Trump and Generations Part 4: Parabellum

In Part 1 we learned how the current “stack” of generations is very reminiscent of the generational makeup of the late 1930’s. In Part 2 we examined how our current “Crisis” portion of the four phase cycle is playing out. In Part 3 we looked at what is next based on that historical perspective. In Part 4 we will consider the powerful forces aligned to drive us towards a Climax.

Are we headed to War?

Since I originally posted the earlier parts of this series back in 2017, I will consider one of the important players in the Climax drama at that time: Steven K. Bannon. Bannon has some strong views on what direction our country should be going in the future, and he has not been shy about sharing that vision through his media property, Breitbart News. He was a key strategic advisor in the White House who shaped Trump’s campaign, and it remains clear that he wants to make his vision a reality. Although he didn’t last very long in the Trump administration, he continues to spread his populist vision around the globe, most recently in trying influence the EU Vote.

Bannon is a Baby Boomer of the first order, as outlined in this cover article from Time magazine. He was born in 1953 during the “American High” and was raised a Democrat by a working-class father. Later in life he shifted his beliefs as he became convinced that mainstream liberals and conservatives were not serving the country.

More interestingly, he is a devotee of Strauss and Howe’s generational theories. In 2010 he made a film, Generation Zero, which is an alt-right polemic view of Strauss and Howe’s work. The film is crystal clear on the view that we are headed for a massive conflict and that the US will be victors only if we ascribe to Bannon’s ultra-conservative viewpoints. David Kaiser pointed this out in two Time Magazine articles: one in November 2016 and a anoother in February 2017.

I think it is critically important to state that Strauss and Howe’s theories were not intended to support any particular viewpoint. I know Neil Howe personally and although I won’t reveal his political leanings, I can say that he is definitely NOT an extremist and I have been told the same about Bill Strauss. In their books they describe how public sentiment enables leaders to accomplish different things in different periods but it does not determine the political direction of those accomplishments.

“Generation Zero” is very clear that the dominant liberal democratic values held in most of the West are the root of a problem which will lead to the next “War to end all wars”. Is a war between the superpowers possible? I believe the risk today is greater than any other period during my lifetime (note: I was not alive during the Bay of Pigs invasion).

Although Bannon’s view is that populism is the opposite of liberal democracy, I don’t believe that the Chinese or Russians would agree. Their worldview is authoritarian and their focus is on stability through a single ruling authority. That is the true opposite of a liberal democracy.

What would World War III look like?

“I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Possibly Albert Einstein

The Novel, “Ghost Fleet”, written by P.W. Singer is an entertaining, and terrifying, vision of what a global war in the Information Age would look like. I don’t want to give it away, but the story revolves around the combination of physical and cyber attacks, used to disable the US military and economy. The enemy is a slightly futuristic version of the Chinese government.

If Trump’s trade war with China continues to escalate alongside our difficulty with Russia and North Korea, perhaps Singer’s nightmare might become a reality. How could this be possible in the Atomic Age? In Singer’s book, China’s goal is to cripple the US, not take it over completely. Through a combination of traditional and cyber warfare they cause chaos for both the military and the civilian population. But a nuclear response remains an unpalatable option because of mutually assured destruction. Is this realistic? Singer spent years at the Pentagon, so maybe it is not that far-fetched…

In the US we are quite concerned with how the Chinese and Russians continue to grow their cyber warfare capabilities. Many are concerned that these capabilities will inevitably lead to a conflict. One of my very best friends had a long military career, serving at the highest levels. When I spoke to him about this he reminded me that capability alone is not what causes conflicts: there must be a political or economic factor that pushes a nation towards war. In the case of both Russia and China, their fundamental ideological disagreements with the West may be that factor.

Imperialism as the Driver

Russia, in my view, is a particular concern. Looking back at the previous Crisis Climax (WWII) is the source of my concern. Although Adolf Hitler and the Nazi’s are now remembered for their inhumanity and the holocaust, that is not the thing that made them such a terrifying enemy at the time. Hitler used racism and xenophobia to motivate the German people, but he also had a “higher” goal of “Lebensraum” that inspired the German’s desire to recapture their rightful domain (and a sizable buffer around those lands). During the Blitzkrieg he showed Germany and the World that he could quickly take what Imperial Germany had failed to dominate in WWI. Hilter had a lethal combination of an “inspirational” vision for a downtrodden people coupled with a thirst to dominate and colonize.

