Survivor: The Presidential Debate Edition
My rapid response to the first presidential debate:
It was once said of George W. Bush that watching him get through a debate is like watching a wobbly waiter weave among tables while desperately trying to balance a heavy serving platter above his head. You think he’s going to crash at any moment, but somehow he always makes it.
And so it was during the first presidential debate at the University of Miami Thursday night. Bush sputtered and paused and got flustered when asked to explain what the daily specials were. But in the end, he had managed to memorize the house menu and was able to relentlessly repeat the comfort-food entrees: a hearty diet of resolve and single, if not, simple-mindedness in staying the course.
Kerry, by contrast, came off as a veteran and staid maitre’d in an upscale eatery, comfortable when speaking to the regular customers who weren’t intimidated by a foreign wine list or a menu written mostly”¦um..in French.
That’s not to disparage Kerry. Long ago I predicted that when we got to these debates it was going to go one of two ways. Either a straight-talking Bush was going to plow right over a mumbling, squishy and aloof Kerry. Or a mature, adult-like Kerry was going to dominate a loutish frat-boy Bush. If I had to choose which way it actually played out, I’d definitely say it was closer to the latter.
Kerry definitely won the debate on points — most rapid reaction snap polls show him beating Bush by roughly ten points. I’m just not sure if it made much difference. If you are a regular reader of the New York Times and you know your Najaf from a hole in the ground, then Kerry probably made a lot of sense. I’m just not convinced that’s what it takes to win debates —or elections””in the present age.
That said, Kerry was stronger than usual, and much more direct, his attacks on Bush and presidential policy were pointed, but he was as passionless as always (though he seemed a jitterbug of edginess and engagement compared to the embarrassing wet noodle known as Jim Lehrer). Not until the closing statement of the last two minutes did Kerry figure out to look at the camera — and therefore the audience. For the previous 88 minutes he stared only at the narcoleptic Lehrer, talking right by the viewers, a fitting metaphor for his entire inept campaign.
Kerry did an admirable job, though, on debunking Bush’s Iraq strategy. His best punch was in four simple words: “more of the same” is how Kerry described the Bush plan for Iraq. It was a particularly devastating characterization on a day when 40 more victims were blown away by the anarchy in Iraq””34 of them children. Kerry also scored points when he quoted Bush’s poppy who said he had decided in 1991 not to occupy Iraq precisely because he could see “no exit strategy.”
Kerry was weakest, of course, in outlining just what his exit strategy might be””other than winning, whatever that means in the current context. I won’t linger on this point, only because it is such well-trod territory. Suffice it to say that Kerry has forever boxed himself in on the issue of Iraq by having voted for the war power authorization and then saying, in August, that he’d do it again if asked. Indeed, there’s little practical difference between the Bush and Kerry “plans,” aside from the crucial point that Kerry recognizes Iraq is a “mess” while the President keeps repeating “we’re making progress.”
Kerry was also clearer than he’s been in the past that war could have been avoided: “I made a mistake in how I talked about the war,” Kerry said in reference to his now legendary statement that he voted for the $87 billion war-spending supplemental before he, ultimately voted against it. “But the President,” he added, “made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?”
Bush was clearly on the defensive for almost the entire debate, failing to get the ball out of Kerry’s hands. Bush also failed to offer much of a defense and explanation of the Iraq policy, as his spinners and surrogates had been promising over the prior week. When he, once again, attempted to justify the invasion of Iraq as part of a broader response to the attacks of 9/11. he got called out by Kerry.
If you watched the debate, you could see why the Bush campaign had tried to block the networks from broadcasting any “reaction” shots. On several occasions when the cameras panned to him while Kerry was talking, Bush looked annoyed, pissed off that he had to be there, almost spoofing Dana Carvey, spoofing Bush 41. You can be sure Bush was counseled to not look so snarky. But he was so obviously uncomfortable being there, so uncertain in his intellectual footing, that his uneasiness just boiled through.
This is also Bush’s strength, for those who like that sort of thing. He was, as they say on the Westside of L.A., living in the moment; he was emotionally “there” and if that is, as some believe, a symptom of authenticity, then his unsteady presence might have been a plus (though certainly not on the Westside!).
Bottom line: Both men survived despite their glaring faults. At least we get to a second debate with some level of suspense.
Kerry has been so weak that, in defiance of all the laws of political gravity, this election campaign had become a referendum on him instead of on a president who has enmeshed in an endless and costly war, looted the treasury, lost a million jobs and scorned most of our traditional allies. (About the only tangible policy that Bush boasted about in the debate was his administration’s refusal to support the International Criminal Court).
On this night of the first debate, with expectations so low for him, Kerry managed to at least survive. His supporters went into the debate terribly demoralized, afflicted with an industrial-strength dose of buyer’s remorse. A national poll going into the debate revealed that while 61% of Republicans were “enthusiastic” about their candidate, only a paltry 31% of Democrats said the same.
The dynamics of this first debate will most certainly help to mediate the worst nightmares of many Democrats. They can now pull back from suicidal to merely panicked.
Likewise, the cock-suredness of the Bushies was undeniably shaken by the performance of the War President. Even when matched up against a John Kerry, the real George W. Bush was nakedly on display (at least for anyone who cared to see): a guy not up to the job, and certainly someone not ready to pick up the mess he’s spilled all over the floor.
September 30th, 2004 at 10:37 pm
Can’t say I disagree with anything you said. Kerry to this conservative won on points. Kerry appeared to have more mastery of the answers he did give (though, like always, there was lot’s of bone, very little meat). Bush did stammer and stutter through, but came across as resolute in defense of America.
Kerrys answers were more polished, Bush’s more believable.
Kerry =56
Bush =44
Not much different than the UIL tournies I used to judge. Kerry on points!
September 30th, 2004 at 10:47 pm
Hey, Marc….good analysis and fast! I too agree with about all of it. Bush started out strong, and was, in the beginning, well on his message. But as time went along he began to get his deer-in-the-headlights look, and for the last half hour the cutaways showed him to be twitchy and strange.
On the other hand, despite the fact that I was in a room full of liberal Democrats who did their best to psychically vibe Kerry into looking at the camera, as you noted, for reasons none of us could fathom, he persisted in gazing instead at Lehrer—save at the very end. (Why in heavens name didn’t Kerry’s handlers manage to make that one simple point??!!! Talk to the friggin’ audience, stupid!)
Kerry seemed by far the more composed and cogent of the two and managed to land a few bumper-sticker worthy zingers.
But, too often he still talks in emotionally tepid terms: “Build alliances…. exhaust the remedies… go through that full process….â€
Interestingly, the various instant on-line polls for msnbc, cnn, cbs, and some of the large swing state newspapers, all indicated that kerry won by a large margin. Haven’t a clue what demographic these polls represent, but there you have it.
