I began writing this book review for publication elsewhere, but the post became too long and went in too many different directions. One of the reasons I started this Substack was so I could take my time and finish the review in a series of posts. This week provides a few reactions from others to put the book in context.
Part One is here for background and definition of terms.
I was somewhat surprised to discover that the online Critical Dictionary of Apocalyptic and Millenarian Movements has an entry for Strauss-Howe Generational Theory. The Critical Dictionary defines apocalypticism as “a belief in the likely or impending destruction of the world (or a general global catastrophe), usually associated with upheaval in the social, political, and religious order of human society.” It defines millenarianism as “an end-times Golden Age of peace, on earth, for a long period, preceding a final cataclysm and judgement—sometimes referred to as the 'millennium'.”
If I had not found this entry in the Critical Dictionary of Apocalyptic and Millenarian Movements, it would not have occurred to me that the Strauss-Howe cycle theory would be associated with a belief that the end-times are imminent. The main point of the theory is that societies experience crises in cycles lasting 80-100 years. That seems to me very nearly the opposite of predicting that an impending crisis will be the end of everything. Of course, it is also very nearly the opposite of predicting that major crises are happening every year as corporate media are wont to do, or predicting that every four year election cycle is a major crisis as our legacy political parties are wont to do. So I guess in that sense the Strauss-Howe theory is the position of sensible moderates.
The Critical Dictionary entry on Strauss-Howe was written in 2021, before publication of The Fourth Turning Is Here. At that time the Critical Dictionary author perceived Strauss-Howe generational theory as primarily a right-wing phenomenon:
Some influenced by this theory believe we are currently in a crisis, perhaps at the beginning stages of a global conflict. This crisis is perceived by the undermining of Judeo-Christian values in American and Europe. The forces of secularism and Islam are perceived as threatening the underpinnings of moral order. For some, a war with Islamic extremists is believed to be inevitable. This is believed to be the crisis through which a new moral order and cultural renewal can emerge. The ‘War on Terror’ is believed to be part of the current ‘Crisis’ or ‘Fourth Turning’.
This ‘clash of civilisations’ worldview (Huntington 1996) is seen most prominently in the religious beliefs of Steve Bannon, formerly White House Chief Strategist. His public statements suggest the current time is a potentially a cataclysmic end to ‘Western civilisation’ because of the evils of Islam, state-regulation of capitalism, and secularism (Steve Bannon, 2014).
A belief that the current Millennial generation is fighting existential threats to ‘Western civilisation’ is central to ‘alt-right ideology’. It is an ideology that is promulgated strongly on Bannon’s website, Breitbart News.
Steve Bannon’s application of Strauss-Howe Generational Theory is particularly millenarian.
The Critical Dictionary article goes on to explain that “[i]n Bannon’s production of Generation Zero (2010), the roots of the 2008 banking crisis and subsequent economic downturn are traced to the American social revolution of the 1960s. The 1960s are characterised as a narcissistic revolution of hippies—a generation, the Baby Boomers, who were spoilt by their parents. It is this attitude that, it is claimed, led to the irresponsible behaviour and risk-taking that led to the global financial meltdown.”
By contrast, while Howe certainly emphasizes the centrality of the Baby Boomer awakening of the 1960s and 70s in establishing the present battle lines, Howe recognizes that the Boomers spawned both sides of the current political divide(s).
Today’s pundits routinely point to the ‘sixties’ or ‘seventies’ as the birthplace of nearly every ideological driver that is pushing America’s politics toward dysfunction and breakdown. For conservatives, that era spawned a generation of hate-America leftists and post-modern critical theorists who later took over academia, think tanks, and mainstream media. For progressives, it spawned a generation of born-again evangelicals and greed-is-good libertarians who later took over churches, business lobbies, and the military. (p.61)
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that angry people reacting to the 1960s and 70s invented these caricatures of each other and continued to develop and deploy them over time, but Howe’s point is an important one. The crisis toward which we seem to be moving has at least two sides acting on each other dialectically at all times. Howe traces the roots of both primary factions to the normative foundations established during the formative years of the Baby Boomer generation, but given all the water under the bridge since the 1960s and the need for realignment as a fundamental part of a fourth turning, the red/blue polarizers of today simply are not the same as the factions of the 1960s and 70s.
