I'm a sceptic that the 4th Turning started in 2008

[TeacherinExile]

This article appeared today in the Project Syndicate and RealClearMarkets.com. Regardless of when you date the beginning of this Fourth Turning, there should really be little argument that a full-blown crisis is underway now, one that shall surely usher in a new civic order. The summary of the article below pretty much accords with my own view of the colossal crisis in which America—and indeed, much of the world—now finds itself.

The Triple Crisis Shaking the World

Jun 26, 2020JOSCHKA FISCHER

More than just a public-health disaster, the COVID-19 pandemic is a history-defining event with far-reaching implications for the global distribution of wealth and power. With economies in free-fall and geopolitical tensions rising, there can be no return to normal: the past is passed, and only the future counts now.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commen...er-2020-06

Just passing through—for now...

[David Horn]

(06-29-2020, 10:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-29-2020, 10:14 AM)David Horn Wrote: If we look back at how the previous triggers were defused and responses arrayed against each other, it's not surprising that it took something straight forward and devastating as watching a man die in front of us to overcome the ability of the manipulators to manipulate, though the RW talking heads are still giving it their best. I think 2008 was the real trigger, and the replay we're in now is making that clear.  That said, I still have a hard time knowing where this goes beyond the 2020 election.  Dems are notorious for dropping the ball.

2008 was not the real trigger.  It did not make the new values, a regeneracy or the crisis heart nigh on inevitable.  Obama chose not to go after the Wall Street people, and lost the congress, thus the endless red - blue debate went on.

A catalyst, sure.  It shaped how everybody viewed the economy.  The trigger, no.

Like Mike, I use those terms interchangeably.  In any case, this is a perfect example of the use of perception management.  After the Uber Bankers and Czars of Wall Street managed to drive the economy into the ground, they got what they needed to rebound, then sold the public on the idea that the debt was too high and it was time to do less.  They've done the same this time.  So far, the economy seems not adequately important to trigger outrage.  That doesn't bode well for that problem being addressed in more than a perfunctory manner during this 4T.  Unfortunately, the other issues arise from the maldistribution of wealth, so they may be papered over as well.  If so, we may be back to viewing a failed 4T.  On the other hand, doing less for the average person this time may lead to catastrophic failure of the economy, with far to little money chasing goods and services.  

We'll have to see whether the Dems can actually deliver for a change.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-29-2020, 11:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: Like Mike, I use those terms interchangeably.  In any case, this is a perfect example of the use of perception management.  After the Uber Bankers and Czars of Wall Street managed to drive the economy into the ground, they got what they needed to rebound, then sold the public on the idea that the debt was too high and it was time to do less.  They've done the same this time.  So far, the economy seems not adequately important to trigger outrage.  That doesn't bode well for that problem being addressed in more than a perfunctory manner during this 4T.  Unfortunately, the other issues arise from the maldistribution of wealth, so they may be papered over as well.  If so, we may be back to viewing a failed 4T.  On the other hand, doing less for the average person this time may lead to catastrophic failure of the economy, with far to little money chasing goods and services.  

We'll have to see whether the Dems can actually deliver for a change.

I believe there is a big difference between the two sort of events. One illustrates that there are major flaws in the existing system. The other results in a commitment to switch to the new values, a regeneracy and the crisis core. By no means did we switch firmly to the new values in 2008. Most of what Obama did was undone with the approval of his base by Trump. Was it significant? Yes. Did it make a transition to the new values inevitable? No.

[User3451]

(06-29-2020, 11:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(06-29-2020, 10:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-29-2020, 10:14 AM)David Horn Wrote: If we look back at how the previous triggers were defused and responses arrayed against each other, it's not surprising that it took something straight forward and devastating as watching a man die in front of us to overcome the ability of the manipulators to manipulate, though the RW talking heads are still giving it their best. I think 2008 was the real trigger, and the replay we're in now is making that clear.  That said, I still have a hard time knowing where this goes beyond the 2020 election.  Dems are notorious for dropping the ball.

2008 was not the real trigger.  It did not make the new values, a regeneracy or the crisis heart nigh on inevitable.  Obama chose not to go after the Wall Street people, and lost the congress, thus the endless red - blue debate went on.

A catalyst, sure.  It shaped how everybody viewed the economy.  The trigger, no.