September 30th, 2004 at 10:47 pm
Guess I should add that I’m surprised that the “Greatest Debater since Cicero” didn’t do a whole lot better. So much for being a GREAT closer.
Perhaps Bush is playing the “Rope-A-Dope” card and setting Kerry up for the knockout in the next two debates. Wouldn’t that be hilarious?
September 30th, 2004 at 10:56 pm
Not hilarious, GM. Not hilarious at all. Listen: I think Harry Shearer has the right idea. A couple full days of work with one of those electric dog collars that shocks Kerry every time he gives an answer of over five words, and our guy will be in great shape to KO your guy, I’m sure of it! (Regrettably, there still IS that one teensy-weensy sticking point, namely getting Kerry on board with the aforementioned dog training strategy. But one lives in hope.)
September 30th, 2004 at 11:04 pm
Yeah, Marc, I think you nailed it. Another way of putting it would be that if all you knew were the respective campaigns’ caricatures of their opponent, you would have come away much more surprised about Kerry than about Bush.
September 30th, 2004 at 11:08 pm
Rosedog writes, “Not hilarious, GM. Not hilarious at all.”
Hmm, depends on one’s point of view and from mine, I’d laugh my butt off.
However, I’ll volunteer to try to talk Kerry into the collar if you’ll volunteer to give Bush diction lessons or a quick 48 hour course in eloqution. Deal?
September 30th, 2004 at 11:43 pm
A fine debate.
I liked the moment when George Bush came clean about the full cost – in lives, dollars, and civil liberties and cultural freedoms – of the baby boomer neocons’ crusade to democratize and liberalize the Arab and wider Muslim world. I was astonished and delighted that Bush admitted that a general draft was inevitable to pursue this little project, and that many thousands of gen yers would likely die in the course of it. I was astonished and delighted too he admitted the already struggling generation x would bear the bulk of the tax burden of this multi-trillion dollar project (on top of the 60+ trillion shortfall in boomer entitlements we xers will be covering), and that we will almost certainly see crushing, triple-digit tax increases in the next decade. And of course, who could not be astonished and delighted to hear Bush come clean about the fact that even if this crusade succeeds, all Americans will see a steady erosion of civil liberties and cultural freedoms over the next couple of decades? Ahoy!
Senator Kerry surprised and delighted me too, admitting up front that his plan to enlist the aid of allies in Iraq was little more than a fantasy, and that his favored approach in the so-called war on terror – liberal internationalism – would do nothing to to upend the root causes of Islamist violence against America (the political, economic, and cultural status quo in the Arab world, and our enabling of that status quo), and that as such it represented a strategy of containment. I was surprised and delighted to hear Kerry admit that the American people would accept nothing short of an end to Islamo-fascist attacks on American soil.
Indeed, I was surprised and delighted most of all though when at the end of the debate both Bush and Kerry admitted that the real problem was the existence of American empire, and pledged to discard both their Wilsonian idealism and liberal internationalism, pursue energy independence, a rollback of American empire in the Muslim world, and if necessary significant restrictions on Muslim immigration to this country.
October 1st, 2004 at 12:02 am
GM, Deal. But in the interest of full disclosure, I must admit to you that, along with the elocution lessons, I’ll be using all my secret psy op techniques to program into GWB’s unconscious mind a form of Tourette’s that will, at the next debate, cause him to blurt loudly at odd and unmotivated intervals, “Lied like a rug about the WMDs! My bad! My bad!â€
That won’t be a problem, will it?
October 1st, 2004 at 12:06 am
He will, however, pronounce “nuclear” correctly.
‘Night all.
October 1st, 2004 at 5:02 am
Rosedog, as a qualified Mental Health Professional, with experience in treating Tourettes, we have a DEAL. But, I don’t recall anyone being upset when Jimmy Carter prounounces nuclear as Nu-Kee-Er. Just an observation you understand.
I am amused at the continuing scare tactic of the “draft” as the only two proposals in front of congress are both by “liberal” democrats. Ain’t gonna happen Ken, ain’t gonna happen. Not now, not later, not at all.
October 1st, 2004 at 7:11 am
My guess is that the media will spin the debate’s significance as ‘Kerry shoulda done even better than he did’, much like they spun the Gore victories over Bush into ‘defeats’ for Gore. It’ll be interesting to see if the technique has as much impact this time around and how many pundits will refuse to go along with that spin.
October 1st, 2004 at 8:12 am
Re the “rope a dope” hypothesis. Oddly enough, my housemate suggested last night that maybe _Kerry_ had been playing rope-a-dope with his uncertain responses up _until_ the debate, which is where he’d really let Bush have it.
All of which indicates several things.
1. Interpreting anything as an expression of a “rope a dope” strategy is way too easy.
2. It doesn’t make much sense outside of boxing.
3. One really shouldn’t try to gauge political strategies unless one were actually doing them.
October 1st, 2004 at 9:37 am
When will the media begin framing this as “the smarty-pants know-it-all being mean to the special ed kid” as they did last time, with Gush and Bore?
I think y’all are being far too generous to Bush. I didn’t watch the debate (I can’t stand either one of them), but from the sounds of things this morning, Wheezy McWindbag kicked the Stuttering Chimpanzee’s simian butt three ways to Sunday. Tee hee!
October 1st, 2004 at 9:44 am
An interesting rundown on numbers:
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040927/022104.html
Mediamatters.org has a good rundown of the distorted take on kerry’s “misstatements”:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410010004
October 1st, 2004 at 10:03 am
Bush mentioned “hard work” a lot. That was my reflection of the whole night.
An A political friend called me laughing. He thought Bush was surreal.
October 1st, 2004 at 11:16 am
“I am amused at the continuing scare tactic of the “draft” as the only two proposals in front of congress are both by “liberal” democrats. Ain’t gonna happen Ken, ain’t gonna happen. Not now, not later, not at all.”
It will happen whether Bush or Kerry is elected, but not until after the next major attack. The generation coming up will demonstrate some resistance at first, but this won’t be Vietnam or the Civil War. After initial resistance, “generation y” will be drafted and serve compliantly. Go read the fourth turning if you haven’t.
October 1st, 2004 at 11:40 am
I would add that although a draft will return whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the Democrats (with their whole ridiculous “return to normal” bit) can plausibly deny that it would happen under President John Kerry. The GOP, on the other hand can’t, which is why the blogosphere is alight with hysterical denials by Republican partisans about the inevitability of the draft.
October 1st, 2004 at 11:42 am
Comments from a conservative….
Ken and I must have been watching two different debates, as he delighted in moments and admissions that others didn’t notice. Like Dan Rather on the memos, it is typical of the left to imagine the truth being what they want rather than what they see.
Anyway, the “debate” kept Kerry alive, and I give him more points on style but Bush more points on substance. However, the exchange didn’t change the votes or minds of anyone who already understood the issues.
