If you have not read "The Fourth Turning Is Here---Part One" click here.
Since The Fourth Turning was published in 1997 by Neil Howe and William Strauss a lot has changed.
First and foremost, William Strauss passed away in 2007 at the age of 60.
Ironically, he did not live to see the beginning of The Fourth Turning (generally set in 2008) that he and Howe predicted.
Neil Howe carried on the generational theory work that they collaborated on of which The Fourth Turning book was a part of.
I went to several lectures that Neil Howe did over the years to see if I could gain further insights on any current thinking that he might have on The Fourth Turning theory once it was obvious that is where we were.
I never got as much out of those talks as I hoped.
At one point Howe pegged the beginning of the Fourth Turning to coincide with Hurricane Katrina in 2005 as it seemed to represent a critical turning point in the public's loss of trust in government institutions.
Howe later determined that the financial meltdown and Great Recession beginning in 2008 were the catalyst that signaled the beginning of what he refers to as the Millennial Crisis period. That made more sense as the beginning of The Fourth Turning as it affected everyone.
I have gotten the sense that Howe leans more to the Democrat side and the events of the last 15 years have unsettled him a bit.
For example, when Barack Obama and the Democrats took almost total control of government in 2009 in the wake of the financial crisis, I believe that the fact that they squandered that crisis with an agenda that focused more on dividing than uniting the country was very troubling to Howe.
The disappointment of the Obama years led to the rise of Donald Trump whose brand of populism is clearly not Howe's cup of tea. I find this a little perplexing in that Trump's agenda and messaging aligns in most respects with the major themes that Howe and Strauss suggested a Fourth Turning leader would likely need to lead the country.
The quotes on the left are taken directly from the book of the important themes that might be expected from a Fourth Turning leader. My comments on the right are from a blog post in May, 2016 at the time that Trump was just wrapping up the GOP nomination that year entitled "Has The Fourth Turning Brought Us Trump?".
Eight years later that blog post remains one of the five most popular posts I have written over the years based on the number of views.
"Defense and Infrastructure." Two of Trump's favorite topics in every speech. However, late last year,
I guess that this just confirms that personal biases inevitably filter into almost anything anyone does.
Howe is no exception.
In any event, 26 years after publishing The Fourth Turning, Neil Howe recently released a sequel to the original book titled, The Fourth Turning Is Here.
I recently read the book to find out where Howe believes we are headed next based on the seasons of history.
At the outset, it is important to remember that by any measure we are fairly deep into the Fourth Turning.
In the original book Howe and Strauss predicted that the Fourth Turning would begin sometime around the year 2005, perhaps a few years before or after. Howe now puts that date at 2008.
Howe and Strauss predicted that the Fourth Turning would last 20 years or so putting the end of the crisis period around the end of this decade.
Why is that important?
The history of past Fourth Turnings has found that the time of maximum crisis is about 3/4 of the way through the Fourth Turning. Howe refers to this as the Climax or Ekpyrosis.
 |
| Source: https://www.sokratiko.com/words/ekpyrosis/ |
This is the period of highest risk and the years in which civic action will reach the point of maximum power. It is the point at which society must come together to either overcome an external foe, internal political division or civil war.
Based on the timetable of the original book that would put us right in that timeframe currently (2024-2026).
In the new book, Howe has pushed out the timetable. He suggests it is most likely that the current Fourth Turning crisis period will probably end between 2032 and 2034. Howe projects the likely year for the Climax to be the last couple of years leading up to the the end of this decade.
One of the reasons for this is that people are generally living longer.
An important part of the theory is that history is made not be events but by the reaction of people to the events. This means that the same reactions and mistakes are made over the centuries as people do not have the ability to learn from their mistakes. In effect, the last time we were in this position, most of the people alive are now gone.
Howe sees three social stressors that may prove important enough to influence the outcome of the Fourth Turning leading to the Climax or Ekpyrosis.
1. A financial crash
2. Internal conflict
3. External conflict
Howe sees a financial crash as being a distinct possibility in the coming years as the inevitable result of chronic stimulus from the federal government, debt pyramids built on near zero interest rates and promises of Treasury bailouts and Fed backstops in case there's trouble.
More troubling to Howe is the fact that the next crash, when it comes, would be one in which additional stimulus would likely not be available. The reason--the federal government has overextended itself and will simply not be able to afford what is necessary. This will mean that any recovery from a post-pandemic crash will be slow and halting.
Howe sees all of this further feeding tensions between the red and blue tribal factions in the country with each group gravitating to more radical goals and confrontational tactics.
The blue faction will push for higher taxes and more redistribution. The red faction will become more authoritarian on immigration and trade,
Howe suggests that a financial crash will not be the Climax by itself but will be a stressor that leads us there.
That additional stressor will create an even more divided country that may lead to outright civil war.
Howe suggests that "threats of violence may encourage the growth of uniformed "street corps" on both sides."
The end result could actually be another civil war.
Howe suggests that it is not as far-fetched as it sounds.
The United States fits many of the checklist profiles of a country at risk of civil war.
Trust in government is eroding.
Respect for democratic institutions is weakening.
There are two deeply divided political factions and a population that is heavily armed.