Like Mike, I use those terms interchangeably.  In any case, this is a perfect example of the use of perception management.  After the Uber Bankers and Czars of Wall Street managed to drive the economy into the ground, they got what they needed to rebound, then sold the public on the idea that the debt was too high and it was time to do less.  They've done the same this time.  So far, the economy seems not adequately important to trigger outrage.  That doesn't bode well for that problem being addressed in more than a perfunctory manner during this 4T.  Unfortunately, the other issues arise from the maldistribution of wealth, so they may be papered over as well.  If so, we may be back to viewing a failed 4T.  On the other hand, doing less for the average person this time may lead to catastrophic failure of the economy, with far to little money chasing goods and services.  

We'll have to see whether the Dems can actually deliver for a change.

2008 and it's aftermath was an opportunity to make those big, structural, economic changes, but Obama went back to the 3T well for solution

Now it's coming around again, and ignoring the problem or distracting the plebs with woke politics, or blaming Trump just so they can go back to 3T solutions, those paths lead to disaster. 

2008 is an opportunity to change, we refused. Now it's do or die imo

And yes, allt these racial issues ultimately spring from material circumstances. Anyone who disagrees is probably an unapologetic neoliberal and wants to prolong the 3T again

[David Horn]

(06-29-2020, 10:47 AM)TeacherinExile Wrote: Just passing through—for now...

A short stay but a welcome one. Come by often.

[David Horn]

(06-29-2020, 01:27 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(06-29-2020, 11:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: Like Mike, I use those terms interchangeably.  In any case, this is a perfect example of the use of perception management.  After the Uber Bankers and Czars of Wall Street managed to drive the economy into the ground, they got what they needed to rebound, then sold the public on the idea that the debt was too high and it was time to do less.  They've done the same this time.  So far, the economy seems not adequately important to trigger outrage.  That doesn't bode well for that problem being addressed in more than a perfunctory manner during this 4T.  Unfortunately, the other issues arise from the maldistribution of wealth, so they may be papered over as well.  If so, we may be back to viewing a failed 4T.  On the other hand, doing less for the average person this time may lead to catastrophic failure of the economy, with far to little money chasing goods and services.  

We'll have to see whether the Dems can actually deliver for a change.

I believe there is a big difference between the two sort of events.  One illustrates that there are major flaws in the existing system.  The other results in a commitment to switch to the new values, a regeneracy and the crisis core.  By no means did we switch firmly to the new values in 2008.  Most of what Obama did was undone with the approval of his base by Trump.  Was it significant?  Yes.  Did it make a transition to the new values inevitable?  No.

Like Mike, you assume that progress must be at least approximately linear.  There can be progress in retrenchment too.  Take the Affordable Care Act.  It was hated by most until it came under fire by the Trumpists.  At best, it's a lukewarm solution to a blazing hot problem, but one that was intractable for decades. Now, it's accepted that some intervention in the insurance market is a must. So place the marker.  Was the act of creation the greater or lesser contributor to progress?

Then set the marker. Here I agree with Mike: nothing happens immediately. It's hard to organize a true change of any kind, and the greater the change, the more complex the organizational challenge.  I put the initiating date in immediate proximity to the financial collapse in '08. That the war went silent for a while doesn't change that.  It also fails to predict success or failure.

[Mikebert]

(06-29-2020, 10:14 AM)David Horn Wrote: Your points are all well taken, but this era is also different in both the tools to affect change and the tools to resist it.  There is a field know as perception management that exists solely to manipulate the thinking of people susceptible to being manipulated -- frankly, most of us.

Manipulation works when politics remains about the abstract, as it usually is. But what makes a crisis a crisis is politics ceases to be abstract. This  pandemic is a real thing. In the last month some elites have tried to make it political, that is abstract--you don't have to wear a mask, you can go to crowded indoor venues and nothing bad will happen to you. Cases are now rising rapidly, while deaths are flat. Will that remain the case? If it doesn't, the rising cases will become a real thing.

Right now people who lost their jobs are getting generous unemployment. That ends in a month. I doubt everyone will be back at work, so people will no longer have income. They will not be able to pay rent. They will either be evicted or the landlord will suffer a loss in income and will be unable to service the mortgage. Either they go bankrupt or the banks will have large numbers of non-performing loans. The banks will become insolvent or the Fed will bail them out with created money. But if this happens, why should ANYONE pay their rent, or their debts? Just renege, and the Fed will put up the cash. You cannot run a society, much less an economy if nobody has to be responsible anymore.

The government could decide to have the common people bear the entire burden--let millions lose their homes and have to move in with their relatives, who will resent it. Perception management will not make that reality go away. People know they have been getting checks. When that stops they will notice it.