Today I watched some “undecideds” being interviewed. Those people have to be the dumbest around. How can they still be undecided? In listening to their answers, I think that some might be planted to appear that they are unsure but to sway people to the candidate they really back. It just seems too obvious.
Now, can we can get fair moderators (not from PBS or someone like Charlie Gibson) that will ask difficult questions of Kerry rather than frame the negative questions against Bush. Jim Lehrer didn’t ask Kerry about his inconsistent positions, anything about his record in Congress, or why he missed most of the intelligence meetings designed to protect the country. Lehrer was pathetic.
What point struck me the most? It has to be Kerry saying that we should meet a “global test” before defending ourselves–as if people in other countries have the best interests of America at heart. Zell Miller had it right when he questioned if Kerry would ask Paris for permission to defend ourselves.
If Kerry gets elected, I’m investing in a spitball factory. Well, back to work.
October 1st, 2004 at 11:54 am
PS I love how the resident Republican here only takes offense at my raising the inevitability of the draft for generation y. Nevermind the fact that my generation, which is to say generation x (in case you weren’t paying attention) will be paying 97% of our income to the government to pay for the neoconservative crusade (and boomer entitlements), and living in mud huts, eating twigs and berries (if we can even get our hand on the latter) for the next thirty years, and then once its all over walking into the desert to save our offspring the cost of taking care of us in old age (given the likelihood that the boomers will have bankrupted the treasury and therefore denied gen x any retirement benefits.)
But then again what should I expect? Gen x has been simultaneously shit on and ignored (by everyone except Reagan’s generation, who seemed to adore us) from the beginning, so this is really nothing new.
“Soy un perdedor, I’m a loser baby so why don’t you kill me…”
October 1st, 2004 at 11:57 am
“Ken and I must have been watching two different debates, as he delighted in moments and admissions that others didn’t notice.”
Perhaps you didn’t notice them because they didn’t take place. Satire, friend, satire. Read it again. You’ll find little love for Kerry either.
PS Libertarian isolationist friend, not liberal.
October 1st, 2004 at 12:21 pm
Good grief.
October 1st, 2004 at 12:23 pm
It seemed to me that Kerry wasn’t asked about his voting record in congress since that was already something that backfired on Zell’s bells when he tried desperately to explain away Cheney’s consistency with Kerry on major defense bills that Zell attacked Kerry on. If anything that would have been a *disadvantageous* question for Bush and probably Kerry regretted Lehrer didn’t ask him about it.
Ditto the missing of intelligence hearing meetings, since Repubs have a similar record to Kerry on that score. Kerry already scored lots of points in this debate using Repubs against Bush, I can’t see how giving him a chance to do more of that woulda been more helpful to Bush, can you Woody? And why are Repubs so upset about Lehrer now? Isn’t he one of those journalists who ignored the taking apart of Bush’s fake claims on “WMD”s in Iraq before the official invasion?
Ken, I’d disagree with you on one end. If there is a draft, you will see an antiwar movement that is already quite impressive (could you imagine crowds of 500k to show up to protest war in 1965?) increase dramatically in scale and level of tactics [along the lines of what Martin Luther King called for in Montgomery, 'shut city hall down']. It’ll make the antiwar movement of the 60′s and 70′s look like a Sunday picnic.
October 1st, 2004 at 1:33 pm
“If there is a draft, you will see an antiwar movement that is already quite impressive (could you imagine crowds of 500k to show up to protest war in 1965?) increase dramatically in scale and level of tactics [along the lines of what Martin Luther King called for in Montgomery, 'shut city hall down']. It’ll make the antiwar movement of the 60′s and 70′s look like a Sunday picnic.”
Doubtful. Generation y (those born in the 80s and 90s) is every bit as scoutish and conformist as the so-called greatest generation that fought in WWII. It’s simply not in their generational DNA to launch the kind of anti-war movement that boomers did in the Vietnam era.
There is the possibility that the red/blue divide, and the culture wars will metastasize into something resembling a shooting war in the coming years. Indeed, the electoral map has not looked quite so polarized since the 1860 election, and just as federalism helped to keep the issue of slavery at bay from the 1824-28 realignment to the 1860 election, federalism has helped to keep the culture wars at bay since the 1968 realignment. Like 1860, the 2004 election will likely be regarded in retrospect as a realigning election away from federalism and localism and towards a strong federal government, and away from libertarian conservatism (economic and cultural laissez faire) and towards populism (economic conservatism and cultural liberalism).
In this new environment, a single unilateral action in the culture war could really set this country ablaze, but in that case gen yers will likely be drafted to fight each other, rather than Islamo fascists.
I’m more inclined to believe that after the proverbial period of unrest which accompanies a realignment, we will see a new national politics of consensus (with the midwest as the new political epicenter, replacing the dueling coasts vs the south dynamic that has dominated national politics since 68 – both secularists and the religious right will be marginalized), but its not entirely out of the realm of possibility that there could be a serious internal conflict – even a second civil war. You can be certain that the next two decades will be as historically significant and perilous and terrible as the revolutionary war, the civil war, and WWII. This is something conservatives seem to grasp better than liberals. There will be no “return to normal.”
October 1st, 2004 at 1:46 pm
Steve,
I would add that as a gen x libertarian (gen xers lean heavily libertarian, by the way, regardless of party ID) I find the coming combination of populism at home and imperial crusades abroad to be nothing short of nauseating, but like the “lost generation” (born in the 1880s and 1890s) before us (who trended strongly libertarian, and isolationist, and opposed both the new deal and WWII) the opinion of gen x won’t matter. My historical analogy doesn’t necessarily mean that the boomer neocons (unlike FDR’s generation) will succeed in their little project, only that it will be on the same scale, and adversely affect xers the way both the depression and the new deal, and WWII adversely affected the lost generation.
October 1st, 2004 at 1:59 pm
Steve,
PS For a slightly different perspective, there was a similiar, classical liberal generation of Brits in young adulthood and entering middle age at the outset of the revolutionary war who believed that it was a hopeless cause, and that King George should back off. He didn’t, of course, for years, but they were right. It’s unlikely this King George will listen either, but what I’m saying is that gen x isolationists may be right.
October 1st, 2004 at 2:14 pm
Steve,
PPS Edmund Burke is probably the best known example of the generation of Brits I’m talking about – conservative, suspicious of government power, pro-capitalist, cynical but pragmatic (much like generation x) – who opposed King George’s efforts to smash the American revolution.
October 1st, 2004 at 2:50 pm
I see your points Ken, much more intelligently argued than the “your not a patriot because you disagree with me!!” crowd on this discussion board I might add. However, in many ways it’s the characteristics that you describe as prominent among students (although I’m not so sure, students I encounter on campuses are very aware of the bogus nature of this war, especially more working class campuses in the public university system) are disadvantageous for drafting students in two respects: 1) they are not inclined to care much for the idea of giving their lives for protecting a mayor Allawi in Baghdad if it interferes with other rights like the right to have fun and party and 2) there is the precedent of the antiwar movement from the 60′s that would inform their reactions to the idea that they should sacrifice their lives for pointless wars. I really am convinced that a draft would be wonderful for really expanding the breadth of the already quite sizable antiwar movement.
