Talk:Cyclical theory

I know the general format isn't quite accurate, and other aspects of the article may be extraneous. Please offer suggestions on how this needs to get cleaned up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimmystang (talk • contribs) 05:03, 8 July 2006.

Reference to entry "Crab mentality"

I don't see the connection between this entry on Schlesinger's cyclic theory of American history and the "see also" of "Crab mentality". Is the reference a subtle criticism of the Schlesinger theory? If I'm not "getting it" then there is a probability that others aren't as well. Suggest an explanation of the reference or its deletion. LAWinans (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Major revisions and additions

I added something big that I think was missing: which eras of American history are liberal (public purpose) and which are conservative (private interest). It is important to do that, so as to give readers something to relate to, if nothing else. For instance, the American Civil War and its effects are much better-known than this theory of cycles, I'm sure. Ending slavery and deposing the slaveowner aristocracy were major reforms that that war brought about, and it's easy to see what that period is a liberal / public-purpose period. Likewise, the Gilded Age is also likely better-known. It was a time of rapid industrialization, something with the side effect that a few industrialists ended up commanding major parts of the US economy. This is obviously conservative / private-interest.

I also added a table that gives a summary of each kind of phase, and Arthur Schlesinger Jr's speculations on what makes each kind of phase generate the other kind. I think that the rest of the article should be merged with my descriptions, but I would like each bit of discussion referenced. Here is an outline of what we could do:

• The types of phases
  • Liberal phases
  • Conservative phases
• The types of transitions between phases
  • Transitions in general
  • Liberal to conservative
  • Conservative to liberal

Lpetrich (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I've left the last three Schlesinger periods blank, because I could not find any proposed names for them in any of my sources. Here are my personal names:

• Eisenhower Era
• Sixties Era
• Gilded Age II

That last one is from common comparisons of recent years to the Gilded Age of the late ninteteeth century. Adding these names would violate No Original Research, so I have not done so.

I've added some more cycles:

• Samuel Huntington's creedal-passion periods, times of upheaval with "American Creed" passion a major part. Their approximately periodic occurrence is a kind of cycle. I could not find much else that refers to them, however. I found much more in Google Scholar, scholar.google.come that refers to the Schlesinger cycles, for instance. I'm mainly giving the creedal-passion periods because they help clarify what goes on in some of Schlesinger's liberal periods.
• Party systems, since their succession is a kind of cycle.
• Realigning elections, since their occasional occurrence is a kind of cycle.
• Frank Klingberg's foreign-policy cycles.

I've neglected the issue of correlations because of lack of mention of them in my sources. The only exception is the lack of correlation between the Schlesinger and Klingberg cycles, which Arthur Schlesinger Jr. proposes is due to the two cycles having different causes.

However, some correlations are evident. Here are Schlesinger's liberal periods with Huntington's creedal-passion periods bolded:

Constitution - Jefferson - Jackson - Civil War - Progressive - New Deal - Sixties

Also, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th party systems started at the beginnings of liberal periods or shortly before, and that is also true of all the generally agreed-upon realigning elections.

I plan on including Stephen Skowronek's president cycles.

I am half-thinking of including a section on predictions. Some of those who wrote on Schlesinger cycles in the 1980's proposed that a new liberal period would emerge in the 1990's. However, those predictions failed, at least according to Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in "Cycles of American History".

The above is consistent with Wikipedia:No original research because it is all documented in outside discussions of the cycles. But what has happened more recently does not have any documentation of connections to the Schlesinger cycles that I have been able to find, though I'd welcome being proved wrong in this. Recent years have IMO a strong resemblance to the later years of some other conservative periods, when unsolved problems accumulate and society's elites either do not recognize their existence or else are reluctant to do much to solve them. Problems like wages being stagnant while student debt rises, housing costs rise, and medical expenses rise. We also see efforts by the Left to end the Gilded-Age features of our time, efforts like the Wisconsin Revolt, the Occupy movement, and most recently, sending left-leaning politicians to Congress. That last effort has had several successes, with the ascent of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez being the most spectacular one so far.

Lpetrich (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

For Skowronek's president types, my sources gave identifications for only some of the presidents, so I filled in the remaining ones using the descriptions of the types. Most of them are not very well-known, with the exception of George Washington. That's a bit close to violating NOR, I will concede.

I'll have to consult my sources to see how much they recognize relationships between different theories of cyclicity. Huntington's creedal-passion periods match some of Schlesinger's liberal periods but not others.

I'm half-thinking of including a section of criticisms of cyclic theories. David Resnick and Norman C. Thomas in "Cycling Through American Politics" discuss two types of spurious cycles:

• Procrustean - forcing data into some theoretical mold
• Random - from the vagaries of statistics

The Strauss-Howe generational cycle seems very Procrustean to me, so that is why I did not include it.

