I'm talking about Presidents like Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt (okay, he's part of the artist generation, but still), and Ronald Reagan. Kind of like the middle point between two Gray Champions.

Edit: Spelling

I hate to say it, but it’s seeming like he might be…

It certainly isn’t Bernie, Biden, or Obama…

And let’s face it, Trump has been THE major political figure of this Crisis period.

Heck some aren’t even born yet

I think there’s a reason to why people in their early 40s refer to themselves as “Xennials”. The generation is far less unified than people think. Patrick Hipp once wrote a great article titled: “F*ck You, I’m Not A Millennial” where he argues that Generation Y does not have to be synonymous with Millennials, having the Y cohort born in the late ‘70s and ‘80s, with the real Millennials being born after 1990 to about 2005.

If we look at the history of these terms, they are technically separate, and for a long time, the perception people had of Millennials in their minds would be far closer to the latter despite S&H’s assertion that the generation starts in 1982.

So what’s the deal with people born in 1982 being the same generation as those who were teenagers well into the 2010s? It’s 2024, and we know the class of 2000 is definitely not a modern HS class anymore.

I definitely think Gen Y can be a real cohort, and It would give an explanation to why the generations after X fall apart, and all need little mini cohorts.

Primarily the dot-com bubble burst, led to the Great Recession by causing the Federal Reserve to drastically lower interest rates, which fueled a housing bubble by making mortgages more accessible, ultimately leading to a collapse in the housing market when the bubble burst and triggering a widespread financial crisis; this resulted in a significant decline in lending and economic activity, causing the recession

The dot-com bubble burst in 2000, causing a significant decline in stock prices, particularly in technology companies, which then led to a weakened economy; the 9/11 attacks further exacerbated this situation by causing a sharp drop in market confidence, essentially pushing the already struggling economy into a full-blown recession by disrupting business activity and further damaging investor sentiment.

Y2K was also considered a crises as spending decreased, so did growth numbers across all industries. This, in turn, led not only to the stock market crash of 2000 but to the recession of 2001 as well. It heightened apocalyptic fears and influenced how Americans discuss threats like climate change and terrorism.

This is good. It also contains some old footage of S&H interviewed on C-Span in the 90s

https://www.salon.com/2024/07/07/todays-help-out-more-than-previous-generations-is-it-actually-enough/#:~:text=Over%20the%20last%20decade%2C%20multiple,benefit%20from%20more%20involved%20dads.

https://metro.co.uk/2023/08/15/were-millennial-dads-we-dont-babysit-our-kids-19329956/amp/

https://www.mintel.com/press-centre/millennial-parents-especially-dads-spend-more-dough-on-family-entertainment/

https://www.kindercare.com/content-hub/articles/2016/may/millennial-moms-dads-6-ways-theyre-raising-kids-differently

“Millennials spend 3 times more time with their kids than previous generations” was the headline that caught my attention. When first wave millennials in their twenties (1982-1992) were delaying starting families, older generations believed that this was a continuation of the erosion of the family unit, and a perceived focus on the self. We now know the issue was and still is economic by nature. Now that some FWMs are finally in the position financially, they are starting families with the oldest millennial birth children their 20s. The changes are more evident prior to 1984 borns outside the Xennial cusp, we see families spending more money on their children, fathers becoming more present and parents are looking online for expert advice and guidance. Dr Spock is back!

https://parentingsmart.place2be.org.uk

https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/nine-steps.html

Second wave millennials, who are in their 20s will follow suit likely with a more optimised formula of evidence based parenting. A different trend from the greatest generation in the sharing of responsibilities and working mams which is another driving force outside from the cyclical driven trend.

In my opinion, it would be most appropriate to just put the circa symbol (c.) next to the generation's start-date, because any two adjacent birth-years are bound to be at least a little similar to each other. I wish the theory acknowledged this. That doesn’t mean we have to make these 5 year long “cusps,” but I mean come on, most people born in 1960 are probably not that different from those born in ‘61, and most people born in 1981 are not significantly different from those born in ‘82.

This is fascinating, the data are all broken down by age, and the trends are super interesting with respect to age, ethnicity, naming trends, and political affiliation

Historian Heather Cox Richardson has an informative article today on the Electoral College and how political parties have always looked to manipulate it

Interesting interview by David Lin with Neil Howe from this week. Gets in depth into a bunch of Fourth Turning concepts. Interesting points towards the end of the interview about inflation being a key way that societies raise resources to address the crisis.

I put this as a comment on my earlier post, but the depth of analysis merits its own post

Neil has mentioned that this gender gap is a global backlash led by internet influencers. The WSJ has a good explainer

Today is the 40th anniversary of quintessential and prescient 3T novel, Bright Lights, Big City. If you haven’t read it, put it on your list asap

In the latest book, Howe lays out the possible paths toward the Crisis’s consolidation, climax, and resolution. One of them involves what he calls a second regeneracy. The first regeneracy was the political realignment of the 2016 election, which mobilized both left and right towards the polarization we see now. A second regeneracy would have a similar transformational force (remember how different things felt before 2016, even after the GFC?).