And, in any event, weren’t students pretty conformist up until around the later 60′s? And one other thought to keep in mind, the notion of a huge gap between student protestors and their parents is largely mythological, something that the data don’t actually reveal.
October 1st, 2004 at 2:54 pm
Ken – I think you are grossly overestimating the potential instability in the US.
The cultural divide is being grossly overestimated. I have the luxury of traveling around the country for work and I see a rather homogenized culture. Things are back to normal. Less than ½ of the country votes. No second civil war coming anytime soon. Neither is the draft. That is a political impossibility.
Nor is the anti war movement going to grow. Nor will gen y’ers (I am one) fight for anything except more Reality TV shows and new Ipods. The anti war movement is marginalized and has not really galvanized anyone except for sectarians, 60’s wanna be’s, trust fund anarchists, and some left oriented politicos. The 60’s anti war movement also had ideological underpinnings. We are living in the age of TINA (there is no alternative). Young people today are perhaps the most pathetic and unimaginative (right behind gen xers) generation ever and are happy buying things and watching TV. No restlessness or sincere intellectual movements. Nothing. Just dead air.
Civil wars due to the cultural divide? Nope
Anti war movement leading to instability? Nope.
These are fantasies and dreams. The empire will remain unchallenged at home and abroad with everything trucking along. The country will fall back asleep after the election no matter who wins.
October 1st, 2004 at 3:18 pm
Students in the 60’s were not conformist until the latter half of the 60′s. The civil right movement was primarily students. SDS and SNCC were organized in the late 50’s. The free speech movement started in 1964. The intellectual activity in the 50′s really planted the seeds for the 60′s anyway. It wasn’t a spontaneous movement but rather the result of a long standing radical evolution. Many radicals in the 60’s were red diaper babies. At least the leader were.
I work with a bunch of Gen Yers that are in there early 20′s. They are even more sold on things than people my age (late 20′s). I spent every summer since 98 interacting with highschool and college aged kids. The possibility of “another 60′s” is a fantasy.
The youth today are only concerned with perpetual entertainment, stardom, wealth, and consumerism. There is a very tiny minority that is aware but the good majority is focused on getting loaded and laid versus organizing a protests. Gen Yer’s have grown up corporate. They are totally conformed to the consumer way of life.
The fact that all of the major protests are organized by 60′s rejects like ANSWER, UPJ, and NION proves this. No students organizing anything significant except kick ass spring break parties.
The draft will not be reinstated. Kids will keep watching reality TV and buying useless gadgets and nothing will change unless a new ideas and leaders help build a rational opposition.
October 1st, 2004 at 3:32 pm
It again amuses me how laguerre is slightly far to the right of CNN or Time on who attends protests against the current US occupation of Iraq. Even they admit that the protests are pretty middle and working class in orientation, lots of grannies, vets,…and newcomers. Yet all he sees are angry hateful hippies…go figure.
BTW, check out Levy’s The New Left and Labor in the 1960′s, his stereotypes of the antiwar movement of the 1960′s are as misinformed as his somewhat far to the right of CNN and Time perspectives on the present antiwar movement. Could you imagine a year and a half into the Vietnam War 500k protestors showing up in NYC or DC to protest the war?
October 1st, 2004 at 3:41 pm
In my opinion, this doctrine of preventive war, which guarantees permanent and very dangerous conflict, is the reason why the U.S. is now regarded as the major threat to peace in much of the world. We’d be much better with a democratic foreign policy that supports popular opposition to imperialism, dictatorship, and political fundamentalism in all its forms.
October 1st, 2004 at 4:20 pm
Doug Henwood stalker – “Political fundamentalism” sounds like a description of your politics. Someone who is willing to support Islamic jihadists just because they are opposing the US is the ultimate sign of ideological purity.
I am not “slightly to the right” of CNN or Time. Were these not the same outlets that supported the Bush position leading up to the war? Did these outlets not report Bush Admin claims leading up to the war relatively uncontested? So now I should trust them?
Most journalists these days are lazy and sensationalist looking to sell papers and mags not report the painful truth either way. This is especially true at the mainstream outlets. Nor have I seen an ounce of truly comprehensive coverage of the “movement.” Otherwise they would interview lunatics like Ramsey Clarke or Leslie Cagan that are behind these events. In ankle brighters mind the mainstream media is honest when it supports his assumptions and is Pravda when it doesn’t suit him.
During the height of the antiwar movement Nixon got elected twice. So what does that tell you of the real political impact of the movement?
I can speak somewhat authoritatively about youth of today since I spend 8 hours a day trying to understand the minds of 15-30 year old for a living and have done so for 8 years. They share nothing with the 60′s generation and have no confidence that they will lead any sort of change in the near future. Getting them to just register to vote has been an enormous chore. The Gen Y’ers are totally superficial, self-centered, and A political. Voting for the next American Idol is the Gen Y form of political expression. I have seen some noble exceptions to the rule but sadly those kids are in tiny minority. Even with a draft I suspect that it would take free Ipod’s to get young people out to protest.
I would love nothing more than to believe the opposite. I would love nothing more than to have comrades who want to work for radical social change. But honesty leads me to acknowledge reality.
October 1st, 2004 at 4:37 pm
Yes, that is my point monsieur laguerre, you are slightly to the right of the prowar CNN and Time, thus the remarkable irony here that you, a self-proclaimed leftist opponent of the war, believes what even the prowar CNN and Time confirm is nothing but some wierd Horowitzian mythology about the protestors as hippie radical leftovers from the 60′s [not that hippies really played that great a role in the antiwar protests then, but that's another matter...].
I’m still not clear why you’re saying that Doug Henwood is a lover of jihadists, that’s an odd claim to be making. It’s as odd as your bizarre claim that Henwood is being ‘stalked’ by me [that would be news to him surely] and that I’m a “pacifist”…
October 1st, 2004 at 4:40 pm
The last election when even half of them turned out was 1972, the first time 18-year olds were allowed to vote. Wow, it sounds like the youth of today are really really really different from yesterday. Pretty powerful observations you make on the road there monsieur laguerre.
October 1st, 2004 at 4:43 pm
Actually, no, Steve says if you want to know about the world, read the WSJ’s news sections. Ignore their opinion pages.
If you want to know how bad things are going in Iraq, one important way to measure it is by looking to see how much even the prowar media refute Laguerre and Bush/Mayor Allawi’s fantasies about the continuing progressive movement toward democracy being led by Viceroy Negroponte.
