Reservation against the Fourth Republic Theory

Very interesting thesis.

On the US, that is an intesting way of deconstructing the patterns of history in hindsight. Regardless of my reservations of this approach, I am as guilty of any of trying to make sense of history this way.

Many philosophies including Chinese believe in historical cycles (and 72 is actually one Buddhist cycle). On the other hand, I also believe in quantum mechanical concept of society progressing in increments until it has to readjust with a big step up/down to find a new equilibrium or energy level. Although I disagree with Mr Lind's limitations to physical and material energies.
My main reservation with this thesis is that it tries to interprete the past - in hindsight - to project to the future. That approach (reductionism) is not usually the most convincing form of scholarship.

My second reservation is that this essentially look at the "trailing" instead of the leading "indicators". In short, big adjustments in government changes to catch up with changes in the people and society; and not the other way round. To revisit our earlier discussion, the best ways to see the differences between the various "republics" is to see them as major amendments to the "social contract", otherwise governemnt would lose its purpose and legitimacy.

Mr Lind is a bit too concerned about making clear demarcations between each 72 year cycles. My view is that each cycle is like different parts of a tree: each is the beginning and each is the end; if there are no roots there would be no trunk; if there are no trunk there would be no branches; and we never ask where each should begin or end?

If we had no Bush, we would probably have no Obama; no Lincoln without slavery; no reconstruction without civil war; no Jefferson without his intellectual rivalry with Hamilton (who by the way would have been President if he didnt die in a pistol duel age 44); no FDR without the depression; no economic recovery without WW2; no civil rights without widespread education in the post-war economy and so on.

So I see most things as a natural progression. Leaders do not cause transformations but transfprmations need leaders - great leaders - to give the nation strength and vision so as to step up to progress instead of falling back to the worse in human nature. Obama involked Lincoln and called this "the better angels of our nature".

All of 3 previous republics were born in times of great challenge. But they should not be confused with transformation itself because I see troubled times not as cause of transformation as triggers. The spark is needed for the fire but they cannot replace the firewood. The revolutionary war and chaos that characterized the early year of the USA; the Civil War which cost the greatest casualties of any war in the history of the USA even more than WW2 although the population was way smaller; the great depression when 20% of banks went bust and joblessness hit 25%. The challenges we are seeing now may rival all that, we simply do not know yet. I certainly hope not.

But that does not mean transformation is not at hand. One certainly hope that progress in humanity means people can be collectively aware of new realities to demand and persevere through change without needing a cataclysmic trigger to "force change". Here I find evidence in Mr Lind's lumping together of FDR's New Deal with the Civil Rights Movement (which ws given impetus by JFK's election, MLK's moral leadership and LBJ's decisive action) which is slightly incongrous because these are two different transformations of society. Although it should also be remembered that together with the Civil Rights Movement, the 60s also expanded the New Deal with LBJ's Great Society programmes. Hence, I would actually argue that a matured nation (especially one founded on liberal ideals), a developed economy (especially a free market system) and a progressive political system (especially a representative democracy) would be more capable of self-improvement and moving itself forward in smaller steps but more frequently.

I surprised myself and it still pleasantly surprised me at the amount of admiration, respect and goodwill at Obama's election all over the world. It certainly connected in a deep and profound way to the "better angels" that so many people had - not only with the US - but also with humanity and the world. Put simply, so many people woke up on Nov 5th feeling that the world is a better place than before. I believe as the days go on, this will continue to quietly stir up hidden hope, buried dreams and forgotten purpose in so many people around the world, making them feel strong and believe in themselves their children and the future. Pundits are moving now to "fearing" about the expectations Obama now has to meet. But I do not sense that because Obama's message is about self-belief, empowerment, a new sense of respect and the power of the possible. His way is not to deliver anything single handedly. His way is to show the way and create the opportunity for each individual to make their own steps - large and small - to make progress.

As for China, I think thats another posting :)