Believe it or not, the most frequently asked question I get from readers is what I think of William Strauss and Neil Howe’s book The Fourth Turning. I’ve never read it, though am familiar with their generational archetype thesis via their 1992 book
I mentioned Turchin here before. Still recommend his newest book -- even if you disagree with it, its arguments are interesting. At some point I'll probably go back and read some of his older material.
I skimmed Strauss & Howe's book back when I was in college. I suppose I walked away with the impression that it was halfway between serious social/historical analysis and Nostradamus.
Whether Turchin's model is right or wrong, I'll at least say it seems a lot more sophisticated and aspires to more objectivity than what Strauss & Howe were doing. Even if Turchin is worthless for predicting the future, I think he at least sheds light on a number of crises from the preindustrial past, for anyone with an interest in history. The biggest risk to his model I'm left with is that examples of crises from Ancient Rome and the Middle Ages may be basically irrelevant to modern societies due to technological changes. Meanwhile, the cycles are too long for there to be much data relevant to our present circumstances. Strauss & Howe have the advantage of much shorter cycles that they can point to.
What about the rise of AI? I see that being potentially disruptive to economic conditions, such that we would see a ripple effect in other areas of society.
Not sure which book you’re talking about. All I can say is I have worked with George over the past 20 years and found most of his analysis very insightful and usually on target. He is a secular Jew so he doesn’t come from a Christian perspective.
Funny, the TedX talk I did several years ago was called America 6.0. This was viewed from the standpoint of our physical development in cities, towns and country. I’d say a few things differently today, but I still like the framework of us heading into v 6.0 (instead of 4.0). But I appreciate the framework relative the 4th turning.
Another proponent of cycles in American history is George Friedman who was the CEO and founder of Strategic Forecasting (Stratfor) and now the CEO and founder of Geopolitical Futures (GPF). He has written several books to include "The Next 100 Years" with his latest book being "The Calm Before the Storm" which was released in February 2020 just before COVID leaped on to the scene. His theme is the decade of 2020 will be tumultuous but ending well for the US. His premise is the US goes through two different cycles that happen in 40 and 60 years periods and this is the first time that both have coincided. He posited that the 2028 election would be a dramatic change election similar to 1932 and 1980. However, he recently changed his forecast and said that the 2024 election will be the change election. He has been eerily accurate in a lot of his forecasts. Good read.
Given what is already known about the candidates, what would be the "change" following the 2024 election? The only candidate offering anything different from the status quo is Trump and in the unlikely event he wins any dramatic agenda he wants to implement would be derailed by the leadership of both parties in Congress.
Good question. His idea was that it will change the dynamic of the Federal government to the states. He thought it would happen in 2028. His other longstanding premise (in everything he writes and says) is that Presidents don't matter that much because he is constrained. The larger trends drive the politics. I think he is correct about that. I would recommend you read the book.
Thanks for the reply. I don't have time to read the book and reading the summary it looks like he has a few things right and a lot wrong. The part on Japan is laughable.
Tangent: Will Arbery's 2019 Play *Heroes of the Fourth Turning* is excellent and should be viewed when possible, regardless of the merits of the book from which it takes its title.
I'm not really an alarmist. I find most apocalyptical claims to be specious. However, I would keep my eye on the convergence of three things that COULD prove to be a powder-keg: 1.) The rising frustration and anger with the bureaucratic/administrative state - its rise and unaccountable nature and unchecked powers are alarming; 2.) The "total state" - as Auron McIntyre calls it - has become exhausting to many. Not a week goes by that I don't hear of someone seemingly at their wits end about why everything in the world must be politicized; 3.) The ping-pong game of legislation between red and blues states and the associated re-sorting of the population into ideological groups. This 3rd area is the most troubling. We literally have states going to legislative war with one another, passing legislation that can effectively criminalize a person once they've crossed state lines.
A common theme in books on the origins of World War I is how few people anticipated the coming war. Chronicles has a good article this month on the disputed 1876 Presidential Election. Essentially, the Democrats agreed to overlook Republican cheating in exchange for the removal of all Federal troops in the South. The Federal government played a much smaller role in people's lives back then. Today, people have no faith in institutions and a very low opinion of elites. It wouldn't take that much to trigger another upheaval.