October 1st, 2004 at 4:53 pm
“The last election when even half of them turned out was 1972, the first time 18-year olds were allowed to vote. Wow, it sounds like the youth of today are really really really different from yesterday. Pretty powerful observations you make on the road”
This completely contradicts statements that you just made:
“students I encounter on campuses are very aware of the bogus nature of this war, especially more working class campuses in the public university system) are disadvantageous for drafting students in two respects: 1) they are not inclined to care much for the idea of giving their lives for protecting a mayor Allawi in Baghdad if it interferes with other rights like the right to have fun and party and 2) there is the precedent of the antiwar movement from the 60′s that would inform their reactions to the idea that they should sacrifice their lives for pointless wars. I really am convinced that a draft would be wonderful for really expanding the breadth of the already quite sizable antiwar movement.
And, in any event, weren’t students pretty conformist up until around the later 60′s? And one other thought to keep in mind, the notion of a huge gap between student protestors and their parents is largely mythological, something that the data don’t actually reveal.”
So I guess your own observations are wrong.
BTW… “the notion of a huge gap between student protestors and their parents is largely mythological, something that the data don’t actually reveal.” Where is the data? Out of thin air.
I guess you and Doug Henwood are now the same person! You have officially morphed! It is crass of you to represent him but a stalker like yourself cannot see that ignominy.
October 1st, 2004 at 5:06 pm
heavens no, since when did I ever say that voting is the equivalent of political awareness? I know plenty of people who are very aware of political issues that are important to them and who don’t vote. only elitists think that people who don’t vote are stupid or uninformed. I note btw that it doesn’t seem to bother Mr.Cooper or Totten that Legere cuts and pastes and then misquotes out of context to finish his arguments. the steve rule: “you are not allowed to cut and paste on this comments section AND be leftwing”.
I’m not at all clear how my comments about student voting trends make me a stalker of Doug Henwood…then again I’m still not clear how a person who supports the right of armed resistance or the need for armed resistance to Hitler is a ‘pacifist’ in your book.
October 1st, 2004 at 6:34 pm
Ken writes, “…the Democrats (with their whole ridiculous “return to normal” bit) can plausibly deny that it would happen under President John Kerry.”
Plausibly deny? When two COUNT THEM – TWO bills before congress are being sponsored by liberal democrats? OMG, we have finally arrived in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land. And here come those nice young men in their clean white coats……. sheesh! (I know, I know, I’ve mixed metaphors, similes or something here) (grin)
October 1st, 2004 at 6:39 pm
Who wrote the bills is irrelevant, since if the military wanted it and when the current US occupation of Iraq got to a disastrous enough point *after* the election, more than likely both parties will succumb to the pressure to support the draft. Whichever party is in the Whitehouse will likey support it more. If Bush wins, the Dems would resist the draft idea more, if Kerry the communist wins, then the Repubs would put up some resistance. In either case it would pass with enough support from both parties probably.
October 1st, 2004 at 7:22 pm
Interesting comments from a security wife, the group that Bush really did not succeed with last night I’d venture:
The soldier’s 33-year-old wife, Cheryl, has no qualms about speaking her mind.
“The army is not going to like what I have to say, but I think we have no business being there,” she says about Iraq.
She too comes from a family with a long military tradition and works as a civilian at her husband’s military base in Texas. She voted for Bush in 2000, but now says Democratic challenger John Kerry will get her support.
“I will definitely vote for Kerry, not because I prefer Kerry over Bush but because I don’t want Bush back in office. I’m hoping that if Kerry takes office, we’ll be pulling out” of Iraq, she says.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1096150208191&call_pageid=971358637177&tacodalogin=no
October 1st, 2004 at 7:59 pm
“I see your points Ken, much more intelligently argued than the ‘your not a patriot because you disagree with me!!’”
Thank you.
“However, in many ways it’s the characteristics that you describe as prominent among students (although I’m not so sure, students I encounter on campuses are very aware of the bogus nature of this war, especially more working class campuses in the public university system) are disadvantageous for drafting students in two respects: 1) they are not inclined to care much for the idea of giving their lives for protecting a mayor Allawi in Baghdad if it interferes with other rights like the right to have fun and party and 2) there is the precedent of the antiwar movement from the 60′s that would inform their reactions to the idea that they should sacrifice their lives for pointless wars.”
You’re misreading generational demographics. My generation – the much maligned generation x – was born between 1961 and 1981. The second half of xers may still be in grad school (like me) but the youngest are 23yo. Few are undergraduates, and none of us will likely be drafted. As I said, we are a fundamentally libertarian generation (regardless of party ID), suspicious of government (from the welfare state to the nanny state to the police state to the imperial state), not too keen on civic or political involvement (including voting), and I can assure you we will not be too keen on paying for two decades of neoconservative boomer crusades. Many of us were “latchkey kids” – unwanted and left to raise ourselves and each other – and like the “lost generation” (born in the 1880s and 1890s) are tough, cynical, pragmatic outlaws, and yes quite experienced in the sex, drugs, and rock n roll department (we outpartied the boomers many times over…virtually everyone I know are or were coke, speed, and heroin users.)
The young people born in the 1980s and 1990s however are a completely different breed, truly good (and trustworthy – unlike us shady xers) kids. They are scoutish conformists who will (like the so-called greatest generation) restore the social and civic fabric (we’re already seeing skyrocketing voter registration among early gen yers) and do their boomer parents bidding, even if that means being drafted into the neocons’ crusade. Ask any high school teacher if they noticed a change in the students beginning in the late 90s (Columbine really represented the climax of generation x.) Ask any college professor if they noticed a change in their students in the early 00s. Underage drinking and drug use has fallen precipitiously in recent years, and we have seen the emergence of a new “abstinence” movement among young people. This is not a coincidence, or the result of public policy. The “lost generation” was every bit as self-indulgent as gen x in their youth (think of the 1920s), and the “greatest generation” was every bit as “clean and upright” as gen yers are and will be. Generation Y simply doesn’t have it in their generational DNA to rebel and resist, anymore than the “greatest” generation who fought in WWII did.
Go read Strauss and Howe’s “the Fourth Turning” or “Generations.”
October 1st, 2004 at 8:15 pm
“When two COUNT THEM – TWO bills before congress are being sponsored by liberal democrats?”
Both of these bills were introduced on the premise that politicians will be less likely to approve future Iraq-like crusades in the Arab and Muslim world if their sons and daughters are being drafted. As I mentioned above, liberal Democrats simply do not understand the historical moment, and really do believe in this whole “return to normal” fairy tale. Nothing the Democrats could do will bring back the 1990s. A major war, or series of wars is coming that will require a general draft, and no Deomcrat or Republican spin will alter either of these inevitabilities. Incidentally, there’s nothing the GOP can do to convince gen y (that is those born after 81) men (who are trending strongly Democratic at the moment) to vote Republican this year. They are in no small number of cases deeply and rightfully worried about the coming of a draft. It won’t be enough to turn the election in Kerry’s favor, and in the coming years gen y will actually overcome its anti-war sentiment and support the cause at hand, and serve dutifully – whether the enterprise is successful or not.