Quote:If we look back at how the previous triggers were defused and responses arrayed against each other, it's not surprising that it took something straight forward and devastating as watching a man die in front of us to overcome the ability of the manipulators to manipulate, though the RW talking heads are still giving it their best. I think 2008 was the real trigger, and the replay we're in now is making that clear.  That said, I still have a hard time knowing where this goes beyond the 2020 election.  Dems are notorious for dropping the ball.

If Dems drop the ball then 2020 will just be another potential trigger that didn't trigger anything. The shit will keep hitting the fan and there will be more potential triggers. In some ways one might say were entered a crisis era in 1860 and did not leave it until 1942.

[David Horn]

(06-29-2020, 03:49 PM)User3451 Wrote: 2008 and it's aftermath was an opportunity to make those big, structural, economic changes, but Obama went back to the 3T well for solution

Now it's coming around again, and ignoring the problem or distracting the plebs with woke politics, or blaming Trump just so they can go back to 3T solutions, those paths lead to disaster. 

2008 is an opportunity to change, we refused. Now it's do or die imo

And yes, all these racial issues ultimately spring from material circumstances. Anyone who disagrees is probably an unapologetic neoliberal and wants to prolong the 3T again

Success breeds success. Failure is no different in that regard. So the trick is not to shoot for the unacceptable, because the support you think you have will pull away from too large an ask. Then again,. don't ask for less than the people are willing to give either. In other words, there's risk on both sides.

[Marc Lamb]

(06-30-2020, 02:59 PM)Mikebert Wrote: If Dems drop the ball then 2020 will just be another potential trigger that didn't trigger anything. The shit will keep hitting the fan...

Just a few observations here:

1. Gosh, that 18-year cycle keeps getting longer and longer!

2. What? We be 4T only when a "grey champion" from the Democrat Party suddenly appears? Guess that cycle really is "political."

3. Cheer up. 2020 may turn like 1928, and the Democrat Party can then finally wipe those evil Republicans off the face of the map. lol

[beechnut79]

That didn't happen until 1932. Took the Great Depression to get it done.

[David Horn]

(07-15-2020, 05:58 PM)Marc Lamb Wrote:

(06-30-2020, 02:59 PM)Mikebert Wrote: If Dems drop the ball then 2020 will just be another potential trigger that didn't trigger anything. The shit will keep hitting the fan...

Just a few observations here:

1. Gosh, that 18-year cycle keeps getting longer and longer!

2. What? We be 4T only when a "grey champion" from the Democrat Party suddenly appears? Guess that cycle really is "political."

3. Cheer up. 2020 may turn like 1928, and the Democrat Party can then finally wipe those evil Republicans off the face of the map. lol

Gee, humor.  I guess you're in better spirits, though why is a total mystery.  The entire Republican Party is operating in self-destruct mode, and you seem fine with it.  That's a nice change.

[Eric the Green]

(07-16-2020, 09:07 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-15-2020, 05:58 PM)Marc Lamb Wrote:

(06-30-2020, 02:59 PM)Mikebert Wrote: If Dems drop the ball then 2020 will just be another potential trigger that didn't trigger anything. The shit will keep hitting the fan...

Just a few observations here:

1. Gosh, that 18-year cycle keeps getting longer and longer!

2. What? We be 4T only when a "grey champion" from the Democrat Party suddenly appears? Guess that cycle really is "political."

3. Cheer up. 2020 may turn like 1928, and the Democrat Party can then finally wipe those evil Republicans off the face of the map. lol

Gee, humor.  I guess you're in better spirits, though why is a total mystery.  The entire Republican Party is operating in self-destruct mode, and you seem fine with it.  That's a nice change.

Marc Lamb is back? Maybe Classic Xer now has some company!

[pbrower2a]

(07-15-2020, 05:58 PM)Marc Lamb Wrote:

(06-30-2020, 02:59 PM)Mikebert Wrote: If Dems drop the ball then 2020 will just be another potential trigger that didn't trigger anything. The shit will keep hitting the fan...

Just a few observations here:

1. Gosh, that 18-year cycle keeps getting longer and longer!

2. What? We be 4T only when a "grey champion" from the Democrat Party suddenly appears? Guess that cycle really is "political."

3. Cheer up. 2020 may turn like 1928, and the Democrat Party can then finally wipe those evil Republicans off the face of the map. lol

A Crisis ultimately forces big changes in politics, ways of personal life, and geopolitical reality. It is invariably at some stage a repudiation of the political and economic behaviors that precipitated the Crisis. The free-wheeling plutocracy going into 1929 was lost beyond recovery by the end of the Crisis of 1940... and the free-wheeling plutocracy going into 2008 is similarly doomed this time. 

