The causality is easily grasped. In order to gain power, a social movement must have leaders who are firm in their convictions, secure in their authority, and compelling in their delivery. The nuts and bolts of the movement must be overseen by caretakers who are competent and practical. Finally, the trenches must be filled with a ground-level force more enthusiastic about obedience than rebellion. When these conditions are fulfilled, the society becomes a double-edged sword. On the one hand, this is the time when the society is best able to effectively respond to a crisis situation. On the other hand, this is also the time when the society is most likely to create such a crisis.

What makes this theory more than a curiosity is the likelihood that such a volatile configuration will arise, somewhere in the world, in the near future. Already, clear precursors can be seen. The Israeli state, for example, has elected to leadership a notorious hardliner (a “judgmental elder”). In the same country, dissident Palestinian youths (“idealistic young adults”) martyr themselves at an alarming rate. If these two groups were united rather than opposed, the world might well have cause to tremble.

According to Strauss and Howe, however, we should also look closer to home. According to their interpretation of social trends, we should expect the generation we know as the Baby Boomers to step forward and assume the moral leadership of our nation. When they do so, they will find the forthcoming generation of young adults to be hungry for guidance and eager for adventure. Between those two generations (completing the triad) will be a pragmatic and realist group of survivalists, the so-called “Generation X.”

Baby Boomer Values:
The Baby Boomer have a mixed moral record. Baby Boomers were heavily involved in the civil rights movement, and fought for the rights of women and ethnic minorities. They preached ideals of peace, love and brotherhood. They stood up for what they believed in, sometimes at considerable personal risk. They advocated equity, equality and personal freedom. They were the pioneers of a new spiritual awakening.

On the other hand, their tolerance and openmindedness often descended into a bankrupt moral relativism. Their ethic of universal brotherhood was lost in the materialism and self-indulgence of the yuppie era. Their obsession with rights created what Strauss and Howe call the “Culture Wars,” an acrimonious, no-holds-bars fight between various special-interest groups --which hurt the causes it was meant to help, and contributed to race-paranoia, the victim-mentality, and the fragmentation of society. Even their spiritual understanding degenerated into the lukewarm New-Age ethic of narcissistic self-contemplation.

If current trends continue, we can expect the Baby Boomers' moral leadership to be either bitterly divided or highly ambivalent. Without a firm, shared moral center, the Baby Boomers will be hard-pressed to choose between worthy goals that are seemingly contradictory. They may be unable to meet the challenge of bringing unity to a diverse, globalized society.

Generation X Pragmatism:
If things go “downhill”, Generation X will make the hard decisions about what is preserved and what is discarded. The priorities made by members of this generation are of importance to everyone.

If current trends continue, we can expect Generation X-ers to look out for those closest to them, a tight circle made up of the immediate family and a few close friends. Many Generation X-ers felt abandoned by the large institutions in their lives, and as a result, have little faith in (or loyalty to) them -- the church, public schooling, the government, the nation. A sense of distrust may make them unwilling to meet the challenge of keeping national structures and institutions together.

Millennial Energy:
As was true for the Baby Boomers, there is good and bad news about the Millennials. They are an enthusiastic “can do” generation, noted for teamwork and cohesion. They pay little attention to racial boundaries. They are the beneficiaries of renewed social movements towards child protection and improved education. They are the object of grand expectations.

On the other hand, they have a tendency to be self-satisfied and cliquish. They can be rejecting of those who act in a different way. They are materialistic and technophilic, and rarely cross socioeconomic boundaries. Despite attempts to protect them, they have been exposed to the worst excesses of popular culture from infancy. They have been the victims of a educational system that was more harmed than helped by educational reform. They have been bruised by the standardization movement, and crushed under the weight of unrealistic demands. Most disturbingly, they have shown a nascent affinity for horrific violence on a grand scale.

If current trends continue, we can expect Millennial social movements to be clean-cut and inoffensive on the surface, with dark undertones beneath. Millennials will be vulnerable to manipulation, and have a dangerous belief in their own goodness. They will have a simplistic view of right and wrong. In a worst-case scenario, they could become accessories to crimes against humanity, much like the fascist youth groups of pre-war Germany and Italy. They may be unprepared to meet the challenge of moral heroism.