Putin shares many of these characteristics. One of his early advisors was Alexandr Dugin who, like Stephen Bannon with Trump, helped define Putin’s winning election strategy. He was the founder of the Eurasia Party which seeks to “reunite” the nations of the former Soviet Republic (and a sizable buffer around those lands). He also directly opposes liberal democracy and believes that a dictatorship is the only viable option for Eurasia. Like Bannon he is no longer part of the ruling administration, but his ideas remain entrenched.

Proof of this came in 2014 when Putin made his foray into Crimea. While the international community condemned his actions, they did not take military action. The same was true for Hitler with Poland, but, thankfully, Putin did not push his advantage like the Nazi’s did at that time. Putin knew that he lacked allies that could support him militarily and economically. But he certainly noted the muted international reaction to his brazen imperial effort. Putin’s success with the disinformation campaign during the last US Presidential election, he also showed that he could cause great disruption with a relatively small investment.

China does not seem to share quite the same level of imperialism, but they certainly want to be acknowledge as one of, if not the, dominant world power. Their cyber abilities continue to increase and they have been consistently willing to flex that muscle internally. Governments around the world have become very concerned about this cyber capability, and the Huawei debate is just the most recent example of this concern. Both China and the West are dependent on the Internet for economic growth, but China has already built-in protections for their network including the Golden Shield and the Great Cannon. This gives them a huge asymmetric advantage in a potential cyberwar.

China’s approach to imperialism seems to be taking a mostly economic form so far. Although Taiwan and other nearby nations may fear a direct takeover, China seems more focused on African nations and building it’s “belt and road” initiative to spread its influence globally. This may be, in part, because China’s ability to wage kinetic war is more limited than Russia or the West. Although China has a massive arsenal, it’s traditional military force is largely untested.

If the China-US trade war continues to drag on alongside the Russian Sanctions, the West may inadvertently create an environment where China and Russia have nothing to in an alliance against the West. Given enough time, they may shift their economies away from global trade, which would allow for more open conflict with their ideological nemeses.

The Rise of Nationalism in the West

The common theme globally today is a focus on nationalism. It is one of the big drivers for Chinese and Russian imperialism, and, conversely, for the West’s move towards isolationism. Nationalism is decried in liberal democracies, but it is steadily gaining ground, with the 2019 EU vote being the most recent example. But the nationalist politicians in most of the West are also preaching an isolationist policy; pulling out of trade agreements, closing borders and defying international bodies. So while Russian and Chinese nationalism increases their desire for global domination, the Western nations are rapidly pulling away.

Although Trump is regularly called a fascist inside and outside of the United States, there are few that would argue that he harbors openly imperialistic goals. His “Make America Great Again” vision is not about returning to a time of manifest destiny but rather a view that the US deserves payback for all our efforts since WWII. Brexiteers follow a similar “logic” with a desire to pull away from a Europe that has been “bleeding us dry“.

This obviously mirrors the situation back in the late 1930’s when the US had enacted multiple isolationist policies. The public’s distaste for getting involved in another war in Europe was driving the policy of the day, and because they were barely recovering from the Great Depression, the focus remained on the domestic agenda. It took Pearl Harbor to finally wake the sleeping giant.

What will be the Spark?

WWI started with an assassination, while WWII began when Germany invaded Poland. But it was the geopolitical climate at those times that were the actual cause of the conflict. The political climate today is extremely divisive and all sides are ramping up towards a climax. Vice President Mike Pence recently told West Point Grads to prepare for combat. As the tensions rise between authoritarian regimes and liberal democracies, eventually it will take the smallest spark to kick off a conflict. Will that be another annexation by Russia, another economic meltdown that pushes the West to resort to conflict, or the expansion of a proxy war in the the Middle East or elsewhere? In reality, the spark is not the real issue.

The generational cycles of history are what provides the fertile ground for a conflict in the Crisis period. Our top leaders today globally are almost exclusively Baby Boomers, known for their idealistic dogma. Gen X’ers dominate the “middle management” in government and corporations, with their “ends justify the means” pragmatism. And Millennials make up the bulk of the potential fighting forces with their focus on collaboration and cohesion. This “stack” of generational archetypes is what creates such great potential for conflict and eventual resolution.

While there are many parallels between today and the last climax (WWII), there are also many differences. In the next post I will explore those differences and consider how they might lead to a very different outcome.