It is not a question of "Republican" and "Democratic" this time. Take an overlay of the Eisenhower and Obama elections and you can easily see that some constituencies clearly shifted from R to D over about about fifty years. If the Republican Party is now ultra-conservative in economic and cultural ideology, the Democratic Party is ultra-conservative in style. State political cultures do not change much except for demographic change, and the only big change in American demographics is the rapid growth of the Hispanic population in some states. Other than that, the American Southwest would be firmly R except perhaps for California. The common thread between the Eisenhower electorate and the Obama electorate  is that the old constituency of well-educated, high-earning "Rockefeller Republicans" have become Democrats as the Republicans attracted the superstitious, bigoted voters of the South on issues of 'race', 'crime', and 'welfare'.   

Societies adapt to the realities of technological change and cultural currents, lest they ossify their potential rot. But the rot keeps rotting and degrading the structure while the facade remains impressive... until things collapse.  

Since the American Revolution, Crisis Eras seem the shortest eras of American history. They demand too much and change too much for people to want to remain in them. That is a good thing. A Crisis Era may be necessary for adjusting to the technological reality of the End of Inevitable Scarcity, at least in manufactured stuff. Until about forty years ago one of the surest and most reliable ways of getting rich if an investor or to get a middle income if a worker was to be involved in the manufacturing of needed wares that many people did not yet have. That is over.  The technology of manufacturing is such that all sorts of things once dear are now incredibly cheap. Much of what was durable then that still remains in existence is available today in such places as Goodwill. Just look for VHS tapes. Goodwill isn't accepting old TV sets... nobody wants CRT TV's any more. Manufacturing is largely for replacement. 

Wanna live cheap? If I must relocate a significant distance, then I am likely to give up much of my  stuff to Goodwill and buy stuff like what I gave away for free... cheaply. So cheaply that it is less expensive than using a moving van. I will keep my classical CD's and about half my video collection.  Much stuff can be taken in an SUV. Some might be sent by crate by a truck line. The material basis of life, except for medicine and real estate (if in a place that actually has economic opportunity) has never been so cheap. 

OK... on points:

Quote:1. Gosh, that 18-year cycle keeps getting longer and longer!

Mass culture establishes the value of kids very early and greatly shapes the attitudes of those kids as they reach adulthood. One of the big differences between Boomers and X is that beginning in the late 1970's the pop music quit pretending to have any philosophical import or moral edification. Pop culture went from imaginative to hedonistic. Although Boomers may have turned to older pop that had more intellectual content, X would have nothing to do with what they thought hollow pretense.  

Shocked by what they saw in X, Boomers eventually created a new cultural environment suitable for Millennial kids. Disappointed in the consequences of X culture and especially the political repercussions of the right-wiong tendencies in America in what those did to young (then largely X) adults, creative people of Generation X (Never, never, never deprecate the creative talent of a Reactive generation!) gladly collaborated. 

The Millennial Generation trusts reason more than ideology and science more than superstition. 

OK... the culture made for  (and now by) Millennial culture seems to be lasting long beyond the childhood of Millennial adults. The divide between Civic and Adaptive generations typically forms about as the Crisis comes to an end.  

Quote:2. What? We be 4T only when a "grey champion" from the Democrat Party suddenly appears? Guess that cycle really is "political."

Obama was potentially that, having most of the characteristics of a Grey Champion. Still, the Crisis rarely resolves until the Civic generation is fully in adulthood... or at least enough of it is.  One difference between FDR and Obama, and this may be critical, is that the economic meltdown of fall 2007 - spring 2009 (a sesquiannum) was not as protracted as the three-year meltdown from late 1929 to 1932. After a year and a half the economic meltdown of 2007-2009 was as severe as that of 1929-1932 -- but the system stopped the meltdown by protecting the banks and jump-starting the economy. By 1932 Big Business was concerned with survival  and considered enforcing its political will an unaffordable luxury. By 2010 Big Business was able to start buying the political process in an effort to establish America as a pure plutocracy. It came close to succeeding with Donald Trump. FDR, in contrast, could press major reforms. 

I wouldn't make too much of partisan identity. It is only coincidence in the grand scheme of things. 

