It's a common theme in history: reaction and counter reaction. In fact, it's almost beyond predictable in some cases, especially in revolutions. The French Revolution started out with modest demands on Louis XVI but steadily became more and more radical, culminating with the exectution of the King and Queen and the reign of terror under the committee of public safety. Slowly but surely, the pendulum swung back to a more conservative element, reaching it's apex with the crowning of Napleon as Emperor.
Even the Russian Revolution of 1917 swung back and forth. The initial stages of the overall revolution and the provisional government under Kerensky were moderate though definitely more liberal than the Tsarist government that preceded them. What started as moderate change of government quickly descended into a civil war wherein the radical Bolsheviks sought control of the government, ultimately winning out. The Bolshevik's aquisition of power quickly lead to widespread implementation of communist policies, but even this pendulum swing stopped. Lenin offered a temporary reprieve and a return to slight privatization during the mid 20's. It might be argued that this swing continued and culminated with the aquisition of power by Stalin, akin to the crowning of Napoleon as Emperor. Stalin might have professed his belief in socialism, but his policies were more akin to a right wing totalitarian dictatorship, not a left wing revolutionary socialist state dedicated to a world revolution.
Stalin's political beliefs are debatable, but there's no doubt that any important event or country experiences the effects of the pendulum swing. This is especially evident in Democratic countries. A common trend is the election of a conservative party to power, followed by the eventual changeover to a liberal party. I think that sometimes this changeover reflects the changing in policies and events in the world, rather than a direct deterministic transition regardless of what is happening in the world. In other words, the changeover in Democratic governments that oftentimes results in a switch from liberal to conservative or vice versa is as if the voters are in tune with the "heartbeat" of history, and it's never ending shifts. The best example of this that springs to mind is the appointment of Churchill at the start of World War 2 but his eventual electoral defeat to Clement Attlee and the Labor Party towards the end of the war when it was clear victory in the war was at hand.
So, this brings me to my main point, which seems to be that we are seeing an increasing acceleration in the pendulum swings in history. Consider the fact that the Soviet Union came to exist and then ceased to exist in a period of less than a century. Some might say that the Soviet Union is not a distinct entity in and of itself insofar as it is merely Russia with a different face, when viewed from a broader perspective. I disagree. I think the Soviet Union was an incredibly unique entity, with it's distinctly communist society, economy and government entirely different from Imperial Russia before it and the pseudo-Democratic Capitalist Russia that has followed it. In addition to this, the current Russian Federation is but a mere a shadow of the former USSR, having lost millions of people (it's population is nearly half of what it could be had the union stayed together) and countless resources. This reminds me of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire, which continued to exist but whom no one confused with the glory of the actual Roman Empire.
This increasing pace can be seen in a few areas, and the easiest to look at it is ruling parties changeover and, most important of all, the rise and fall of states. Going back to the Soviet Union, we can see that the USSR lasted only 74 years, from 1917 to 1991. Looking at other modern examples we see equally short timeframes for the rise and fall of states: Nazi Germany lasted only 12 years, Imperial Japan (viewed in the sense of it starting with initial Westernization, transitioning to an Imperial power, and culminating its defeat in WW2) lasted only about 80 years. The Third French Republic only lasted 70 years. In the space of mere decades, entire empires and ideological movements were swept aside, confined to the ash heap of history.
If we look at previous periods in history, states seemingly were much more stable and constant. Certainly there were empires that rose to power and quickly fell, but as a whole, what would be considered the "great powers" had longer lasting durations of power. The Roman Empire lasted nearly 500 years, the Ottoman Empire also last nearly 500 years. The Byzantine Empire lasted about a 1000 years from the fall of Rome, while the Fatimids dominated the Middle East for nearly 200 years, followed by the Ayybuid Dynasty and the Mamelukes which combined for 500 years of rule of Egypt and much of the Middle East. The Ming Dynasty followed by the Qing Dynasty accounted for nearly 500 years of Chinese rule. Meanwhile, the French monarchy (between the Valois and Bourbons) lasted nearly 800 years, the Spanish Monarchy persisted for nearly 400 years, and the Holy Roman Empire existed for about 800 years, where the last half of its existence it was a de facto extension of the Austrian Empire, itself (i.e. the Habsburgs) a long lived empire. Not so coincidentally, nearly all of the aforementioned entities met their demise in the modern era.
Don't get me wrong, I know there are some current states which are long lived by the standards I layed out in my previous paragraph. The USA is still going strong after 200 years, while even if conservatively measuring the UK as only existing from the act of union (and not as England) in 1707, the UK is still a major power after 300 years. But still, it certainly seems like states are rising and falling quicker, and that the current world powers in their present incarnation are young. China is only 60 years old, India only 60 years old, Russia a mere 20 years old, and the 5th French Republic only 50 years old.
If we switch over to the changeover in policitical ruling parties as a measure of how fast the pendulum in history is swinging, a similar effect is seemingly observed, though it's not nearly as pronounced.
In the first 22 presidencies of the U.S. (ending with Grover Cleveland in 1889), there were 9 "party switches" (going from a Federalist to a Democratic-Republican would count as a switch). The more recent 22 presidencies have seen 14 such switches, with the effect especially pronounced recently (where of the last four presidents, 2 have been Republican and 2 have been Democratic, and each time a member of the opposite party followed assumed office, first from George Bush Sr to Clinton, then from Clinton to Bush, and from Bush to Obama).
Is 14 versus 9 a sigificant difference? I think so, though of course it's not nearly as clear cut if the difference was say, 20 switches versus 9.
In closing, I think it's safe to say that the pendulum of history is indeed swinging faster. What does this mean? I think it means a lot. Something big is brewing, something akin to a world war, and it's going to come faster than it might have otherwise in the past. Pax Americana won't last as long as Pax Romana. Inevitably, I think the confrontation will come down to China and the U.S. The only thing that makes me think it won't is the threat of nuclear weapons being used in a conflict between major powers. This might be powerful enough to stave off a world war or what I feel is brewing.. but maybe not. Because, at the end of the day, there's nothing that says anyone has to use nukes in a war. If China invaded Taiwan, would the U.S. nuke China? Would China nuke the U.S. if the U.S. intervened? The more I think about it, the more I think they wouldn't. And the more I think about it, the more I see shades of Imperial Germany in China, with the U.S. playing the role of Great Britain. But that's a post for another day...
