And now it comes back to the Fourth Turning, the Crisis, where this blog started. Which also means there's not a lot more to say besides what has already been covered. Using the format as for the last three, though:
The Third is about freedom and individualism, with institutions as weak as they ever are. The problem with weak institutions is that big problems can be avoided, missed - ignored. During a two-decade period, the marketplace and individuals have been solving problems easily amenable to such solution.
Other problems remain unsolved, like "Should owning human beings be allowed." Or "Who should be responsible for the defense - and associated costs (taxation) - of the American colonists?" As for the previous Fourth, it could be said it was about defining the relationship between government and the marketplace, between complete control (USSR), ownership of the means of production (Axis) and GENERALLY laissez-faire* relationships (US and UK). Just ask Gödel: you can't expect the marketplace to fix problems that are within the marketplace. And when problems like this get big enough, they eventually come down to who can impose their will through force.
Which is why identifying the Fourth Turning usually comes down to:
WAR: a war that everyone is involved in, one with a no-kidding winner and a definite loser, one that changes who is in charge and why.
This isn’t especially helpful until afterwards, and the peak of Crisis periods is often near the end. Until then, the identifiers previously noted can be helpful. When looking back, though, it’s so overpowering an indicator that it’s difficult to pay attention to much else. Although Strauss and Howe also mention that immigration falls during the Crisis, after peaking during the Third.
No comments:
Post a Comment