I'm also half-thinking of mentioning Schlesinger's and Brown's prediction of another liberal period in the 1990's. Schlesinger himself later conceded that that prediction failed. For my part, I notice that while Candidate Clinton said all the right things, President Clinton wimped out on most of them, and was meekly passive about the Right's attacks on him.

Lpetrich (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Names of the Three Most Recent Schlesinger Periods

I have left them unnamed because of lack of clear support for the names in the sources that I worked from. However, these seem like plausible names:

• Eisenhower Era
• Sixties Era
• Reagan Revolution / Gilded Age II

"Eisenhower Era" usually refers to Dwight Eisenhower's Presidency and not necessarily to the years immediately around it, years that are also in this period. History of the United States (1945–1964) calls it the Postwar Era, and I've found "Truman-Eisenhower Era".

"Sixties Era" is a common term for the cultural upheaval that took place from the early 1960's to the mid 1970's. History of the United States (1964–1980) calls it the Civil Rights Era, though it refers to the "Cultural Sixties" (term in the article). Counterculture of the 1960s is another reference to "Sixties".

The third period spans three Wikipedia articles: History of the United States (1980–1991) "Reagan Era", History of the United States (1991–2008) "Post-Cold War Era", History of the United States (2008–present) "Modern day". However, Reagan era may be a good candidate, since that era is interpreted as covering essentially all of the most recent Schlesinger period.

Wikipedia does not have much reference to a "Gilded Age II", though it has an article on the original one: Gilded Age

Lpetrich (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible additions

There are a lot of possible additions to this article that I did not add because they likely violate Wikipedia:No original research They may go in there if one can find published sources that state them, and I'm listing them here to give an idea of what to look for.

A collection of the various cycles in a unified timeline. I doubt that that violates NOR, and I have done something similar for the Schlesinger liberal and conservative periods, linking to articles that describe the time periods. Aside from that, the main problem may be actually implementing the timeline, whether with some Wikipedia timeline widget or in some other way.

Listing the reforms in the liberal phases. This could be done as a table:

• Huntington Creedal Passion: Revolution, Jackson, Progressive, Sixties
• Welfare State: New Deal, Sixties
• Consumer-Products Regulation: Progressive, Sixties
• Labor Unions: New Deal
• Race Relations: Civil War, Sixties
• Feminism: Progressive, Sixties

Additions to the Klingberg-cycle table. There are two major events that could be added to it, events of omission of action that could have been taken.

• Canada's Rebellions of 1837–1838 The US passed up on helping the Canadian rebels even though such an action would have made possible an objective of some previous wars:
  • Continental Army in 1775, it tried to invade Canada.
  • War of 1812 the US tried to invade Canada.
• The Scramble for Africa Some European nations divided up Africa among them, and the US was notably absent.

Both of these omissions happened during periods of introversion, the early 19th cy. and the late 19th cy. ones.

What makes the Klingberg cycle run? I have some speculations on that, speculations parallel to what makes the Schlesinger cycle run. But I have not put them into the article to avoid violating NOR. Extroverted phases always end in some big war, and usually an unsatisfying big war. Introverted phases often end as a result of real or perceived challenges from abroad.

--Lpetrich (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is a table of each liberal era's reforms. I have not put it into the main article because I am concerned that it may violate NOR, even though all of its content can be backed up by references to the appropriate articles.

Liberal eras' reforms

Header text	Gov	Reg	Wfr	Env	Lab	Rac	Fem
Revolution	X
Jefferson
Jackson	X
Civil War			X			X
Progressive	X	X		X	X		X
New Deal		X	X	X	X
Sixties	X	X	X	X		X	X

What sets of reforms:

• Gov: government structure
• Reg: government regulation
• Wfr: welfare-state measures
• Env: environmentalist measures
• Lab: labor issues: unions, regulation
• Rac: race-relations issues
• Fem: feminist issues

What's in the table:

• Gov: Revolution and creation of Constitution, Jacksonian expansion of franchise and spoils system and opposition to 2nd Bank of US, (Prog) popular election of Senators, ballot initiative and recall for states, (60s) lowering voting age, expansion of primaries
• Reg: (Prog) antitrust, food and drug purity, (NwDl) Securities and Exchange Commission, etc. (60s) consumer-product regulation
• Wfr: (CvWr) Homestead Act, land-grant colleges, transcon RR, (NwDl) Social Security, (60s) Medicare
• Env: (Prog) national parks, (NwDl) Civilian Conservation Corps, (60s) Environmental Protection Agency and the like
• Lab: (Prog) work-hours restrictions, minimum wages, child-labor restrictions, (NwDl) National Labor Relations Board
• Rac: (CvWr) the Civil War, abolition of slavery, Reconstruction, (60s) the civil-rights movement
• Fem: (Prog) early feminism, votes for women, (60s) revival of feminism