The country has deep divisions on a number of ethnic, cultural and urban vs. rural dimensions.
Each faction wants its country to become something the other detests and each fears the other taking power.
Put all of this together and consider how close to outright civil war we may have come as a result of the assassination attempt on President Trump last Saturday.
A few centimeters combined with the glaringly obvious missteps of the Secret Service would have been all it would have taken to see things quickly spin out of control.
As it is, large numbers of Trump supporters believe that the federal government may have somehow been involved either directly or indirectly in the attempted assassination of Trump.
On the other hand, a recent Morning Consult poll revealed that one-third of Democrat voters believe that Trump staged the assassination attempt.
There seems little doubt that we are living on a precipice of history in which one misstep could put us in a situation in which there is no return.
Howe postulates that a civil war might result in both sides claiming to legitimately be the United States government. Every federal institution---from Congress to the federal courts to various executive departments might abruptly and awkwardly rupture to two sides based on personal loyalties. The populace could very well be forced to take sides splitting families and communities much like the Civil War of the 1860's. There might be a geographic divide involved (urban vs. rural) as in the Civil War but the division would be much more ideological than geographic.
How does it resolve itself?
Howe only sees two paths to move beyond the deep divisions we have today to the unity we need to move forward as a society.
The first path is that one side wins. The other side loses. There is no middle ground or compromises that typically end conflicts in Fourth Turning crisis periods.
One side wins and the other side capitulates. There are no peace deals or negotiated settlements in Fourth Turnings. It is winner take all.
The losing side may not be totally wiped away but it reaches a point that it has no choice but to go along with the agenda of the winner. The era of divided government and attitudes ends and the society moves forward united.
This happened during the Revolutionary War when the patriots won and the loyalists to England lost. It happened a second time in the 1780's after Great Britain was defeated. Those who wanted a strong U.S. Constitution prevailed and those who were content with a looser confederation of states lost the argument on how the new U.S. government would operate.
It was also the case in the Civil War when the Republicans from the north who wanted to end slavery won and the Democrats from the southern states who resisted in the name of states' rights lost.
We saw it again during the Depression and World War II where the Republicans who opposed the New Deal and had isolationist views in the 1930's eventually had to capitulate to FDR and the Democrats as we were drawn into World War II. Internal political squabbles ended and all focus went to the war effort.
The second path is that both sides get scared straight by an existential external threat. It then results in everyone in the society having to united and work together for a common cause in order to survive.
The range of possibilities and outcomes on this second path are daunting as well as sobering.
In this era of AI, drones and weapons of mass destruction the idea of a war that rises to the level of what we have seen in previous Fourth Turnings should give everyone pause
Howe also points out that even in the case of civil war that it is not unlikely that the side that is losing during the conflict is often motivated to solicit external players or nations to their cause.
The patriots did this in the Revolutionary War with French assistance which was as much a civil conflict between patriots and loyalists as it was a war against the British.
We also saw this in the Civil War in which the Confederate States worked very hard to enlist the British or other European powers for their aid against the Union.
However, Howe suggest that nothing is inevitable.
"We The People" control our destiny.
As stated before, history is not made by events but the reaction of people to those events.
It is also true that people can change the course of history.
We can get through the Fourth Turning and to a First Turning that is dominated not by division, crisis and chaos but by unity, confidence and optimism without mayhem and violence.
However, it is going to take the American people acting together to accomplish that.
That is why I see the election this year as so consequential.
There has probably not been another one that rises to this level since the election of 1860.
Our trajectory in the Fourth Turning will not change with another close, divided election result.
To have any chance of navigating from where we seem to be headed it is going to take a decisive victory for one side or the other at the ballot box.
It is obviously much better to get to where we need to be through the democratic process in which the people convincingly decide what type of government they want and need without having to go through the darkest depths of a Fourth Turning.
It is here that my bias shows as I see there is only one direction and party that can feasibly get us to that point at the present time---Donald Trump and the Republicans.
I just don't see that the Democrats have the breadth of support and the commitment of its voters to be a dominant party that is capable of appealing to mainstream voters with the current agenda they have.
It is easy to understand what the Republican Party stands for right now.
The same is not true for the Democrats. The only thing that is clear with Democrats in 2024 is they do not like Donald Trump.
That is not a platform that seems capable of leading to sustained political dominance.
As I have observed the events of the last 15 years or so, and the positions of the political parties have evolved, I often think about this passage on page 312 from the original book, The Fourth Turning, written in 1997.
"History warns that when a Crisis catalyzes, a previously dominant political party (or regime) can find itself directly blamed for perceived 'mistakes' that led to the national emergency.
"That party could find itself out of power for a generation. Key persons associated with it could find themselves defamed, stigmatized, harassed, economically ruined, personally punished---or worse."
Based on where we are right now. does this sound more like the Democrat or Republican Party?
Is it any wonder the Democrats are in full fledged panic mode right now and are on the verge of pushing their duly elected candidate nominee out of the 2024 race despite telling everyone a month ago he was "sharp as a tack"?
The Fourth Turning is undoubtedly here.
The question remains as to what we are going to do about it?
No comments:
Post a Comment