Arthur Schlesinger 50-Year Corruption Cycle?

[lpetrich]

I was searching Twitter for mention of Arthur Schlesinger's cycles of history, and I find this one:

Michael Waldman on Twitter: "Arthur M. Schlesinger, 1973: "Corruption appears to visit the White House in fifty-year cycles. This suggests that exposure and retribution inoculate the presidency against its latent criminal impulses for about half a century. 1/2" / Twitter
then
Michael Waldman on Twitter: "Around the year 2023 the American people will be well advised to go on the alert and start nailing down everything in sight." 2/2 https://t.co/s3hH9lo8NK" / Twitter

Yassin M on Twitter: "Schlesinger's 1973 book The Imperial Presidency. He notes presidential corruption peaks in 50-year cycles (Grant, Harding, Nixon) and says, “Around the year 2023 the American people would be well advised to go on the alert and start nailing down everything in sight.” https://t.co/Ln4hnTLAib" / Twitter

• 1869-1877: Ulysses Simpson Grant
• 1921-1923: Warren Harding
• 1969-1974: Richard Nixon

Beginnings of Presidencies: 52 then 48 years.
Ends of Presidencies: 46 then 51 years.

Trump's Presidency?
2017 - 1969 = 48
2021 - 1974 = 47

He fits Arthur Schlesinger's 50-year corruption cycle almost perfectly.

 

[lpetrich]

John Kaminar on Twitter: "Writing in “The Cycles of American History” in 1986, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. noted that corruption in government historically has been much greater during conservative administrations than during progressive ones. #TrumpCrimeFamily" / Twitter

Arthur Schlesinger Jr.: "This priority of wealth over commonwealth naturally nourishes a propensity to corruption in government. When public purpose dominates, government tends to be idealistic. Idealists have many faults, but they rarely steal."

Liberal vs. Conservative - who is more corrupt?

• R Harding
• R Coolidge
• R Hoover
• D FDR
• D Truman
• R Eisenhower
• D JFK
• D LBJ
• R Nixon
• R Ford
• D Carter
• R Reagan
• R Bush I
• D Clinton
• R Bush II
• D Obama
• R Trump

 

[DrZoidberg]

I was searching Twitter for mention of Arthur Schlesinger's cycles of history, and I find this one:

Michael Waldman on Twitter: "Arthur M. Schlesinger, 1973: "Corruption appears to visit the White House in fifty-year cycles. This suggests that exposure and retribution inoculate the presidency against its latent criminal impulses for about half a century. 1/2" / Twitter
then
Michael Waldman on Twitter: "Around the year 2023 the American people will be well advised to go on the alert and start nailing down everything in sight." 2/2 https://t.co/s3hH9lo8NK" / Twitter

Yassin M on Twitter: "Schlesinger's 1973 book The Imperial Presidency. He notes presidential corruption peaks in 50-year cycles (Grant, Harding, Nixon) and says, “Around the year 2023 the American people would be well advised to go on the alert and start nailing down everything in sight.” https://t.co/Ln4hnTLAib" / Twitter

• 1869-1877: Ulysses Simpson Grant
• 1921-1923: Warren Harding
• 1969-1974: Richard Nixon

Beginnings of Presidencies: 52 then 48 years.
Ends of Presidencies: 46 then 51 years.

Trump's Presidency?
2017 - 1969 = 48
2021 - 1974 = 47

He fits Arthur Schlesinger's 50-year corruption cycle almost perfectly.

So? How is this not just random noise in the statistic? There has to be something more than just a pattern. What's the explanation?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As a reminder, private equity stole a lot of residential America in the '08 crash. So there is likely no need to have a theft this time around as it already happened.

 

[lpetrich]

Why episodes of very bad corruption every 50 years? I'll speculate.

The political class, as it might be called, becomes very averse to anything that seems like very bad corruption after an episode of it. But as the years go by without any episode of it, that class gradually lets its guard down and it happens again.

The corruption occurs in different ways in different times, meaning that the political class has no way of anticipating it.

That is true of the Watergate era. That was an unprecedented kind of scandal, a President trying to cover up the crimes and misdeeds of his henchmen by interfering with investigations of those actions. I'm not sure that Teapot Dome was much different from US-Grant-era corruption, however.