May 15, 2004
70-year cycle reducks...
I wrote here about the theory that dominance of American political parties moves in a 70-year cycle, and how strong the parallels are between what we see now, and politics in the 1930's (and probably in the 1860's, though I haven't been thinking much about that.)
I've criticized the Bush-haters for being totally negative, for being only against, and not for anything. But that's exactly how Republicans were in the 1930's. Stunned and bewildered and bitter. ...Now this story, about many Democrats wanting McCain for Kerry's veep, reminds me that Wendell Wilkie, the Republican candidate in 1940, was, until just before the campaign, a Democrat! He once caused a flap by referring in a speech to "you Republicans."
Another interesting parallel I've been meaning to blog is the Panic of 1893. That was during the time of Republican dominance, from the 1860's to the 1930's. But the Democrats held the White House, under President Grover Cleveland. However, the Democrats then were the party that was against government action to mitigate such a crisis. They were the party of small government and State's Rights. They had no real ideas or policy to deal with the situation, and the confident Republicans crushed them in the next election. The actual measures being advocated were very different from today's, but the politics were very similar to the demise of Herbert Hoover.
Does anyone know who came up with the 70-year cycle theory? It's been a part of my mental-landscape for decades, but I don't remember whose idea it is.
Also, I've added a new posting category called: 70-Year Cycle.
I have note something similar though not in 70 year cycles rather 100 year cycles. It seems the 60s-70s in each century invite monumental changes in the American Poltical Psyche.
This is followed by shifts in political dominance.
Although a real thinking man might start drawing up timelines and evidence to support this claim, I haven't the time at the moment but may do so over the next week and post them.
Davis Chenault
Posted by: Davis Chenault at May 15, 2004 10:39 AMGo for it!
Beyond a pattern, you need to descern a reason. I think the 70-year cycle is very generational. Roughly 3 generations.
My parent's generation experienced the crisis and solution first-hand. My generation learned it second-hand, but still vivid. Now there are large numbers of voters for whom it is all too distant to be convincing.
And for the opposition party, it takes one generation to realize that the old ideas really don't work, another to rethink, and then a third of confident young people not infected with feelings of inferiority. (Even today there are a lot of older Republican politicians who are reflexively defensive, and deferential to Democrats. Ie: 9/11 Commission.)
First, detecting cycles has survival value and detecting false cycles has only a little anti-survival value, so people misjudge randomness in favor of cycles. The gambling industry depends on it.
Second, any realization of a random history produces large cycles because there are always huge Fourier components when you have a large number of them. It is nevertheless random, and no good for predicting.
Third, cautionarily, detecting stock market cycles was very popular, and may still be, but by looking at the filter you're using to do it, you can predict the cycles you'll find, without any need for actual input.
So some people dismiss cycles without even looking at it, and probably save a lot of time.
Posted by: Ron Hardin at May 15, 2004 09:51 PM
