ubernoir wrote:

in light of recent discussions about party politics this piece particularly struck me

The theory advanced in this article is based on earlier work by Neil Howe and William Strauss, published in 1991 as Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069.

Here's the book jacket on the paperback:

Hailed by national leaders as politically diverse as former Vice President Al Gore and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Generations has been heralded by reviewers as a brilliant, if somewhat unsettling, reassessment of where America is heading.

William Strauss and Neil Howe posit the history of America as a succession of generational biographies, beginning in 1584 and encompassing every-one through the children of today. Their bold theory is that each generation belongs to one of four types, and that these types repeat sequentially in a fixed pattern. The vision of Generations allows us to plot a recurring cycle in American history -- a cycle of spiritual awakenings and secular crises -- from the founding colonists through the present day and well into this millenium.

Generations is at once a refreshing historical narrative and a thrilling intuitive leap that reorders not only our history books but also our expectations for the twenty-first century.

They did not win over the folks at Publishers Weekly:

Ex-Capitol Hill aides Strauss and Howe analyze American history according to a convoluted theory of generational cycles, concocting a chronicle that often seems as woolly as a newspaper horoscope.

The authors of this Washington Post article have a new book of their own coming out next month, entitled Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics, which carries an endorsement from Howe and Strauss:

Millennial Makeover builds a strong case for how today's rising generation is poised to become a political powerhouse, re-energizing civic spirit and transforming both the substance and process of American politics. With new technologies, attitudes, and agendas, this generation could define the twenty-first century just as fundamentally as the G.I. Generation defined the twentieth century. Winograd and Hais build a strong, historically rooted case for how this could unfold.

noteworthy wrote:
ubernoir wrote:

in light of recent discussions about party politics this piece particularly struck me

The theory exercised in this article is based on earlier work by Neil Howe and William Strauss, published in 1991 as Generations: The History of America's Future,1584 to 2069.

Here's the book jacket on the paperback:

Hailed by national leaders as politically diverse as former Vice President Al Gore and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Generations has been heralded by reviewers as a brilliant, if somewhat unsettling, reassessment of where America is heading.

William Strauss and Neil Howe posit the history of America as a succession of generational biographies, beginning in 1584 and encompassing every-one through the children of today. Their bold theory is that each generation belongs to one of four types, and that these types repeat sequentially in a fixed pattern. The vision of Generations allows us to plot a recurring cycle in American history -- a cycle of spiritual awakenings and secular crises -- from the founding colonists through the present day and well into this millenium.

Generations is at once a refreshing historical narrative and a thrilling intuitive leap that reorders not only our history books but also our expectations for the twenty-first century.

They did not win over the folks at Publishers Weekly:

Ex-Capitol Hill aides Strauss and Howe analyze American history according to a convoluted theory of generational cycles, concocting a chronicle that often seems as woolly as a newspaper horoscope.

The authors of this Washington Post article have a new book of their own coming out next month, entitled Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics, which carries an endorsement from Howe and Strauss:

Millennial Makeover builds a strong case for how today's rising generation is poised to become a political powerhouse, re-energizing civic spirit and transforming both the substance and process of American politics. With new technologies, attitudes, and agendas, this generation could define the twenty-first century just as fundamentally as the G.I. Generation defined the twentieth century. Winograd and Hais build a strong, historically rooted case for how this could unfold.

i think i share a general anglo-saxon distaste for grand sweeping historical theories (a generational typology seems grandiose) and regard such things as "french" since the french famously love this type of theorising
however it is interesting, although sometimes facts get shoehorned into theory,
perhaps this particular theory, if it has real substance, is related to the cliche that each generation is in reaction (in rebellion) to the previous

noteworthy wrote:
ubernoir wrote:

in light of recent discussions about party politics this piece particularly struck me

The theory advanced in this article is based on earlier work by Neil Howe and William Strauss, published in 1991 as Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069.

For the record, I like this book and its theory. I've found it a useful guide.

ubernoir wrote:

American history suggests that about every 80 years, a civic (or Joshua) generation, emerges to make over the country after a period of upheaval caused by the fervor of an idealist (or Moses) generation.

in light of recent discussions about party politics this piece particularly struck me

My own generation is almost completely ignored by this article, other than the typical mention of our cynicism and alienation. One suspects that is because we're of little political utility as a group to the Democrats, mostly for demographic reasons, but also because we're more likely than the younger ones to vote for a Republican...

I will however say that I'm happy about this statistic:

Thirty-six percent, the mode on this survey question, chose socially liberal and fiscally moderate...

Decius wrote:

My own generation is almost completely ignored by this article, other than the typical mention of our cynicism and alienation. One suspects that is because we're of little political utility as a group to the Democrats, mostly for demographic reasons, but also because we're more likely than the younger ones to vote for a Republican...

what i was more thinking was that your attitude to the current state of the system is more typical of this supposed new generation -- thus you might be seen as ahead of the curve -- you are totally alienated by idealogy, civic minded and desire a center consensus and oppose the partisan politics of the establishment (or so I gather -- apologies if that is a bit general and/or inaccurate)

ubernoir wrote:

Decius wrote:

My own generation is almost completely ignored by this article, other than the typical mention of our cynicism and alienation. One suspects that is because we're of little political utility as a group to the Democrats, mostly for demographic reasons, but also because we're more likely than the younger ones to vote for a Republican...

what i was more thinking was that your attitude to the current state of the system is more typical of this supposed new generation -- thus you might be seen as ahead of the curve -- you are totally alienated by idealogy, civic minded and desire a center consensus and oppose the partisan politics of the establishment (or so I gather -- apologies if that is a bit general and/or inaccurate)

Well, the line between millenials and Xers is 1980, and I was born in 1976, so I'm likely to be closer to milenials than someone born in 1970. But I'm still cynical about public institutions.