Lpetrich (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

George Modelski

I suggest that George Modelski model of global leadership cycles be added to the list of theories. Any objections? Crawiki (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

This article is about US history, so George Modelski's theory of imperialist-power cycles does not fit very well. Lpetrich (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. I can't agree. US history runs from 1776 to now, which is 249 years. Modelski describes the US as being the leading world sea power from 1914 to 2025 -111 years, i e for 44% of US history - a substantial chunk. Also, nowhere in his book does he talk about 'imperialist-power', this is your invention. The book explains a cyclical theory of history. I think your objection is WP:I just don't like it Crawiki (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

George Modelski is mistaken about the interwar period: Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 - it specified equal sizes for the US and UK navies. It was only after WWII that the US became dominant.

Also, it is not just me saying that 1898 is a better date for becoming a world power than 1914. The Spanish-American War: The United States Becomes a World Power | Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress | Library of Congress for instance.

I also think that I have been careful about no original research: WP:NOR - about Frank Klingberg's cycles, I omitted some obviously relevant events because my sources did not discuss them:

• 1824-1844 introverted period: Canadians' Rebellions of 1837–1838
• 1871-1891 introverted period: Europeans' Scramble for Africa

The US participated in neither activity, despite often wanting to "liberate" Canada from the UK, and despite later doing in Latin America and the Philippines what the European powers did in Africa. Lpetrich (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

British Empire | Timeline | Britannica - the peak of the British Empire was around 1931. Lpetrich (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I find the Modelski cycles to be very Procrustean and to ignore a LOT of history. I suggest checking out Chronology of Western colonialism and Timeline of European imperialism and European overseas colonies and their colonizers over time Spain and France were also major colonizers, it must be noted.

The US is exactly one of these cycles, listed as starting in 1914. The Spanish-American War gives IMO a much better starting date: 1898. Furthermore, the US overlapped with the British Empire, which held firm until the end of World War II, nearly half a century later.

Also, the Modelski section has numerous references to exactly one source: his book. Lpetrich (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

You write,The US is exactly one of these cycles, listed as starting in 1914. The Spanish-American War gives IMO a much better starting date: 1898. Furthermore, the US overlapped with the British Empire, which held firm until the end of World War II, nearly half a century later. You may disagree with what Modelski says, but this is not a valid reason to delete. His views are in a reputable published source; yours are not; they're just WP:OR and deletion on these grounds violates WP:NPOV.

I find the Modelski cycles to be very Procrustean and to ignore a LOT of history. This again is WP:I just don't like it

Also, the Modelski section has numerous references to exactly one source: his book - I see nothing wrong here, but can refer to other texts if it makes you happier. Crawiki (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

George Modelski's book is exactly one book, and I have tried to avoid citing exactly one book. Even my weakest contribution IMO, about Peter Turchin's work, refers to several works, including a published journal article, and not just one book. For all the other cyclicities I discussed, I have multiple citations of people other than the original authors. WP:RS - reliable sources.

Furthermore, its content is peripheral to US history. Most of it is about other nations. IMO, it is better off as an expansion of "Long cycle theory" in Social cycle theory . WP:ROC - relevance of content. Lpetrich (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

citing just one book is blatantly incorrect. Reference is made to several sources - Goldstein, etc. not the first time in this thread that sweeping statements have been made in what amounts to a Shooting the messenger campaign Crawiki (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I concede that those references exist, but those references are very limited - nearly all of your section is about that one book. Lpetrich (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I have posted a request for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion - Active disagreements Lpetrich (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I am here from 3O, but I have a few questions first for clarity.

• @Crawiki - this article's scope seems to be about "models used by historians and others to explain the fluctuations in American history". Is it your contention that Modelski's theory is a model used to explain fluctuations in American history and consequently falls under the scope of the article?
• @Lpetrich - is it your contention that the article's scope is narrowly focused on theories meant to specifically explain American politics, rather than ones with a broader focus that already incidentally provide explanations for American politics?
• Is there any academic overview of cyclical models of American history that may include or exclude any particular model or theory that has been used to explain American history, like a systematic review of encyclopedia chapter? I found this journal article , but it seemed quite old.

Katzrockso (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Katzrockso. Is it your contention that Modelski's theory is a model used to explain fluctuations in American history and consequently falls under the scope of the article?

Modelski's model looks at the world since the time of Columbus in terms of who has 'global reach' - a function of naval power, in turn determined by availability of ports, long coastlines, navigational skills, etc. Thus Portugal, the Dutch Republic, Britain (twice) and the USA have had a head start over Spain, France (twice) and Germany. (NB 80% of world trade goes by sea).

