The Fourth Turning is a recurring 80-100 year cycle of conflict, turbulence, and institutional rebuilding, characterized by the evaporation of consensus and polarization of society.
During Fourth Turnings, core institutions like government, Constitution, and global bodies (World Bank, IMF, UN, NATO) are questioned and reshaped to better serve the people.
Fourth Turnings typically reduce inequality and strengthen community, as conflict incubates community, according to social scientists like Durkheim and Sumner.
Trump’s first 100 days in office are compared to FDR’s in 1932, with similarities in partisanship and transformative initiatives but differences in legislative process and economic context.
Trump’s approach involves “destroying” the current “sclerotic system” before building new structures, focusing on re-industrialization rather than a coherent economic theory.
The chance of Trump seeking dictatorial rule with his family in power, akin to the Roman Empire’s transition, is no longer zero in the current political climate.
After decades of decline, the share of Americans identifying as Christian has returned to 2018-2019 levels, with the most remarkable increase among 18-25 year old men.
Fourth Turnings historically see a widening of gender role differences, contrasting with the narrowing observed during the 1960s-70s awakening.
Substance abuse, particularly alcohol consumption, tends to rise during awakenings and decline during Fourth Turnings, as seen in the 1830s America.
Eastern European leaders are averse to immigration despite population challenges, prioritizing giving natives a reason to stay and a sense of rooted identity.
The October 7th attacks on Israel, 80 years after its founding, are seen by many Israelis as an existential Fourth Turning requiring decisive actions to ensure survival.
China’s demographic decline and economic challenges, including a shrinking workforce by the 2040s losing 10 million people per year, may accelerate confrontation with the US over Taiwan.
In a Fourth Turning, societies take bigger collective risks to solve long-standing problems, while individuals become more risk-averse personally.
Long-term great power conflicts, like a potential China-US war over Taiwan, could be prolonged and transformative for both societies, ending only when one side is exhausted.
While nuclear deterrence and economic interdependence may reduce the likelihood of a China-US war, the risk of escalation into cyber and space fronts remains significant.
The Fourth Turning framework helps explain the rapid redefinition of institutions thought to be immutable, as seen in the questioning of the three branches of government and the Constitution.
Ralph Raico’s “The Struggle for Liberty” provides a comprehensive history of Western political thought from the 16th to 20th century, heavily footnoted for scholarly use.
The term “liberal” has been redefined in the Anglosphere, particularly in the US, where it now aligns with social democratic and socialist thinking, causing confusion.
Raico uses “liberal” and “libertarian” interchangeably to refer to the free market group, united by the idea that society can self-regulate without state intervention.
John Stuart Mill’s ideas on freedom, requiring abandonment of social pressure and moral rules without coercion, diverged from classical liberalism and paved the way for left-wing varieties.
The French Revolution, which destroyed old Europe and introduced the nation-state, is a central event in Raico’s analysis of liberalism’s evolution.
Ludwig von Mises is highlighted as a crucial liberal thinker who prevented the world from becoming a copy of the Soviet Union.
Mill’s bureaucratic background as a government employee gave him a biased perspective on how society and the economy should function.
The “liberal theory of class conflict” recognizes that the state creates conflict by extracting wealth from the “taxpaying class” and distributing it to its “tax eating class” friends.
The industrial revolution was initially portrayed as “anti-business propaganda” by wealthy landowners, but Hayek’s “Markets and the Historians” provides a revisionist view.
Alexis de Tocqueville warned against the “managed state” by technocratic experts, viewing it as a form of “soft despotism” emerging when people avoid personal responsibility.
Economic Policy and Trade
Sowell compares Trump’s tariffs to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which exacerbated the Great Depression by triggering global retaliation and collapsing trade.
He warns that trade wars reduce international commerce and harm all participants.
He criticizes the unpredictability of Trump’s policy experiments, arguing that uncertainty causes people to delay economic activity and investment.
Roosevelt’s “try anything” approach is viable only within a predictable rules-based system—something Sowell believes Trump undermines by constantly shifting direction.
Recent market pullbacks, Sowell suggests, may reflect investor hesitation amid erratic policy signals.
Voting Trends and Identity Politics
Sowell praises recent minority shifts toward the Republican Party as a hopeful sign of post-racial politics.
He notes significant changes in political alignment among Black, Asian, and Latino voters since 2012.
He views this shift as a move away from racial bloc voting toward individual judgment and policy-based decision-making.
Sowell finds this development both surprising and encouraging.
Education and Political Incentives
He argues that monolithic Black voting patterns have allowed Democrats to take the community for granted.
This has harmed education reform, as Democratic politicians often align with teachers unions in exchange for campaign contributions.
Sowell cites this dynamic as a key reason why low-income Black children struggle to access quality education.
He recalls a private comment from a Black Democrat decades ago who described the NAACP as a “subsidiary” of labor unions.
Affirmative Action and Empirical Failure
Sowell draws from his book Affirmative Action Around the World, which studied the outcomes of racial preference policies in multiple countries.
He argues that such policies consistently fail when judged by results rather than intentions.
He warns that subjective evaluation criteria are easily manipulated to sustain racial favoritism, even when official policies prohibit it.
Using India as a case study, he explains how court rulings against blatant favoritism were circumvented through subjective admissions practices.
Sowell concludes that affirmative action, in practice, often returns to the same biased outcomes it was meant to address.
Cut through the clutter and mainstream media noise. Get free, concise dispatches on vital news, videos and opinions. Delivered to Your email inbox daily. You’ll never miss a critical story, guaranteed.