proud of what they do, perhaps conflating themselves with "professionals". Mid-proletarians generally hate their work and wish they could do something else, but when Fussell wrote his book they were the largest class in America by far. Low proletarians live feast-or-famine lives, either working to exhaustion at raw labor or being laid off regularly and often.

The middle class and upper middle class are distinguished by the purposes of their college educations; the middle class is the class of employees who think that they can Make It -- but never will. Advertising shapes their purchases as is not so with the Upper-Middle Class. The Middle Class buys lots of questionable "collectibles".

Television watching, Fussell notes, increases with falling class from the Top Out of Sight to the destitute. If the upper two have a TV, it is on rarely or it is for "the staff". The Upper Middle typically has other uses for its time, like sailing, golf, or skiing, and watches TV selectively (as for a news event or golf). The Middle tries to 'elevate' itself with its viewing, but still watches too much for its own good. The working classes find television tailor-made for their sensibilities because that is where the numbers are and that is where advertisers want to be.  Besides, low-proletarians might be able to afford no other entertainment. The bottom two classes often have nothing better to do. Television for them might be a pacifier. 

*The old lower middle class consisted heavily of people who had 'solid' education suitable for white-collar work when high-school graduation was still special -- until perhaps the 1950's. Clerks used to have above-average income, but now they are simply working stiffs. Thus an entry operator is now mid-proletarian because he really operates a machine. Schoolteachers were largely lower-middle-class before teaching credentials became more rigorous in their demands, and teachers went into the true middle class.     

..............................

The conventional status symbols that marketers now push will be less distinguishing -- and more likely, indicting of gullibility and the increasingly-suspect commodity fetish. Experiences will matter more, and the great fear of many will be to be a bore. The thirty-year collection of National Geographic magazines? You will be able to get those all on disk -- and already can. Collectible plates and Hummel figurines? Worthless!
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#16
As I recall, it was once pointed out that 4T has the most potential for transformation, with 2T a distant second. Or to put it another way, you can get reform during 2T, but the most dramatic outer world changes tend to come with 4Ts. Which would help to explain why the 4T transformers are higher rated than 2T ones.
Reply
#17
(01-26-2020, 06:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't agree with your theory, and never could, but it is a typical civic tendency to prefer physical explanations for social behavior so I'm sure you can probably make it work pretty well for those who accept this premise.

What specifically don't you agree with in the theory?

In chapter 5.1 it is shown how population wide testosterone and estrogen levels correlate with Strauss & Howe's observations about the gender gap being a part of the 80 year cycle, are you saying that this is just a coincidence? Hormone levels modulate animal behavior, so are you saying that humans are an exception, and human behavior isn't affected by hormone levels?
Generational hormone theory: https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Reply
#18
(01-27-2020, 11:40 AM)Ldr Wrote:
(01-26-2020, 06:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't agree with your theory, and never could, but it is a typical civic tendency to prefer physical explanations for social behavior so I'm sure you can probably make it work pretty well for those who accept this premise.

What specifically don't you agree with in the theory?

In chapter 5.1 it is shown how population wide testosterone and estrogen levels correlate with Strauss & Howe's observations about the gender gap being a part of the 80 year cycle, are you saying that this is just a coincidence? Hormone levels modulate animal behavior, so are you saying that humans are an exception, and human behavior isn't affected by hormone levels?

We've been over this before. Yours is a physicalist theory. I don't subscribe to that world view.

Your theory seems based on unwarranted conclusions and wide, over-generalizations, and lacking in human research and more based on animal behavior.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#19
(01-28-2020, 12:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(01-27-2020, 11:40 AM)Ldr Wrote:
(01-26-2020, 06:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't agree with your theory, and never could, but it is a typical civic tendency to prefer physical explanations for social behavior so I'm sure you can probably make it work pretty well for those who accept this premise.

What specifically don't you agree with in the theory?

In chapter 5.1 it is shown how population wide testosterone and estrogen levels correlate with Strauss & Howe's observations about the gender gap being a part of the 80 year cycle, are you saying that this is just a coincidence? Hormone levels modulate animal behavior, so are you saying that humans are an exception, and human behavior isn't affected by hormone levels?

We've been over this before. Yours is a physicalist theory. I don't subscribe to that world view.

Your theory seems based on unwarranted conclusions and wide, over-generalizations, and lacking in human research and more based on animal behavior.

I have to agree that we are a long distance from being a predictable result of our hormonal stew.  Life is far more complicated than that.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#20
(01-26-2020, 08:04 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: As I recall, it was once pointed out that 4T has the most potential for transformation, with 2T a distant second.  Or to put it another way, you can get reform during 2T, but the most dramatic outer world changes tend to come with 4Ts.  Which would help to explain why the 4T transformers are higher rated than 2T ones.

Much so. The stakes are higher, and the behavior that precipitates a 4T disaster becomes discredited. OK, the political pathology that manifested itself in the 2008 meltdown won a political revival... only to become more ruthless, rapacious, corrupt, and domineering.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Prabhat Sarkar and his social cycle pbrower2a 35 4,458 10-30-2019, 09:09 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  A broken cycle? Bill the Piper 69 4,851 08-22-2019, 08:18 AM
Last Post: Hintergrund

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)