October 1st, 2004 at 8:20 pm
I’ll say it again, I find your arguments interesting even when I’m not in full agreement with them. Amazing how you can disagree with me without the commonplace namecalling, integrity attacking, misrepresenting that characterises much of the attacks on what I’ve written.
And who knows, possibly you’re right and they might not resist as much as I expect. God knows I hope not, I’d hate to see more kids die for no good reason as they are now, whether it’s Bush or Kerry in November.
October 1st, 2004 at 8:40 pm
John,
You write:
“Nor will gen y’ers (I am one)”
If you are, as you say in a subsequent post “in your late twenties” you’re a proud and unruly member of generation x, not y.
Or, as I said above:
You’re misreading generational demographics. My generation – the much maligned generation x – was born between 1961 and 1981. The second half of xers may still be in grad school (like me) but the youngest are 23yo. Few are undergraduates, and none of us will likely be drafted. As I said, we are a fundamentally libertarian generation (regardless of party ID), suspicious of government (from the welfare state to the nanny state to the police state to the imperial state), not too keen on civic or political involvement (including voting), and I can assure you we will not be too keen on paying for two decades of neoconservative boomer crusades. Many of us were “latchkey kids” – unwanted and left to raise ourselves and each other – and like the “lost generation” (born in the 1880s and 1890s) are tough, cynical, pragmatic outlaws, and yes quite experienced in the sex, drugs, and rock n roll department (we outpartied the boomers many times over…virtually everyone I know are or were coke, speed, and heroin users.)
The young people born in the 1980s and 1990s however are a completely different breed, truly good (and trustworthy – unlike us shady xers) kids. They are scoutish conformists who will (like the so-called greatest generation) restore the social and civic fabric (we’re already seeing skyrocketing voter registration among early gen yers) and do their boomer parents bidding, even if that means being drafted into the neocons’ crusade. Ask any high school teacher if they noticed a change in the students beginning in the late 90s (Columbine really represented the climax of generation x.) Ask any college professor if they noticed a change in their students in the early 00s. Underage drinking and drug use has fallen precipitiously in recent years, and we have seen the emergence of a new “abstinence” movement among young people. This is not a coincidence, or the result of public policy. The “lost generation” was every bit as self-indulgent as gen x in their youth (think of the 1920s), and the “greatest generation” was every bit as “clean and upright” as gen yers are and will be. Generation Y simply doesn’t have it in their generational DNA to rebel and resist, anymore than the “greatest” generation who fought in WWII did.
“No second civil war coming anytime soon.”
As I said, this is the less likely possibility. The more likely possibility is that the boomer neocon crusades expand beyond Iraq, or that the Iraq war fails, and America withdraws in the next four to eight years. If that happens, American will likely enter a period of isolationism, and if the anti-empire crowd is correct, it will be enough to stem the threat of radical Islamist violence against America. If however the cretan right is right (and sadly they may well be) it is quite possible that America (either alone or in consort with a genuine coalition of democracies) could find itself in a total war with a number of newly Islamist states.
It bears mentioning though that no one upon no one believed a civil war would happen in the late 1850s and 1860 – even after John Brown.
“The anti war movement is marginalized and has not really galvanized anyone except for sectarians, 60’s wanna be’s, trust fund anarchists, and some left oriented politicos. The 60’s anti war movement also had ideological underpinnings. We are living in the age of TINA (there is no alternative). Young people today are perhaps the most pathetic and unimaginative (right behind gen xers) generation ever and are happy buying things and watching TV. No restlessness or sincere intellectual movements. Nothing. Just dead air.”
This is a classic generation x sentiment. Welcome to the cynical, amoral cesspool that is our generation my friend.
“During the height of the antiwar movement Nixon got elected twice. So what does that tell you of the real political impact of the movement?”
More classic anti-boomer, contrarian gen x sentiment.
“I can speak somewhat authoritatively about youth of today since I spend 8 hours a day trying to understand the minds of 15-30 year old for a living and have done so for 8 years.”
Again, 18-23 year olds (right now, not three or five years ago) are generation y. Everyone older than that is x.
October 1st, 2004 at 8:51 pm
Oops.
Again, 18-23 year olds (right now, not three or five years ago) are generation y. Everyone older than that is x.
should have read:
Again, 15-23 year olds (right now, not three or five years ago) are generation y. Everyone older than that is x.
October 1st, 2004 at 9:17 pm
“Amazing how you can disagree with me without the commonplace namecalling, integrity attacking, misrepresenting that characterises much of the attacks on what I’ve written.”
Thank you. Like most people, I’m not always able to avoid ad hominem, but if I were I wouldn’t be human.
Check out this website for a bit more about generation y:
http://www.millennialsrising.com/
October 1st, 2004 at 9:41 pm
John,
One more thing.
You write:
“Young people today are perhaps the most pathetic and unimaginative (right behind gen xers) generation ever and are happy buying things and watching TV.”
There was never going to be any hope for xer political involvement. However, I wouldn’t give up on xers culturally. In fact, our cynicism, adventurousness and steely, clear eyed realism makes us uniquely situated to possibly become one of the two or three most important American generations (to date) culturally, potentially even on par or right behind the “lost generation” (who gave us Hemingway, Eugene O’Neil, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Dorothy Parker, Edward Hopper, Georgia Okeefe). As the coming populist era takes root, expect xers (among other things) to reinvent the whole noir esthetic (in film, fiction, painting, etc). In fact, the greatest noir writer since the great lost generation noir writers (who in fact invented the whole noir schtick – Hammett, Chandler, James m Cain) is an xer – Dennis LeHane (who wrote Mystic River.) We may have spent our youths in total dissipation, but xer artists are going to do some truly kick ass work in middle age and beyond.
October 2nd, 2004 at 1:47 am
I can make this real simple. U actually TEACH the new generation (born circa 1984) and I teach them in the J school at ane elite private unversity. They are very nice and very sweet and they KNOW nothing about the world and demninstrate little desire to. The rebelkious likes of Chomsky and Naomi Klein are vitually enknown to them, resonating among tiny bands of political activsists. Ny students — who ckaim to be want to be journalaist– dont read the newspaper or follow the news and frankly dobt give a damn. Not pretty picture.
October 2nd, 2004 at 6:52 am
I agree with Marc. (What? No gasps of amazement?) I also teach at the local university; both graduate and undergraduates in the Rehabilitation Services Department. While these young folk (for the most part – a few are boomers like me) are quite enthusiastic about their majors, they have little interest in politics or the greater world around them. This is most remarkable in that most individuals in the mental health/rehabilitation field are liberal/leftish/progressive and “active” in their beliefs. Young folk are quite often apathetic about politics, and this is not a new observation, it’s an observation oft made by many folk over many, many years.