7 thoughts on “Trump and Generations Part 4: Parabellum”

  1. Good post! I see things significantly differently on the world stage:

    China: They don’t want a war right now (20-30 years from now is different) and are trying to take strategic positions on the board for the future. However, their arrogance and fear of their economy collapsing is likely to push them into a major miscalculation that causes one.

    Europe: I think Western Europe has primed itself for a major collapse ala post-Soviet Russia that nobody is seeing coming. Worse the collapse will either be triggered by, or will trigger, a mass Islamic migrant uprising that most Western European countries no longer have the military capacity to defeat.

    N. Korea: I see them as dancing to China’s strings to a large extent. China wants them to be a headache to the US, but not so much that they prompt serious action, or worse rearmament of their Pacific neighbors.

    Russia: Russia is a puffer fish. They puff themselves up to make it seem like they have more capability than they actually do. A great example of this is that in deploying resources to Syria, they had to reduce the efforts in the Ukraine. You’ll notice the Ukraine conflict went much quieter as they got sucked into Syria. As for interference in the US election, this is typically broken into 2 areas: 1. Advertising via Facebook and other social media, which is what every PAC does and was basically drowned out in the general cacophony of the election and 2. Hack the DNC servers and distribute their e-mails, which (at least publicly) has only been substantiated by a vendor paid by the DNC as they refused to allow any other parties, like the FBI, access. Given that the DNC was in the middle of a number of major scandals caused by the leaks, and therefore had a vested interest in pointed the blame and changing the story, I find the 2nd less convincing, while Russia would have much to gain by allowing the rest of the world to believe they did it. I don’t see Russia as a major threat this seculum.

    In the US: While I think general violence is likely to increase as wqew further polarize, I don’t see a true civial war as likely. The military culture was too closely aligned with the right since the left rejected them in the 60s, so the right has a deep well of people to draw from if it should happen. While the left is making in-roads to change this, especially with active-duty from the Obama era, it’s not happening fast enough to create a true split. Antifa is basically a reprint of the Brownshirts and Blackshirts of the 1930s, but would only be capable of asymetric warfare and lacks the training for actual field combat. If Antifa uses asymmetric tactics, it would likely unify the military against the left, given how much they hate having been the target of such tactics in the GWOT.

    1. The crisis will be civil of some sort, it already is. The left is hitting people over the head with bikelocks in Berkeley, and calling for the end of free speech.

      My theory is that every Fourth Turning alternates between internal and external conflict. If judging by the last three, the right is generally on the right side of history during internal conflicts and the left is on the correct side during external ones. Internal conflicts are where the rights of the individual are upheld against the mob, and external conflicts are where the nation must unify as a collective against some external force.

      I have problems with FDRs gold confiscation, court packing and Japanese American internment, but it was clearly a time where a collective unity was needed. The right was generally corporatism and isolationist.

      The Civil War, while not about slavery per se, had strong undertones of it. The Democrats and their identitarian ism of us vs. them were clearly on the wrong side of history.

      Such is the case now, where the identitarian ism has reversed, but the left just offers the name “racist” to any beaten down white middle class voter who have seen their way of life hollowed out since 1970. Identitarianism is failing and offers zero solution to the crisis. Nor do carbon taxes or “believe all women.”

      Yet Trump’s jobs bonanza has not done anything to placate the hatred. Left and right are isolated by geography more than any time in history.

      The left itself is in a mild Civil War. Watch Jimmy Dore or Tim Poole on YouTube to see it. Nobody likes the establishment. The right rejected them with Trump in 2016, while the DNC shafted the populist Bernie, which started the internal war. I have seen open talk of Civil War on the internet, and China has its own problems with Hong Kong.

      As much as the people of Hong Kong love to wave the American flag, Id love to see them succeed in bringing about a revolution in China and a peaceful China before the otherwise probably inevitable China USA conflict.

      The only “high” I see coming is if Americans get back to building a strong middle class and China gives up their imperialistic ambitions. The left in China and the US offer neither of these outcomes.

      America is becoming more authoritarian by the day, but at the hands of corporations in Silicon Valley. These same corporations are helping China do the same. May they lose the battle.

  2. I am a Gen Xer who read Generations in 1991. No book, before or after, spoke to me as much about how I feel as a Gen Xer. The predictions by Strauss and Howe have been amazing.

    It was very interesting to me to see a resurgence in interest of the generational theories in 2016 with the election of Trump. Virtually all of it, from my point of view, being misguided. Understandable, given the excitement from Trump supporters in their completely unexpected victory.