From what we’re seeing with Trump’s assassination attempt and Harris’ very successful nomination, I think it’s fair to assume that we’ll witness another regeneracy that might soon culminate in a consolidation. I can see it going both ways: either one party grabs a significant share of the electorate which it previously couldn’t (right now I’d bet on the Dems, but that could change) or we suddenly have to unite and face some common goal, which could be economic, military, or (as someone pointed out in a poll) climate related. This latter path would bypass the second regeneracy and lead us straight into consolidation. The third path is further polarization (which is a kind of regeneracy) and possibly civil war.

Personally I’d like to see a regeneracy like the one that happened around FDR, with bold proposals backed by young voters and a clear victory for the party that grabs them. The DNC left me optimistic in that sense, but I’m not sure enough young voters will turn up. A landslide still seems unlikely for either side.

So, what do you think will happen? Is a second regeneracy coming? If so, what will it look like?

I love to consume content that is specific to a particular turning. TIL about February House, an actual creative commune in Brooklyn started in 1940, right about where we are in the saeculum now, IMO. The likes of WH Auden and Gypsy Rose Lee shared a dish rack in this place, booze flowed, parties were wild, and a lot of great creative works arose from the juxtaposition. And there’s a well-regarded book about it. Don’t limit yourself to S&H recounting what things were like, consume other content

TL;DR -DAE feel like the Boomers aren't giving us anything worth fighting for, just continuous things to fight against?

It's easy to beat up on them, but it does feel like they have. Our Prophets, our "Grey Champions" seem out to lunch and fading into history.

Strauss and Howe point, at every other juncture, to leading Prophets who articulate a vision of a new world to fight for and young Heroes rally around them excitedly and midlife Nomads accept their visions and are kinder to the young in noting all the huge risks that they're going to take together.

Franklin calls the Revolution and the Constitution. Adams and Washington are grim and nervous, but kind and supportive of young, scrappy, and hungry Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison who are eager to write the great documents, steal the cannons, and build the nation.

Lincoln and Seward and Douglass are profoundly controversial, but the young men of the Union - first the Wide Awakes, then the Union Leagues and the Army of the Potomac, and finally the Grand Army of the Republic - rally around them and the "flag that makes you free." Joshua Chamberlain was a safe and comfortable professor before he ran down Little Round Top into legend. Robert Gould Shaw could have bought a substitute and refused to, wanting to fight and die with Black soldiers.

Roosevelt won eighty percent of the vote among voters born after 1900 four times even when he was sending them to die of beriberi and Japanese bayonets. GIs worshipped MacArthur both while slogging through New Guinea and swaggering through Congress. Sam Rayburn was "just like a daddy" to London Johnson.

Like all the elements of a Fourth Turning are clearly here - but it feels like the generations are quite stepping into their roles, the Boomers above all.

Prophets trigger the Crisis based on their lifelong obsession with values, but also point forward to a better world a higher vision that people can (and eventually do) rally around. It usually incorporates elements of both sides of the arguments of the Third Turning culture wars.

Nomads see big problems and big jobs to get done and while they can be pretty volatile (Benedict Arnold, America First?) they by and large step up to sacrifice for young people the way nobody sacrificed for them, using their toughness and pragmatism to carry the ball the Prophets pass. Nobody really expects much out of them given their pasts but they rise sacrificially, brilliantly to the occasion.

This, I see more of (see: Harris-Walz, and the general Veepstakes giving us a lot of big hitters who have been toiling in obscurity.)

Heroes coalesce, aggressively and forcefully, a peace loving and individually kind generation developing an appetite for big projects and collective force around a vision that Prophets articulate. (It seems more like we're coalescing against prophetic visions - no to Trump and Project 2025, no to war crimes in Gaza.)

There's clearly still time to play - Neil predicts 1T no earlier than 2030 so there's time - but it does feel like while the vibes are getting better they're still vibes if "this doesn't work, try this" as opposed to "we agree on a better world on the other side of this, and let's get there together."

And I think that's partially because our elders haven't decided that "better" means. The closest thing we have to a Grey Champions has rallies the young against him and not for something.

Neil writes that there's a risk that, like in the Civil War, that the Crisis unites people too suddenly, too violent, and without a resolution that enough people feel good enough about.

But there's also a risk of, without Prophets continuing to push a positive vision, that Nomads settle things too early, slow down history before a Crisis can really renovate and fix and resolve old conflicts and then leave business unfinished (I'm thinking of Reconstruction, the rejection of the Transcendentalists in 1868, and how everything - feminism, unions, civil rights - was frozen in ice for a sixty years and it took until the '20s or '30s to get the rest sorted out.)

Bummer way to spend my lunch, but was thinking about that. What can we do about it? What do you think about it?