Quote:3. Cheer up. 2020 may turn like 1928, and the Democrat Party can then finally wipe those evil Republicans off the face of the map. lol

Trump is a disaster. He has so bungled the response to COVID-19 that he has lost all credibility. Wise people do not now contradict scientific expertise. The death toll from COVID-19 in America is approaching 140,000, a toll larger than four average recent years of vehicular deaths. I had a summary at 125,000 that I think worth reading. The toll was then bigger than such college towns as Tuscaloosa, Alabama; Norman, Oklahoma; College Station, Texas; Berkeley, California; Ann Arbor, Michigan; and New Haven, Connecticut.  Imagine a disaster that takes out Lansing (the state capitol) or Ann Arbor (home of Michigan's premier university) out. That is how bad this plague is. It may not be a once-place wipe-out. 

This said, the Governor of Oklahoma just got diagnosed with it as the result of attending a Trump rally in Tulsa. What will it take? Maybe we have had enough. 

He has taken the side of white nationalists, the sorts who can't give up their Confederate flags and other Confederate symbolism (or even worse -- neo-Nazi $#!+). Consider what some black kid sees in a statue of a Confederate leader: someone who expended huge numbers of poor-white cannon-fodder to keep one's slave ancestors in bondage. That is the wrong lesson for our youth, whatever their ethnicity. But even worse he has said that there are good people on both sides after a violent confrontation between racists and anti-racists.

[Mikebert]

(07-15-2020, 05:58 PM)and every 4.8 years over 1952-1980Marc Lamb Wrote:

(06-30-2020, 02:59 PM)Mikebert Wrote: If Dems drop the ball then 2020 will just be another potential trigger that didn't trigger anything. The shit will keep hitting the fan...

Just a few observations here:

1. Gosh, that 18-year cycle keeps getting longer and longer!

2. What? We be 4T only when a "grey champion" from the Democrat Party suddenly appears? Guess that cycle really is "political."

3. Cheer up. 2020 may turn like 1928, and the Democrat Party can then finally wipe those evil Republicans off the face of the map. lol

That 18 year cycle (and 2001 4T start) was partially invalidated by the 2006 election (and ruled out by the 2008 election), when it became clear that 2000 was not a critical election. And the idea that turnings today are 20 years long (and the 2008 was a critical election) was partially invalidated by the 2014 election and ruled out by 2016).  It is looking like Biden will win this fall, which will rule out 2016 as a critical election.

Critical elections are usually given as 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1980. The last five of these elections occurred in a social moment turning, whereas 1800 is an exception. I would suggest that the First Continental Congress also served as a critical election in that representatives of the colonies voted to set America on the path to change the faction in control of the government, in which case we have 7 critical elections, with six of them falling into a social moment turning, which has about a 6% probability of happening by chance, making it the best political indicator of the presence of a social moment turning (in this case a 4T) at that time.

If Trump loses then 2020 becomes the next critical election candidate. Right now I see no reason to believe Republicans won't win in 2022. If that happens and Biden chooses not to run it is possible Democrats could lose in 2024. Even if Democrats win in 2024 they are not likely to win in 2028 if they are still losing congressional elections like Clinton and Obama did. And that rules out 2020.  There was 48 years between the 1932 and 1980 critical elections. A critical election 2028 or 2032 would not be out of line. And this would put the earliest date for the end a 4T in the 2030's or later, which stretches out the saeculum so long as to disprove the theory, IMO.

So for me 2022 is the fish or cut bait moment for the theory. S&H forecast a crisis turning that would create structural changed. George W Bush had a group of changes he wanted to make in foreign political and in the political outreach for the GOP. Obama had a number of policy changes around health care and climate change he wished to pursue. Trump ran on structural changes wrt to foreign policy, immigration and trade. Anyone of these agenda could have been the core about a 4T was built. What was stopping them was politics. The S&H 4T theory that says, given the proper constellation of "generations" a crisis catalyst triggers the structural change. Each of these three presidents had a catalyst, 911, the 2008 panic, the 2020 pandemic.

They all failed to use it to produce the structural change which would given them an electoral edge afterward. We kept on trading off between the parties with presidential or Congressional turnovers every 4 years in average over 2000-2020 (same rate as the two decades before). Compare these to every 6.7 and 10 years on average over the 4T-containing periods 1932-1952 and 1860-1800, respectively. This has been no 4T yet, at least politically.

[Eric the Green]

Since we are in 1850s redux, it stands to reason that "1860" hasn't happened yet. When it does, it could give the winning party an edge for quite a long time. But if that party is not the Democrats, or a new progressive party, then we have a 4T in which the progressive side lost, and in a real sense that has never happened before. It will mean the end of our Republic.

The new "1860" could be 2020, or it could even be 2024. As of now, Trump is self-destructing and taking his party down with him. If that trend continues, then it looks like 2020 will be the new 1860, if the 4T is to turn out well.