My election day in 2000 was three hours long, because I got on a plane heading toward Asia. I spent the next month there reassuring business associates that the United States would, inevitably, select a President, while neither paying close attention to the recounting process nor being very concerned about its result. I guess in retrospect given the amount of attention I pay now, it's amazing that I didn't follow Bush V. Gore. But really, I didn't care until 9/11. First to try to determine what had happened and why, but also since 9/11 we've violated fundamental philisophical underpinnings of our institutions, such as the system of checks and balances, and the notion that you don't engage in wars of choice. These are missteps that risk collapse of our society. I think you have to pay attention to that, so you don't get blind sided if collapse actually begins. The bubble economy presents similar concerns...

In 2000 I was confident that the government did not really serve my interests but I was also confident that it was operated by smart professionals who wouldn't allow it to fail. 9/11 demonstrated that massive failure was possible and the post 9/11 government has shown why. Perhaps it takes the naivety of a civic minded generation like the milennials to repair public institutions that are so broken. Of course you have to beleive that its possible. But my generation has a different destiny. We grew up dealing with the bad consiquences of boomer idealism in our personal lives. Our job is to apply our well earned cynicism and fail to follow the baby boomers off a cliff in their pursuit of some idealistic agenda. That process is only starting as we've entered adulthood. Civic minded millenials won't be rebuilding social institutions for another 20 years...

ubernoir wrote:

Decius wrote:

My own generation is almost completely ignored by this article, other than the typical mention of our cynicism and alienation. One suspects that is because we're of little political utility as a group to the Democrats, mostly for demographic reasons, but also because we're more likely than the younger ones to vote for a Republican...

what i was more thinking was that your attitude to the current state of the system is more typical of this supposed new generation -- thus you might be seen as ahead of the curve -- you are totally alienated by idealogy, civic minded and desire a center consensus and oppose the partisan politics of the establishment (or so I gather -- apologies if that is a bit general and/or inaccurate)

You sure it's this and not just sheer numbers? Boomers = 80M+, Gen Y (Millenials?) = 90M+, Gen X = 50M.

I'd like to read this book just to see what its prognostications are for the next 60 years. My intuition tells me that there's been such irreparable damage to basic tenants of our society that even if you could get Gen X and Gen Y in total alignment about what the solution is, I doubt you'd have enough time/resources to accomplish the task without further risk. It's like trying to lose weight. It takes you several years to get fat, but people always expect (and need) that it will take half the time to lose it. It can be done, but it is painful and risky.

ubernoir wrote:

Decius wrote:

My own generation is almost completely ignored by this article, other than the typical mention of our cynicism and alienation. One suspects that is because we're of little political utility as a group to the Democrats, mostly for demographic reasons, but also because we're more likely than the younger ones to vote for a Republican...

what i was more thinking was that your attitude to the current state of the system is more typical of this supposed new generation -- thus you might be seen as ahead of the curve -- you are totally alienated by idealogy, civic minded and desire a center consensus and oppose the partisan politics of the establishment (or so I gather -- apologies if that is a bit general and/or inaccurate)

The article combined civvies and reactive generation types for convenience's sake, it seems.

ubernoir wrote:

American history suggests that about every 80 years, a civic (or Joshua) generation, emerges to make over the country after a period of upheaval caused by the fervor of an idealist (or Moses) generation. In 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932 and 1968, as members of new generations -- alternately idealist and civic -- began to vote in large numbers, the United States experienced major political shifts. This year, the civic-minded millennials, born between 1982 and 2003, are coming of age and promising to turn the political landscape, currently defined by idealist baby boomers such as Clinton and George W. Bush, upside down.
...
Because idealist generations are unwilling to compromise on moral issues, they've always failed to solve the major social and economic problems of their eras. In the decades after the 1828 election, the country was pulled apart over slavery, ultimately leading to the Civil War. After the 1896 campaign, the United States couldn't find a way to help blue-collar workers and farmers to share fully in the wealth generated by the Industrial Revolution. It took the Great Depression to usher in the sense of urgency that led to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Today, issues such as affordable health care or quality education or climate change are endlessly debated but never resolved by two sides unwilling to set aside their ideological agendas for the common good.

But now, with another civic generation emerging, the times, as boomer troubadour Bob Dylan sang, they are a-changin'. Civic generations react against the idealist generations' efforts to use politics to advance their own moral causes and focus instead on reenergizing social, political and government institutions to solve pressing national issues. Previous civic realignments occurred in 1860, with the election of Abraham Lincoln, and in 1932, when the GI generation put Roosevelt in office. It's no coincidence that these "civic" presidents, along with George Washington, top all lists of our greatest presidents. All three led the country in resolving great crises by inspiring and guiding new generations and revitalizing and expanding the federal government.

in light of recent discussions about party politics this piece particularly struck me

Civic generations react? Huh? Reactive generations react. Civvies implement the ideals of the Idealists. Did they even read the book they are quoting from?