    As a 40+ year fan and advocate of the Generational Theory, it always seemed apparent to me that Trump, with his authoritarian and narcissistic nature, was the crisis. On the wrong side of history, like the Tories or Confederates, or Andrew Mellon. Trump was a complete surprise. A mistake of history. An accident – except for the dynamics at play that made President Trump possible, which were only envisaged by Strauss and Howe back in 1991.

    The facts at play:
    1 – Every new saeculum has been more inclusive and more egalitarian. The opposite of more Reagan-Bush style tax cuts and this Supreme Court.
    2 – Trump never had popular support. More people voted for Hillary.
    3 – Every new saeculum is the vision of the young. America’s young have always mostly hated Trumpism. Every passing day of deaths and maturity makes America more safe and more victorious.

    The climax was in 2020, exactly as predicted. Authoritarian Trump tried to end the American Republic with his coup attempt and came closer to succeeding than most people are willing to openly discuss.

    The Gen X hero is Jack Smith. Plucked from obscurity like General Grant, to do what his elders were too timid to do and bring law and order back to America.
    The war, fortunately for us, is the war in Ukraine which has defanged our foreign adversary in Vladimir Putin. No matter what happens in Ukraine from this point, Putin has been made to look weak – like he tried to do to America (for another post, but his Hitlerian career arc of defeated foe to hostile enemy leader is worth discussing).

    But the most unpredictable part of all this has been the emergence of President Biden as the gray champion. Not that he is beloved but that he is on track to go down as the most successful President in modern American history. Becoming President in a time of chaos and an attempted coup and bringing normalcy back to America with a future set for all the change envisioned by America’s young people. It’s Morning In America.

  3. Thanks for the comment, DJ. I think that Neil Howe has a different opinion, and he just published a new book on the topic (search for “The Fourth Turning is Here” on Amazon to find it).
    I appreciate your perspective but there are several points I can’t agree on:
    The War on Ukraine is not an “all out ideological war”. It is more like another proxy war (USSR/China vs. the West).
    I don’t see any possibility that Biden will be seen as a Grey Champion.
    Trump was important in cementing how people take sides in preparation for the coming climax, but his election wasn’t the “crisis” just a piece of the puzzle.

    I believe, mostly in alignment with Neil, that we have not yet hit the climax of the crisis, and that it will happen in the next 5-10 years. Unlike Neil, I am not confident that the climax will result in a definitive conclusion and we may end up in a post-civil war type of of First Turning. But I remain hopeful that I am wrong about that.

    1. It wouldn’t surprise me at all for Neil Howe to disagree with me. He has let slip his personal preferences for awhile now. Even in the new book (which I own but have only read the Gen X chapter so far), Howe talks again about the future austerity. Austerity was the economic failing of last decade. We had massive debt after WWII. Did we engage in austerity then?

      I appreciate all of Neil Howe’s work but without William Strauss he is like Morrissey without Johnny Marr. Still producing. Still a following. Still successful. The product just isn’t as good.

      As for war. The idea of winning an all-out 21st century war has never been appealing to me. It is MAD in the Cold War sense. Perhaps the greatest victory of this Turning is it’s successful conclusion without an all-out war. Just a failed coup and the legal aftermath.

      Maybe after I finish the new book I’ll have other thoughts.

  4. I’m not quite finished with the book but I have finished the section on Baby Boomers and. . . I have opinions. Before I get into it, I want to say I still like the Generational Theory and believe in it and plan to post again my thoughts on the Fourth Turning when I finish the book, but Howe’s writing about Baby Boomers – oh boy. It’s delusional.

    Howe paints a picture of a generation of anti-materialist spiritual beings who have never had a care for matters of wealth, instead dedicating their lives to personal well being and culture. A group who disdained money and never pursued it because they were busy with their internal growth and fostering a culture around them. They are waiting for the right moment of self-sacrifice to save the nation.

    BABY BOOMERS OWN HALF OF ALL WEALTH IN THE U.S. despite being 21% of the population.

    We have never had a Fourth Turning so driven by pure generational greed, not just in matters of culture but also wealth. Half the crisis we are in is because Baby Boomers won’t sacrifice anything. They keep an unrelenting vice-grip on all things material and nonmaterial in this country suffocating out the rest of us. I hope Howe is right that Boomers will someday, at long last, commit to self-sacrifice. At that point the crisis will be over.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.