Cycles in American History - 8
Setting the parameters.
“democratic” and “republican” Movements
We must first remind the readers yet again that “democratic” and “republican” are lowercase as opposed to uppercase because this case we are referring to movements rather than parties and the American sense of the word. While this may be odd, there is no reason to adjust the usage of the word in this particular case.
Since this is not a linear algebra course, we will dispense with null spaces, transposes, graphs, Cramer’s rule, and the letter of terms which will be necessary for a complete study of Fourier Transform and Laplace Transform more formally. However, some discussion must be provided because the exact nature of the Fourier Transform, and Laplace Transform needs to be recognized as the area of the social sciences and their connection to biology.
Laplace Transforms are the integral of a specific kind of function: that is e raised to some power. The reason this is necessary is that while it has been true up to this point, there will be a barrier in the future rear the logarithmic term will begin to decline because of biological, chemical, and physical limitations. But this can be left for another discussion at some later point in time because the primary purpose is to show that Fourier and Laplace Transformations give us an indication of why Strauss & Howe have made a miscalculation as to what kind of turning is involved in the American political science.
Top-Down versus Bottom-Up
The miscalculation that they have made is the difference between a bottom-up and a top-down rearrangement of the governing order. Not using Fourier Transforms or Laplace Transforms, which we have shown comes from biology but is more nuanced in the social sciences, the pair have made a fundamental mistake in the social sciences: a top-down order is fundamentally different from a bottom-up order, in the end, we can see this if we see what the bottom-up order drives a new group of people to fundamentally disagree with their government. This is because they are raised differently but their government is biased in favor of the old order. Sometimes this means a random group of people reaching a challenge that has not been encountered in quite the way that it is presented now but it can also be organizations, such as corporations, trying to get people to organize in the way that the organization wants rather than what is individually beneficial.
This means that unlike the United States Constitution, the post-Civil War amendments, the coming of the New Deal, and the war against terror it was not a top-down decision to reshuffle our priorities to meet a crisis, but instead like the rebellion of the 1960s, the Jacksonian revolution of the 1820s, and the populist rebellion, on of the 1880s, and the Declaration of Independence in the 1770s. one of the key differences is that instead of thinking about a constitutional change they are more often about getting things done at the local level. The Declaration of Independence does not have a single word about how things are to be done but about how “The King” imposes things. Compare this with the U.S. Constitution which is about the ways that the operations of governance are to be carried out.
In these Democratic revolutions, large changes were also made but they were made from the outcry of the people and their local and state forms of government. Indeed, before the declaration of independence the people of “the colonies” had already become estranged from the parliament. And in 1775 the colony of Massachusetts became entangled in what was a struggle to ensure various functions of government would end up in Boston rather than London. The movement however spread throughout the colonists and a continental Congress in 1774. This was in response to the British Parliament passing a series of laws that the colonists called the “Intolerable Acts” or as they were called in Britain, “Coercive Acts.” The mood of the British Parliament was to make the colonists pay their protection, as established in the part of the peace that ended “The Seven Years war” of 1756 – 1763 against France. This was called a world war between France and England and was fought in the Americas as well as Europe. This war was the beginning of a sense that the Americans desired control over their government rather than differing from the mother country. This means that the Declaration of Independence was merely the last line that had gone through the “Stamp Act” and the “Intolerable Acts” before finally growing into the change from an act of rebellion to a revolution that separated the two societies in two different countries.
Therefore, the Declaration of Independence was at the end of a democratic revolution where the citizenry rebelled against their government and placed their government in their own hands.
This is the turning that we are now looking at since a new generation has different ideals from the before. and this can be seen in the Fourier Transform. There is a bulge from 45-64 and another one from 10-39. In social sciences, political science is often the laggard indicator: it is a place where law, custom, and sociology come together to determine the rules of a society. The rules that have been set down and determined. This means, if one thinks about it, that there are other customs, rules, and laws, which have not been tested even if they are enacted. For example, considering the wave of antiabortion legislation passed in several states, they still have to run the gauntlet of judiciary testing as to whether the law that has been enacted by state legislators is compliant with the overall running of the country. The compromise of Roe versus Wade is no longer acceptable to a more conservative segment of the population. While he runs from the oldest to the youngest, the head is the youngest and has the fervor to enact laws.
This is why the present is a bottom-up revolution. Even the conservatives can rebel against the society that they live in: abortion, immigration, and firearms being three areas where the conservatives want more power in their own local hands. Must remember that local does not mean progressive they are two entirely separate quantities in the governmental system of any particular country. While there is a tendency for older people to be more conservative, and this plays out in innumerable ways in a society, the correlation does not mean causation.