I mentioned Turchin here before. Still recommend his newest book -- even if you disagree with it, its arguments are interesting. At some point I'll probably go back and read some of his older material.
I skimmed Strauss & Howe's book back when I was in college. I suppose I walked away with the impression that it was halfway between serious social/historical analysis and Nostradamus.
Whether Turchin's model is right or wrong, I'll at least say it seems a lot more sophisticated and aspires to more objectivity than what Strauss & Howe were doing. Even if Turchin is worthless for predicting the future, I think he at least sheds light on a number of crises from the preindustrial past, for anyone with an interest in history. The biggest risk to his model I'm left with is that examples of crises from Ancient Rome and the Middle Ages may be basically irrelevant to modern societies due to technological changes. Meanwhile, the cycles are too long for there to be much data relevant to our present circumstances. Strauss & Howe have the advantage of much shorter cycles that they can point to.
What about the rise of AI? I see that being potentially disruptive to economic conditions, such that we would see a ripple effect in other areas of society.
Not sure which book you’re talking about. All I can say is I have worked with George over the past 20 years and found most of his analysis very insightful and usually on target. He is a secular Jew so he doesn’t come from a Christian perspective.
Funny, the TedX talk I did several years ago was called America 6.0. This was viewed from the standpoint of our physical development in cities, towns and country. I’d say a few things differently today, but I still like the framework of us heading into v 6.0 (instead of 4.0). But I appreciate the framework relative the 4th turning.
https://youtu.be/2m1Vy5-g7zw?si=5YVyafZYRn51nP_-
Another proponent of cycles in American history is George Friedman who was the CEO and founder of Strategic Forecasting (Stratfor) and now the CEO and founder of Geopolitical Futures (GPF). He has written several books to include "The Next 100 Years" with his latest book being "The Calm Before the Storm" which was released in February 2020 just before COVID leaped on to the scene. His theme is the decade of 2020 will be tumultuous but ending well for the US. His premise is the US goes through two different cycles that happen in 40 and 60 years periods and this is the first time that both have coincided. He posited that the 2028 election would be a dramatic change election similar to 1932 and 1980. However, he recently changed his forecast and said that the 2024 election will be the change election. He has been eerily accurate in a lot of his forecasts. Good read.
Given what is already known about the candidates, what would be the "change" following the 2024 election? The only candidate offering anything different from the status quo is Trump and in the unlikely event he wins any dramatic agenda he wants to implement would be derailed by the leadership of both parties in Congress.
Good question. His idea was that it will change the dynamic of the Federal government to the states. He thought it would happen in 2028. His other longstanding premise (in everything he writes and says) is that Presidents don't matter that much because he is constrained. The larger trends drive the politics. I think he is correct about that. I would recommend you read the book.
Thanks for the reply. I don't have time to read the book and reading the summary it looks like he has a few things right and a lot wrong. The part on Japan is laughable.
Tangent: Will Arbery's 2019 Play *Heroes of the Fourth Turning* is excellent and should be viewed when possible, regardless of the merits of the book from which it takes its title.
I agree. I saw it in NYC and really enjoyed it.
I'm not really an alarmist. I find most apocalyptical claims to be specious. However, I would keep my eye on the convergence of three things that COULD prove to be a powder-keg: 1.) The rising frustration and anger with the bureaucratic/administrative state - its rise and unaccountable nature and unchecked powers are alarming; 2.) The "total state" - as Auron McIntyre calls it - has become exhausting to many. Not a week goes by that I don't hear of someone seemingly at their wits end about why everything in the world must be politicized; 3.) The ping-pong game of legislation between red and blues states and the associated re-sorting of the population into ideological groups. This 3rd area is the most troubling. We literally have states going to legislative war with one another, passing legislation that can effectively criminalize a person once they've crossed state lines.
A common theme in books on the origins of World War I is how few people anticipated the coming war. Chronicles has a good article this month on the disputed 1876 Presidential Election. Essentially, the Democrats agreed to overlook Republican cheating in exchange for the removal of all Federal troops in the South. The Federal government played a much smaller role in people's lives back then. Today, people have no faith in institutions and a very low opinion of elites. It wouldn't take that much to trigger another upheaval.
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/view/as-american-as-a-stolen-election/