[pbrower2a]

(07-19-2020, 01:34 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(07-15-2020, 05:58 PM)and every 4.8 years over 1952-1980Marc Lamb Wrote:

(06-30-2020, 02:59 PM)Mikebert Wrote: If Dems drop the ball then 2020 will just be another potential trigger that didn't trigger anything. The shit will keep hitting the fan...

Just a few observations here:

1. Gosh, that 18-year cycle keeps getting longer and longer!

2. What? We be 4T only when a "grey champion" from the Democrat Party suddenly appears? Guess that cycle really is "political."

3. Cheer up. 2020 may turn like 1928, and the Democrat Party can then finally wipe those evil Republicans off the face of the map. lol

That 18 year cycle (and 2001 4T start) was partially invalidated by the 2006 election (and ruled out by the 2008 election), when it became clear that 2000 was not a critical election. And the idea that turnings today are 20 years long (and the 2008 was a critical election) was partially invalidated by the 2014 election and ruled out by 2016).  It is looking like Biden will win this fall, which will rule out 2016 as a critical election.

Critical elections are usually given as 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, and 1980. The last five of these elections occurred in a social moment turning, whereas 1800 is an exception. I would suggest that the First Continental Congress also served as a critical election in that representatives of the colonies voted to set America on the path to change the faction in control of the government, in which case we have 7 critical elections, with six of them falling into a social moment turning, which has about a 6% probability of happening by chance, making it the best political indicator of the presence of a social moment turning (in this case a 4T) at that time.

I would have thought "2008" a critical election and for a short time Obama and the Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress made that election a portent of major change. Then the reactionaries such as the Koch brothers invested heavily in the political process to install people intent on tax cuts for the super-rich, regulatory relaxation, monopolistic organization of business, and the gutting of worker's rights  -- just enough to establish political gridlock while Tea Party types made their loud appeals for "freedom" from Big Government in favor of Corporate America. By 2014 the Hard Right had won both Houses of Congress, and by 2016 a Hard Right demagogue running upon the nebulous slogan "Make America Great Again" became President.

But far from establishing the Christian and Corporate State of the right-wing dream (a New Feudalism in which the vast majority of Americans suffer for the greed of a few who exercise unconstrained and irresponsible power) we have a gang of conspiratorial bumblers. (Most conspiracies are full of bumblers, and people who want to get something done do it themselves or do so by honorable means that fall outside any imaginable stretch of the words 'criminal conspiracy'). Conspiracies usually involve gangland activity, murder-for-hire plots, and such ludicrous fantasies as Protocols of the Elders of Zion or the largely-debunked conspiracy theories around the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.   

Quote:Trump loses then 2020 becomes the next critical election candidate. Right now I see no reason to believe Republicans won't win in 2022. If that happens and Biden chooses not to run it is possible Democrats could lose in 2024. Even if Democrats win in 2024 they are not likely to win in 2028 if they are still losing congressional elections like Clinton and Obama did. And that rules out 2020.  There was 48 years between the 1932 and 1980 critical elections. A critical election 2028 or 2032 would not be out of line. And this would put the earliest date for the end a 4T in the 2030's or later, which stretches out the saeculum so long as to disprove the theory, IMO.

I searched Google for "Skowronek cycle", and look where I ended up:

http://generational-theory.com/forum/thread-5980.html

A thread in this Forum, and one in which I post frequently:

 https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=318258.0



I also found Skowronek's book and reviews and analysis of it in academic areas. I have added a post to the Generations thread, as that thread had stopped just before COVID-19 struck, If Trump didn't clearly fit the word "disjunctive" -- perhaps because he had just gotten away with being impeached but not convicted -- he does now. This isn't partisan bickering. I can't imagine any prominent Republican politician (OK, Ted Cruz would be at least as abrasive as Trump on something else, but I can't imagine him so botching COVID-19 as Trump; he might be disjunctive, if for other reasons) botching COVID-19 as badly as Trump did. Democratic pols of all kinds seem to have done their appointed tasks well, as have some Republican leaders. 

The strongest evidence that Trump is a disjunctive leader is that things get done despite him and contrary to his desires. If that isn't failure, then what is? Dubya may have had culpability in the crooked real-estate bubble, but once the experts told him what had to be done to keep the economy from going full-blown 1930's, he went along. If one can;t be an excellent leader,then at least one can be a pliant and effective follower... not great, but Trump shows us what can be worse.  

