If you have been following my series on American political history you know that that America works in generational cycles.
Each generation is dominated by a Thesis, consisting of a myth and values that deliver power. This story in time is challenged by an Anti-Thesis, a counter-story that leans against it — in time unsuccessfully.
For instance,
- Clinton was the Anti-Thesis to the Thesis of Nixon.
- Eisenhower was the Anti-Thesis to the Thesis of FDR.
- Wilson was the Anti-Thesis to the Thesis of Theodore Roosevelt.
- Cleveland was the Anti-Thesis to the Thesis of Abraham Lincoln.
- Henry Clay was the Anti-Thesis to the Thesis of Andrew Jackson.
So, class, who creates the new thesis?
It is a leader of the Anti-Thesis.
But the new Thesis is not a reaction to the old. It is a creation of the new leader, of their own trips and dramas, and of those created by their followers. (The crisis leader is always followed by a Thesis leader who embodies what the myth is about — in the case of Nixon that being Ronald Reagan.) It is a combination of Myths and Values that give the new Thesis (and its leader) Power over the next generation.
To put this mathematically:
M x V = P
Nixon, for instance, was a leader of the Anti-Thesis to Roosevelt, which was led by Dwight Eisenhower. Nixon was Eisenhower’s Vice President. He was knocked out of politics by a return to the Thesis, in the person of John F. Kennedy, but returned to power by the Excesses of Lyndon Johnson.
The Thesis Nixon helped create was eventually embodied by Reagan. Bill Clinton became the Anti-Thesis President of his era. George W. Bush represents Excess, leading to a new crisis, and a need for a new Thesis.
Point is the leader of the new Thesis will come from the old Anti-Thesis. The leader of the new Thesis will be a product of the Clinton era. But their views will be their own, their trips and dramas their own, the history they build a product of their lives (not those they honor), and those of their followers.
Lincoln was a follower of Henry Clay, but did not replicate him. Teddy Roosevelt followed the Mugwumps, but he was not one himself. FDR ran for Vice President as a follower of Woodrow Wilson, but his Thesis was quite different. Nixon was Eisenhower’s Vice President, but his trips were not Ike’s.
Why does it work this way? Because we all base our beliefs on stories, on crises, on great world-shaking events that destroy the old order and demand something new.
- Vietnam called forth Nixon, and his Myth of Conflict.
- The Great Depression called forth FDR, and his Myth of Experimentation.
- The American Industrial Revolution called forth Theodore Roosevelt, and his Myth of Boldness.
- The Civil War called forth Lincoln, and his Myth of Union.
The next Myth, I have written before, will likely be based on Consensus. That Myth will bring with it Values, called forth by the leader of the new Thesis, on which your children will base their own political assumptions until they are as old as you (and I) are now.
We will call forth this leader, and this Myth, and these Values, in rejecting today’s leaders and seeking new answers.
That drama is about to play out. The overture has been played — Katrina as the Watts Riots, Iraq as Vietnam.
You have your ticket, called life.
Fasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.
Clued-in people can disagree, but I would take the view that a historically cyclic interpretation of the mood of the electorate is only minimally predictive.
I maintain this because such a view does not take into account the facts that:
*The nature of the electorate has changed. The decline of union membership and the rise of the 401k investor class (as high as 50%) has, for many Americans, lessened the “us against them” equation of labor vs. management, and has promoted the aspirational and entrepreneurial worldview of limited government…
*This is a mobile society where shifts in demographic patterns have been shown to exhibit a preference toward like minded people living in the same states and neighborhoods, thus affecting the political balance. Look at the transformation of California- which has lost two million mostly white citizens over the past 15 years as evidence. That state votes differently than in the past.
*Data processing advances tend to foster redistricting along partisan lines- meaning less seats are contested each cycle.
*With the growth of the primary system now nearly complete, the bias in so many district is toward the left or right- because those are the partisans who tend to vote in primaries.
*Minorities who were minimally participatory now vote, thankfully.
*Perhaps the most effective argument against an overly cyclic view of political trends is that all politics is local. This is a nation of 435 microclimates- shiftable, yes, but more as a result of sociopolitical or socioeconomic forces such as I have described than the turn of years, and the transformation of “cycles,” as you seem to be espousing.
Clued-in people can disagree, but I would take the view that a historically cyclic interpretation of the mood of the electorate is only minimally predictive.
I maintain this because such a view does not take into account the facts that:
*The nature of the electorate has changed. The decline of union membership and the rise of the 401k investor class (as high as 50%) has, for many Americans, lessened the “us against them” equation of labor vs. management, and has promoted the aspirational and entrepreneurial worldview of limited government…
*This is a mobile society where shifts in demographic patterns have been shown to exhibit a preference toward like minded people living in the same states and neighborhoods, thus affecting the political balance. Look at the transformation of California- which has lost two million mostly white citizens over the past 15 years as evidence. That state votes differently than in the past.
*Data processing advances tend to foster redistricting along partisan lines- meaning less seats are contested each cycle.
*With the growth of the primary system now nearly complete, the bias in so many district is toward the left or right- because those are the partisans who tend to vote in primaries.
*Minorities who were minimally participatory now vote, thankfully.
*Perhaps the most effective argument against an overly cyclic view of political trends is that all politics is local. This is a nation of 435 microclimates- shiftable, yes, but more as a result of sociopolitical or socioeconomic forces such as I have described than the turn of years, and the transformation of “cycles,” as you seem to be espousing.
Russell Shaw
and Lottie (Davey) Altstien, lived in Plainville for the past 15 years.This page uses frames, but your browser doesnt support them…