This means that there are two forces at work In the Fourier Transform, one is the statistical pattern of the Fourier Transform at a statistical level, but the other one is the specific results of a specific set of parents on an individual child. We know from research that those like each other tend to gather together and thus the Fourier Transform in aggregate has a large momentum on a particular group of progeny. But we also know that there are large variations in each different community and these large changes often promote the differences. This means that Ralph Waldo Emerson was subjected to the forces of the Fourier Transformation in his particular location, but he was also still different and unique.
Middle-Outward
Now we come to the area of compromise between top-down and bottom-up. Whatever the disagreement is there has to be some means of carrying out the day-to-day operations and monitoring the progress. Whether it is the draconian means of prohibition or the ordinary means of licensing people to do something eventually a staff of people is required to manage, inspect, document, and all of the other ways, whether needed or not, that comes with the territory. Often one of the first problems is to find what it is they happened to do. Consider, if you like, the fight over how much money the Forest Service (
) should be allocated from the funds of the federal government. In 1910 this was a very hot argument partially because the corporations and the people who worked for them wanted unlimited access to the timber that was on federally owned land. The forest service opted to have a mission: to fight fire. In retrospect, this mission was a double-edged sword, but the fervor with which it was pursued meant that there was a reason for this Forest Service to exist at all. This is often the case with groups of people who exist in the Middle-Outward role of control: because a mission not only implies what has to be done but what should be done in a more perfect world. This does not mean that this mission is always good or sustainable, but the mission itself undergirds the entire way of being.
This is why it is neither top-down nor bottom-up: the rules of guiding and controlling the procedures and protocols are in themselves portent to the people who are tasked with them.
Piecing it Together
When a bottom-up rebellion occurs, it is often about changing the way things are done at the local level even if organizations and corporations are driving that process with the money, which remember is part of the Fourier Transform, and influence, which is part of the Laplace Transform. Whereas from the top down the key problem is to have things work in the way that it is intended to require a change in the way things are governed.
And this is where we turn to the sketch graphs of the previous papers, and eventually work through the sketches to produce more rigorous proofs.
First note that there are innumerable patterns both in the Fourier Transform and the costs transform. Even many within the government. What we are specifically looking for is either a Fourier Transform which forms a generational shift or a Laplace Transform which forms a constitutional shift. We will speak of the constitutional chip first. In a government that is known to its participants, that is it is recursive, there are no ways to do things and stretches to the constitutional order but that are known, and there are stretches to the constitutional order whose valence is not known a priori. Let us take an example, correctly there are nine justices on the Supreme Court of United States. There is no law stating their shell nine it is merely a custom, but each side knows that if they appoint members to the Supreme Court of the United States, and if the other side disagrees and has some authority, then the justices will not be appointed because of the either Senate not confirming them or the threat that if the other side gets into power, which is a certainty in the most cases, tend the other side will appoint even more Supreme Court justices and the cycle will begin again. In this manner, most constitutional shifts will not be taken because the response of the other side is larger when it comes.
Let us take a simple example: in 1973 the Supreme Court heard Roe v Wade under 410 US 113 after the plaintiff became pregnant in 1969 with a child and the laws of Texas, where she was inhabited at that time, made such an operation illegal. In The Brethren by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong () the immense arguments on the Supreme Court were detailed as to why the decision came down as it did in a huge form of compromise. The lawsuit ended up fashioning a decision that turned over several state laws that did not measure up to the relatively high legal standard that Roe v. Wade committed the U.S. federal government to have as the federal standard. Almost immediately, the conservative side of government, which in this case meant a segment of the Republican party, though also some members of the Democratic party, felt the decision was anathema. In 1992 only a small piece of the ruling was abolished but held intact the essential role in that abortion was a federal civil right. But in Dobbs v. Jackson, the entirety of Roe was stricken down putting American justice in a post-Roe environment. In each case, the Supreme Court decided that it was time to pierce the barrier.
The two decisions, Roe in 1973, and Dobbs in 2022, were not of a constitutional shift bought a generational power shift. This was because a new generation had been given the reins to power and knew that their followers would enact decisions that would back up the holding. Even though the top-down model was being applied it was a generational shift because Supreme Court justices before had averred stretching as far as each did. The Supreme Court justices who decided on Roe listened to wives and daughters which made it clear that in Roe’s case, the state laws against abortion were too strict to allow, and on the other side Dobbs it is clear that there are several activists who this is one of the rights that they wanted restricted. It was a top-down decision that first had to pass the bottom-up test.
It is for this reason that the transform argument must detail whether it is top-down or bottom-up. This is because top-down does not equal a Laplace Transform nor does a generational shift necessarily come from the Fourier Transform. The next section is to detail a formal proof.