Nevertheless, people will sort. For example, a self-described conservative reviewer sees indications that Howe wants and expects socialism to prevail in the upcoming crisis:
Howe has, with a fortuneteller’s knack for vaguery, spelled out a glorious future that can be plausibly interpreted to imply either a smashing conservative countercultural triumph or total victory by authoritarian woke-leftist collectivism. Remarkably for today’s partisan era, the book is written so that it is exceptionally difficult to tell which of these outcomes Howe prefers, or even which he considers more likely. But sifting through the text one finds clues.
This reviewer, somewhat like Steve Bannon, assumes that the values of the Boomers are left-leaning, and because “the new values of the previous Awakening” drive the crisis, therefore Howe is implying “victory by today’s version of the New Left.” The reviewer seems blind to the Boomer roots of post-Reagan conservatism, although the review otherwise makes many worthwhile points.
Of course, it’s hardly surprising that many readers will react to The Fourth Turning Is Here by attempting to classify Howe himself as either a Joe Biden socialist or a MAGA Trumper, because that’s what we do in 2023. But Howe is playing a long game, recognizing both that today’s political rivalries have deep roots, and that the specific issues being debated change over time.
Another writer reacting to Strauss & Howe’s previous book provided a sort of classification combo platter. Instead of concluding that traditionalists of subsequent generations should fight against the liberal Boomers, this author concluded that Howe and his Boomer ilk are themselves MAGA conservatives trying to destroy their own liberal legacy. Or something nefarious, because Boomers.
In 1997, the self-described Boomer prophets William Strauss and Neil Howe, known as "Strauss-Howe," copped a phrase from A Game of Thrones writing ominously that "winter is coming." Strauss-Howe explained that the Boomer generation was the key to America's survival in the coming winter. They glowingly wrote of their future selves, "Thus will the Gray Champion [i.e., the Boomers] ride once more."
. . . Strauss-Howe foretold that the next turning would occur around the year 2020, during which the "Aging Boomers will be drawn to . . . preservation of values that will increasingly seem antiquated to others.". . .
[T]he Boomer tendency of denying that their generation is even capable of leaving America in a lurch, is a form of the "toxic positivity" that infused Donald J. Trump with an unnatural boldness that helped him win the presidency.
A subsequent article by the same author further clarified(?) his perception of the political leanings of the Boomers: “the conservatives of future decades may come to regret the decisions that [Amy Coney] Barrett makes on their behalf including her vote in Dobbs that established what will surely be a chaotic, anti-stare-decisis-era that appears to exist solely to ensure that the Boomers can take every right that they enjoyed in their younger years to the grave, without passing them down to future generations.”
So that’s a little context. Honestly, not super enlightening, but worth having in the back of your mind as ways not to look at this book.
Attempting to wrap up this project, I see at least three additional areas that are likely to merit a post:
Intergenerational stereotypes and conflict. Steve Bannon and some of the writers discussed here are using Strauss-Howe generational theory as an excuse to complain about Boomers, but that pretty clearly isn’t the point Howe is trying to make in The Fourth Turning Is Here. So do the generational classifications have any validity, and how much do they matter to the long-cycle historical theory?
The long-cycle theory. Is the historical part of the theory more persuasive than the part about generational stereotypes? Yes it is.
Influence on policy makers, and predictions. Steve Bannon definitely is not the only one using Strauss and Howe, and the influence appears to be more than just rhetoric and marketing. Can we make any predictions about the next ten or twenty years after reading The Fourth Turning Is Here?