Quote:So for me 2022 is the fish or cut bait moment for the theory. S&H forecast a crisis turning that would create structural changed. George W Bush had a group of changes he wanted to make in foreign political and in the political outreach for the GOP. Obama had a number of policy changes around health care and climate change he wished to pursue. Trump ran on structural changes wrt to foreign policy, immigration and trade. Anyone of these agenda could have been the core about a 4T was built. What was stopping them was politics. The S&H 4T theory that says, given the proper constellation of "generations" a crisis catalyst triggers the structural change. Each of these three presidents had a catalyst, 911, the 2008 panic, the 2020 pandemic.

The Election of 2020 is now in the spot in which Trump cannot win it on his own, and Joe Biden would have to be a disaster as a candidate to lose it. Obviously he leaves us some questions unanswered. First, will he be up to the task? Most people his age are out to pasture, so to speak, and anyone over 75 is at risk of serious diseases that can ravage their mental acuity as well as other aspects of health. Second, should anything happen to him, the VP will have to be able to take charge quickly and decisively even if to continue the path that Biden sets. 

The big third issue is whether liberal Democrats can fend off the Hard Right more effectively in 2022 than Obama could in 2010. OK, the worst Boom leadership -- executives of giant corporations, executives paid very well to treat people badly, are themselves retiring. X executives may be as politically reactionary as any, but they cannot get away with as much. They must earn what they get, and they know that. They are not going to do well without doing good. The sorts of people associated with the Tea Party and the Religious Right, cores of the mass constituency of the American Hard Right, are themselves aging without replacement. Meanwhile the Millennial Generation is about 20% more Democratic than Republican... and it is going to start finding its way into many House seats and other positions of high responsibility. 

The Generational Cycle may have answered the question for us on the third issue.       

[/quote]
They all failed to use it to produce the structural change which would given them an electoral edge afterward. We kept on trading off between the parties with presidential or Congressional turnovers every 4 years in average over 2000-2020 (same rate as the two decades before). Compare these to every 6.7 and 10 years on average over the 4T-containing periods 1932-1952 and 1860-1800, respectively. This has been no 4T yet, at least politically.[/quote]

The disjunctive "ender" President, according to the Skowronek cycle, is the unwitting instigator of change that he does not expect... and that demonstrates his incompetence and ultimate irrelevance. Donald Trump is precisely that. Buchanan. Hoover. Carter. Trump.

[David Horn]

(07-19-2020, 01:34 PM)Mikebert Wrote: So for me 2022 is the fish or cut bait moment for the theory. S&H forecast a crisis turning that would create structural changed. George W Bush had a group of changes he wanted to make in foreign political and in the political outreach for the GOP. Obama had a number of policy changes around health care and climate change he wished to pursue. Trump ran on structural changes wrt to foreign policy, immigration and trade. Anyone of these agenda could have been the core about a 4T was built. What was stopping them was politics. The S&H 4T theory that says, given the proper constellation of "generations" a crisis catalyst triggers the structural change. Each of these three presidents had a catalyst, 911, the 2008 panic, the 2020 pandemic.

They all failed to use it to produce the structural change which would given them an electoral edge afterward. We kept on trading off between the parties with presidential or Congressional turnovers every 4 years in average over 2000-2020 (same rate as the two decades before). Compare these to every 6.7 and 10 years on average over the 4T-containing periods 1932-1952 and 1860-1800, respectively. This has been no 4T yet, at least politically.

I think making 2022 the benchmark is fine. If the Dems can't hold serve longer than one Congressional cycle, then they don't deserve to be the change agents they claim they want to be. So it comes down to this election setting the stage for the changes that will either be validated in 2022 or not. If they truly want to set the agenda, it had better be a blowout.

There is plenty of activity in both parties that indicates that the Dems are moving strongly left (using primaries to unseat long term moderates), and the whacknut wing of the GOP is doing the same on that flank. At the moment, the fire on the left is focused better than the fire on the right, so this can be a true turning point. It will be up to Biden (assuming he wins) to move more to the left or scuttle his Presidency early on. On the other hand, if it's Trump again, we're done as the world leading democracy. Maybe India can take that role.

[Mikebert]

(07-19-2020, 09:40 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I also found Skowronek's book and reviews and analysis of it in academic areas. I have added a post to the Generations thread, as that thread had stopped just before COVID-19 struck, If Trump didn't clearly fit the word "disjunctive" -- perhaps because he had just gotten away with being impeached but not convicted -- he does now. This isn't partisan bickering. I can't imagine any prominent Republican politician (OK, Ted Cruz would be at least as abrasive as Trump on something else, but I can't imagine him so botching COVID-19 as Trump; he might be disjunctive, if for other reasons) botching COVID-19 as badly as Trump did. Democratic pols of all kinds seem to have done their appointed tasks well, as have some Republican leaders. 