Eriksonian developmental psychology emphasizes the search for identity as an adolescent and a search for intimacy and relationship as a young adult. When these tasks are NOT accomplished the adolescent gets stuck in role confusion and does not break out until that has been accomplished. When the young adult does not accomplish the task the individual may retreat into isolation and will fear a committed relationship. This “fear” includes bonding with a political ideology. In short, absent a commitment to develop, the individual gets stuck.
It is much harder to break through when there is no reward for doing so and the tendency then is to not progress but to stagnate. That is Erikson’s point. If we don’t master the “crisis†at any given stage, we get stuck in that stage.
The duty of the “village” is then to posit growth, and not worry about whether that growth is towards a conservative or liberal or libertarian outlook.
And folk, we get so wrapped up in our own ideology, we too often forget those who come behind us.
October 2nd, 2004 at 6:57 am
I teach a primer on globalization by the sociologist Philip McMichael called “Development and Social Change” to a class of students that are along the lines one would teach at CUNY. I also teach a book called “Nickeled and Dimed” by another whacky far leftwing extremist supporter of terrible terrible things like single payer health care and labor organizing rights…
Although both books probably are books that would get labelled by the people who attack my political perspectives on this board, the students’ reactions to the books are pretty impressive. Also their ability to pick out what the authors don’t address or address adequately enough is also pretty developed.
Interestingly, when I teach another far leftwing Chomskian wierdo book called “Poor People’s Movements” by Fox-Piven and Cloward and “The Spitting Image” by Jerry Lembcke, students at a college that is populated by students of more classically “middle class” backgrounds also take to the history and ideas developed in such far leftwing extremist chomskian islamic extremist books. I’d say that it depends what you teach your students really. If you teach extremist nutcases like Ehrenreich and Lembcke, students seem to find such extremist nuttiness intriguing. I’ve yet to teach Horowitz’s screeds attacking Chomsky for opposing contra aid or opposing the current US occupation of Iraq.
October 2nd, 2004 at 8:06 am
BTW, it turns out a major correction is called for on my part. Totten, Marc, Josh Laguerre, GM are all correct and I am wrong. Naomi Klein is a bigtime fan of Al Sadr and here is the evidence in exhibit A:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041018&s=kleiin
Ok, I apologize for the sarcasm, but how can one read something like this and still believe these guys’ bizarre claims that Klein is an outspoken supporter of Al Sadr, Islamic fundamentalism, etc. as has been alleged even in this thread on an entirely different topic?
October 2nd, 2004 at 11:44 am
“I also teach at the local university; both graduate and undergraduates in the Rehabilitation Services Department. While these young folk (for the most part – a few are boomers like me) are quite enthusiastic about their majors, they have little interest in politics or the greater world around them. This is most remarkable in that most individuals in the mental health/rehabilitation field are liberal/leftish/progressive and “active” in their beliefs. Young folk are quite often apathetic about politics, and this is not a new observation, it’s an observation oft made by many folk over many, many years.”
Give it a few more years. Gen yers have only just begun to go to college in the last few years, and the “observation” of cynicism, apathy and lack of political engagement over many, many years applies to gen xers who were and will continue to be quite cynical, apathetic, and unengaged politically.
I should be clear what I mean though by political engagement. Neither the right nor the left (and particularly all you liberal and conservative boomers) shouldn’t expect a generation of radicals and revolutionaries from y. They will (like the “greatest generation” who served in WWII) be scoutish conformists, respectful of authority and the institutions of government and society (law enforcement, the church, etc.) Drug use, teen pregnancy, and juvenile crime have fallen markedly among young people since the last crop of xers entered adulthood, and the samples started measuring only generation y. And yes they will vote. Already voter registration has risen among those born after 81 markedly in the last few years. Expect that to continue.
October 2nd, 2004 at 11:46 am
Oops. Grammatical dissonance.
This:
“Neither the right nor the left (and particularly all you liberal and conservative boomers) shouldn’t expect a generation of radicals and revolutionaries from y.”
should have read:
“Neither the right nor the left (and particularly all you liberal and conservative boomers) should expect a generation of radicals and revolutionaries from y.”
October 2nd, 2004 at 12:19 pm
Here’s an interesting tidbit:
“AP) — Voter registration drives aimed at young people are turning 18- to 24-year-olds into an important variable in the presidential election, especially in decisive battleground states such as Michigan — where nearly 100,000 young people have registered in recent months — and Wisconsin, where the numbers are even higher.”
I would also say that it is not entirely clear who will benefit from the potentially enormous gen y vote. In this election, the prospect of a draft is a significant issue for them, and they will likely vote for Kerry. However, just like the “greatest generation” before them, they will overcome their initial anti-war sentiment, be drafted and serve willingly and dutifully, feeling the survival of their country is at stake. Look for yers to trend more populist on domestic issues (fiscal conservatives and cultural libertarians beware), and demand both visionary and competent war leadership. At the moment, I would say that the new GOP is more likely to be the beneficiary of the gen y vote after this election (though it means they will have to give up any remaining worship of small government and regressive taxation.) I don’t remember if I said this above, but expect the 2004 realignment to shift the political center of gravity away from the dueling coasts vs south dynamic that has existed since the 68 realignment and towards the midwest.
October 2nd, 2004 at 12:32 pm
I notice Kerry has been talking quite a bit lately about rising tuition in his speeches?
October 2nd, 2004 at 4:42 pm
Marc and GM,
I would add also that at the tail end of a political (and overlapping economic and cultural) era few believe that a realignment is coming, and those who do in many cases misread it. Think of the last realignment, in 1968. Some in the press and in Washington did sense that a change was coming, but most believed that the new deal Democrat coalition was going to control the levers of power until Jesus Christ himself walked the earth again, and those who did see the realignment coming predicted that it would be away from Democrat-dominated new deal populism and towards some kind of new left socialism.
Instead, of course, it would be a realignment away from a strong federal government and towards federalism and localism, and away from populism (economic liberalism and cultural conservatism) and towards sun belt libertarianism (economic and cultural.) A few people – most notably Kevin Phillips – read the transition correctly, and most of them were openly mocked by the political and media establishment. I predict that another decade from now it will clear to anyone paying attention that we have entered a multi-decade political era dominated by midwest-centric populism, a strong federal government, and a politics of civility and consensus.
October 2nd, 2004 at 4:52 pm
And to put it in the starkest terms possible, the GOP will need to become the party of Lincoln again if they wish to dominate the coming era, and the Democrats would need to become the party of FDR again if they wish to dominate the coming era.
October 2nd, 2004 at 5:02 pm
PS So who might these unifying populist presidents be?