Each of these world leaders has had a 100-year (approximately) 'term of office', divided into 4 equal phases. Phase one, 'global war' is analogous to an election campaign - rival groups compete, and the winner is he who can provide global stability. For the US, this was entry into, and victory in, WW1 and WW2. Phase 2, 'global leadership', is when the hegemon in its 'honeymoon period' implements its new programme - the USA founded NATO, GATT, the UN, Bretton Woods, the WHO, World bank and IMF etc. This era probably peaked with the 1960's space programme. Phase 3, 'delegitimation' is analogous to the 'off-year' in an electoral cycle - new ideas are tested (in the USA - neoliberalism and monetarism) and mistakes corrected (Vietnam, Keynesianism). Phase 4, for Modelski, can be 'lame-duck' time - new rivals have emerged (Russia, the EU, China) and problems emerge (global inequality in wealth and power) which can only be resolved by a new world war; Modelski foresaw (in 1987) this being instigated by Russia in 2030 (though he failed to foresee the USSR collapse). most of this is in Modelski, 1987, p 30 et seq

Furthermore, Modelski traces the rise of the US back to 1851, the peak of British hegemony, tracing from there the reasons for the rise of the US in the late C19th - its rivalry with Germany and Russia, and its ability to form coalitions with Britain, France and Japan. (Modelski, 1987, pp88-92)

So yes, Modelski's theory explains the rise and forecasted demise of Pax Americana from 1851 to today, which is about 70% of US history. The theory is cyclical; it's about history; it's about the USA; it belongs in the article. Crawiki (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for showing up here, @Katzrockso - is it your contention that the article's scope is narrowly focused on theories meant to specifically explain American politics, rather than ones with a broader focus that already incidentally provide explanations for American politics?

That is correct. All the other cyclicities discussed in this article are cycles specifically of US history, with the partial exception of Peter Turchin's structural-demographic cycles, and that cyclicity is first summarized, and then presented with details of its occurrence in the US.

• Arthur Schlesinger cycles - US
• Samuel Huntington's creedal-passion periods (periodic events) - US
• Party systems (periodic events) - US
• Stephen Skowronek presidency types (periodic events) - US
• Peter Turchin's long-term cycles (discovered elsewhere, found to apply) - US
• Frank Klingberg cycles - US

By comparison, George Modelski's cycles seem Procrustean, with serious errors, like ignoring the Spanish and French colonial empires, and not explaining very well why the UK continued over two of the cycles. Its purported US cycle has errors in it, like when it began and US vs. UK in it. There is also a lack of outside discussion that at least broadly endorses that cycle, as there is for the other cycles that I've discussed.

Furthermore, if mention of Modelski's cycles should stay, that mention should be after the discussion of Klingberg cyclicity. I don't think that it's important enough to be near the top.

Modelski has less than one complete cycle, while Turchin has roughly 1 2/3 of the long-period cycle and 3 bursts of political violence (\~1870, \~1920, \~1970), cycles that fit his theorizing quite well. Lpetrich (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond right away, but I'm reading to give a full opinion. This article is a mess in many aspects, because it seems just be a list of different theories that people have proposed rather than an encyclopedic article that describes the actual subject. Insofar as we have this structure, inclusion/exclusion criteria should remain consistent. Insofar as the Peter Turchin theory is described on the article, the Modelski theory should be included on the article. There is no need to do original research as to why the Modelski theory is incorrect/wrong, find reliable sources that summarize why that is the case and add it to the section.

I would suggest creating some overarching headers that separate the theories that have been posited specifically to explain American politics (Schlesinger, Huntingdon, party systems, Skowronek and Klingberg) and then theories that focus more broadly on global cycles that authors have applied to American politics (Turchin, Modelski).

Including theories because they "seem Procrustean" to you is not how Wikipedia works, it summarizes the knowledge of reliable sources. At this point I don't even know what a "cyclical theory" is or how one could develop inclusion/exclusion criteria for it. Insofar as it is a coherent subject, it seems to just refer to any historical analysis that interprets U.S. history as moving through recurring cycles. There are plenty of those theories out there, many not included in this article. Katzrockso (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree on having two main sections:

• Specifically American cycles
• Broader cycles applied to American history

We'll need some overall introductory text, and also some introductory text for each set of cycles. I'll see if I can compose each block of text.

I'm willing to accept a short summary of Modelski's theory if it follows Turchin's theory. The whole question of the rise and fall of international empires is an interesting one, and how the US fits in is an interesting question, even though I consider Modelski's account to have serious flaws. Lpetrich (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! This sounds like a much better organization to the text that emphasizes the difference between the two. I think the paper I posted above provides a good overview of the theories that focus specifically on American politics and could be very useful for structuring an introduction to the first section. Katzrockso (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I've succeeded in reorganizing the article. The cycles are now in two main sections: US-specific and from-outside. My introductory text is rather limited. Lpetrich (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)