The strongest evidence that Trump is a disjunctive leader is that things get done despite him and contrary to his desires. If that isn't failure, then what is? Dubya may have had culpability in the crooked real-estate bubble, but once the experts told him what had to be done to keep the economy from going full-blown 1930's, he went along. If one can;t be an excellent leader,then at least one can be a pliant and effective follower... not great, but Trump shows us what can be worse. 

Yes, Trump sure looks like a disjunctive president. So did Bush.  And 2008 sure looked like a critical election and I imagine 2020 will also look like one. But what makes a critical election critical, or a bad president disjunctive is he ends the period when his party sets the agenda. This happens when a new agenda is established by the other party under a Reconstructive president.

Hoover was disjunctive because the Republican "dispensation" established by Lincoln ended, and was replaced by a new Democratic dispensation established by FDR. That dispensation ended with Carter, making him disjunctive. It ended because Reagan was a Reconstructive president, who created a new Republican dispensation known as the Reagan revolution.

Bush certainly did his part to be disjunctive, but Democrats did not use the victories Bush's failure gave them to create a dispensation that would withstand the very next election. Now Trump is doing his damnest to be a good disjunctive president and hand the Democrats the tools they need to try again.  Will they succeed--by managing to hang on to Congress in 2022, or fail like they did in 2010?

But even then, its not definitive. Bush won in 2000 AND in 2002 and 2004--just like FDR. It looked like he was well on his way to being like T Roosevelt, making 2000 a critical election, and setting his party up to continue the Reagan dispensation for another cycle. This is what Karl Rove thought.  Then came 2006 and 2008 and clearly that did not happen.  So this year is our third try at producing some sort of critical election/political shift (i.e. what is supposed to happen politically in a 4T but hasn't so far).

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-20-2020, 05:04 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Bush certainly did his part to be disjunctive, but Democrats did not use the victories Bush's failure gave them to create a dispensation that would withstand the very next election. Now Trump is doing his damnest to be a good disjunctive president and hand the Democrats the tools they need to try again.  Will they succeed--by managing to hang on to Congress in 2022, or fail like they did in 2010?

But even then, its not definitive. Bush won in 2000 AND in 2002 and 2004--just like FDR. It looked like he was well on his way to being like T Roosevelt, making 2000 a critical election, and setting his party up to continue the Reagan dispensation for another cycle. This is what Karl Rove thought.  Then came 2006 and 2008 and clearly that did not happen.  So this year is our third try at producing some sort of critical election/political shift (i.e. what is supposed to happen politically in a 4T but hasn't so far).

Well, almost Trump is doing his damnest.  He hasn't actually gone to New York and started shooting people.  

But I expect the coronavirus was the trigger that pushes the transformation of values which also creates the critical election.  Before the trigger, there was nothing that forced people to commit to the change.

[David Horn]

(07-20-2020, 11:39 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-20-2020, 05:04 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Bush certainly did his part to be disjunctive, but Democrats did not use the victories Bush's failure gave them to create a dispensation that would withstand the very next election. Now Trump is doing his damnedest to be a good disjunctive president and hand the Democrats the tools they need to try again.  Will they succeed--by managing to hang on to Congress in 2022, or fail like they did in 2010?

But even then, its not definitive. Bush won in 2000 AND in 2002 and 2004--just like FDR. It looked like he was well on his way to being like T Roosevelt, making 2000 a critical election, and setting his party up to continue the Reagan dispensation for another cycle. This is what Karl Rove thought.  Then came 2006 and 2008 and clearly that did not happen.  So this year is our third try at producing some sort of critical election/political shift (i.e. what is supposed to happen politically in a 4T but hasn't so far).

Well, almost Trump is doing his damnedest.  He hasn't actually gone to New York and started shooting people.  

But I expect the coronavirus was the trigger that pushes the transformation of values which also creates the critical election.  Before the trigger, there was nothing that forced people to commit to the change.

This year is a unique case of having multiple crises both coexisting and fully entangled: pandemic, race, class, economics and climate.  If this isn't an adequately scary proposition to create real change momentum, it's unlikely we will achieve it in the near future.  That leaves us looking at a 2T that should make the last one look like elementary school recess.

Note: I had to correct spelling that was not mine, because my spell checker got hung on a single word and wouldn't let me ignore it. Sorry.