Notes on the Fourth Turning and Obama

by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | October 21, 2009 at 07:33 pm
418 views | 14 Recommendations | 2 comments

Photos

Loading photos...
Being the Howe and Strauss fan that I am,  and adhering to their saeculum theory of the cycles of history,  and their belief that Obama  fulfills the role of the Fourth Turning President,  I thought I would post some musings on the forum over there (of which I am a member):


2008 was the year of the social moment because it was the year when everyone recognized that the nation was in a historic crisis. 2008 was the year when the Crisis began to make changes to our lifestyle. If anything, 2008 was the year of the perfect storm. Many major banks folded in 2008 before the crash of September. Gas prices rose to record levels. And housing was still accelerating downhill. Try to imagine, for a moment, a 2008 scenario without the major crash of 2008. The economy had already been in recession for 9 months when the panic of September 2008 occurred, and the recession was already generating social turmoil well before the crash. It is likely that Obama still would've been elected, IMO. To me, it seemed to be heading that way even before the crash. Obama's historic movement was organized well before the crash. By the time of the crash, the Obama movement was already the largest grass-roots effort in American history. To me, the crash of 2008 is no catalyst because based upon pre-crash trends, I highly doubt that things would be much different today if the crash hadn't happened. IMO, the crash of 2008 was merely an event that helped to accelerate events in the direction they were already heading, instead of being a point of initial change. 
. . .In November 1932, the Great Depression had been a reality for slightly over three years. Herbert Hoover took office intending to soften the harsh edges of Coolidge prosperity and apply scientific economics to make that prosperity even better. (The idea of him as some sort of mossback conservative is Democratic propaganda. He was nothing of the sort.) In the face of the Depression, Hoover did not shrink from government action, but he regarded the downturn as a normal recession and intended to return things to what they had been. By the end of his term, it was clear that the economy was broken, and that the old America could not be restored. A new one, based on a mix of capitalist and socialist elements, and leaning more towards labor in the labor-capital conflict, would have to be built. Actually it's arguable that this Crisis had two Regeneracies, one in 1932 when FDR was elected, and the other in December 1941. The Depression turned capitalist America into mixed-economy America, and World War II turned isolationist America into superpower America.
So where are we now? The economy has tanked, which helped elect Obama. We are in Crisis. But it's clear that in many ways, Obama is trying to do what the American colonies, President Lincoln, and President Hoover tried to do: restore the status quo ante. For all his talk of "change," the actual changes he means to make from the America of President Clinton (and Clinton not Bush should be regarded as the baseline) are minimal. National health care is significant, but of course Clinton tried to do that, too. Obama is simply carrying forward the liberal agenda of the previous saeculum. He wants to wind down the war in Iraq and return to sane diplomacy, but he still is trying to preserve superpower America. He wants to enact national health care, and turn away from the extremes of the Bush administration, but he still intends to preserve the same basic economic plan that worked in the last High and Awakening.

He will not succeed in doing that, because it can't be done. But neither he nor the nation has become convinced of this yet. We wait for the other shoe to drop..
Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
1
Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

I read an article last night with a similar theory.  In it the comparison was made that FDR actually, in his first term, followed general economic conservative  views and lowered the unemployment rate from 23 to 13 % on his first term.  This won him re-election.  According to the article, FDR then moved further to the left during his second term when the economy again moved rock bottom  FDR then realized that he could not influence it.  The saving grace for FDR during his second term was World War II, which got him his third term, since the economy was cranking up to produce war machinery for the Allies.

The article contends that Obama has already realized that he can.t influence the economy and as such is now appealing to his left base, by attacking FOX, The Chamber of Commerce, Corporations, etc.  By this he is hoping to mobilize the left base to ensure he has the support for re-election.  In the process he is losing Independents and moderate Democrats.

An interesting theory, do you think we are seeing the signs of that?


0
AGK

Karl:  I think we are indeed.  I think your assessment is a fine one.  correct in the details.  For Obama to fulfill the role of "The Fourth Turning"  President,  the economy would have to worsen,  drop steeply.  This would make FOX,  Beck,  the complainers,  fade to insignificance (not that they don't have value or truth,  they do.  But they would suddenly seem to be wearing beach clothes in a winter snowstorm,  if the economy seriously collapsed-  the times would go against them in full force )---then ,  a war which America and Europe would be drawn into ( we see the potential already).  Then Obama will become America's Fourth Turning President,  and his first year will fade to insignificance.   We must wait and see,  if it is to be he,  or some GOP who would replace him in 2012.  I think it will be Obama,  and that he may have a third term.  But time will tell.  SMK

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from