First: he (or they) will be boomers, and while I tend to think he (or they) will come from the midwest or the southern border states (West Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky – all of which share a similiar political zeitgeist with the midwest) its not completely inconceivable the coming historical giant or giants (and he or they will be as or nearly as important historically as Lincoln and FDR) could come from elsewhere.
So, without further adieu…
On the Republican side, perhaps Chuck Hagel.
On the Democrat side, perhaps John Edwards.
October 2nd, 2004 at 5:06 pm
This is the kind of thing that if Kerry knows what’s good for him he’ll make hay of:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7003.htm
October 2nd, 2004 at 5:07 pm
To hear the prowarriors out in blogistan btw, ya’d think it was the ‘left’ that cut those troops pay in half once they left the theatre…oh the ironies…
October 2nd, 2004 at 5:33 pm
What a genuinely interesting discussion. (Although I personally could happily do without the occasional flame throwing, Josh.)
For the record, I’ve never been a big fan of the “THIS-generation-takes-life seriously-while-THAT-generation-is-filled-with-self-centered-little-weasels†line of thinking. Each generation has it challenges, liabilities and advantages.
(By the way, most cohort divisions I’ve run across list Gen X as being born from 1965-1976, Gen Y 1977-1994.)
Two years ago at the behest of a women’s magazine, I did a survey of 30 Gen X males of boomer parents, from around the country. They were from varied socio economic groups and ethnicities, some from intact homes, others from divorced families, and so on. The results were, for me anyway, pretty instructive.
First of all, as most of you have suggested, with a few exceptions, they were generally not all that politically involved as a group.
Whether or not their parents were conservative or liberal, the Gen Xers I interviewed were both drawn to and put off by the political involvement of their parents’ generation. They felt their own generation was far more materialistic, but also far more cold-eyed and realistic than their Boomer parents had been. And, while many admired the boomers’ idealism, they were often resentful of what they felt was the conflicting double message those same Boomers foisted upon their Gen X kids—namely, “change the world and pull in a great salary with benefits while you’re doing it.”
By contrast, they said they felt that they had little power to affect the world at large so figured they were best off trying to create “success†and stability in their own immediate world. Nearly all of them expressed how desperately they wanted to avoid divorce—whether or not their own parents got divorced, they viewed divorce as horribly damaging. This also seemed to affect their desire to grab for stability more on the micro, and less on the macro level.
Ken’s observation, “…..Many of us were “latchkey kids” – unwanted and left to raise ourselves and each other – and like the “lost generation”…†is very representative of the Gen Xers with whom I spoke. Even if they didn’t experience this themselves, they saw it in friends—and always, always remarked upon it as negatively formative.
The Gen Xer guys were paradoxically both very cynical, and very sensitive to emotional and relational nuance. And again, to a person, they viewed themselves as generally more practical and better balanced than their boomer parents—whether the parents walked the edge of the zeitgeist or resisted it mightily.
Yet, it will be intriguing to watch what happens when the majority of y’all hit 40. As Ken said, “We may have spent our youths in total dissipation, but xer artists are going to do some truly kick ass work in middle age and beyond.†I suspect this is true. The Gen X’ers have yet to hit thier collective stride. What they produce with their own paticular generational strengths remains to be seen.
****
More recently I began looking at Gen Y for an entirely different project. (Plus I have one of these critters living at my house…and he attracts others like him in large roving packs.)
GM made some fascinating observations having to do with Erikson’s developmental stages, which I think particularly apply right now to Gen Y AKA the Millennials. They are both idealistic and, for a whole host of reasons too long to detail here (two working parents working longer hours outside home than ever before, breakdown of formerly cohesive community structures, rise of computer as recreational tool, yadda, yadda, yadda), more relationally isolated than any of the three or four generations coming before them. How they resolve that generation-wide trend toward relational isolation—and they will eventually resolve it—will be much of what defines their influence on the rest of us in the future.
Even at these early stages there are heartening signs: College students have rarely been big voters. This year all that could change. As Steve mentioned, it appears there’s a lot of registering going on among 18-24 year olds. Whether that continues as a trend remains to be seen.
The rest of us will just have to stay tuned.
October 2nd, 2004 at 5:43 pm
Rosedog,
You make many good points. I’ll say more later, but the model I’ve cited (with respect to x and y) is Strauss and Howe’s, which puts gen x from 1961 to 1981, and gen y from about 1982 to 2001. Traditionally, and historically, generations are almost always about fifteen to twenty years long. Some models of gen x I’ve seen are as small as 1964-1979, but no generation in history has ever been only nine years long.
October 2nd, 2004 at 6:07 pm
Ken: Forget my demographic numerical blip. You’re absolutely right. I misread something then proceeded to have a Boomer-related acid flashback that translated itself into that erroneous parenthetical. Really. I’m sure it was the hallucinogens. I stand humbly corrected.
October 2nd, 2004 at 6:28 pm
Ken, I agree. All I’ve seen on GenX begins at the end of the Boomer generation, namely ’61.
Which brings up an interesting etymological sidelight. The term “Boomer” was adopted to describe the children born to returning service-men and women immediately following WWII. Many returning troops went to college and then had families so they put off having children 1-4 years (but usually didn’t). Not too long later (9/1/50 through 7/27/53 they again went off to Korea returning in the year after July ’53. Many fewer went to college then and there was a short baby boom from 53 to 55. There was also a “boom”(boomlet?) from ’41 through ’44 as GI’s going off to war left something at the home front lest they not return.
All of this excessive verbage is to point out that the “Boom” occurred between December ’41 and roughly July ’55. So, can anyone tell me why the latter part of the ’50s are included as boomers?
Just an interesting item to me as that would make Gen X from ’55 through ’75 or roughly what Ken noted as to the approximate length of a generation.
October 2nd, 2004 at 6:38 pm
Another question for the readers if I may. I am interested in the term Generation X. I know that it was a neologism by Doug Coupland in his “Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture” but I’ve heard everything from “It just came from Couplands imagination” to “it represents the 10th (Roman numeral X) generation since the founding of the republic.
Any one hear or know for sure anything else?
October 2nd, 2004 at 6:39 pm
Ken, something else occurred to me about the 50′s ‘conformist’ generation. During the Korean war there was actually also a high rate of draft avoidance, or I should say more accurately war avoidance with record numbers of men suddenly signing up for the air force,since that was the unit least likely to see direct combat action. I’m inclined to bet ya a fair impetus for the anti-war draft avoidance in the 60′s and 70′s came from the Korean experience, both in terms of those who evaded the war by going into the airforce and/or those who came back cynical toward war after America’s first war.
Also, relatedly, I can remember back in the mid-1980′s when the youth of my generation were also lamented by the seemingly more politically active 60′s generation, there were larger rates of campus protests, occupations and the like over issues like aid to fascist dictators in Central America, the unofficial invasion/aid to contras in Nicaragua, and, of course, protests in support of the (what were known then as ‘terrorists’} ANC. And all that happened without so much as a threat even of a draft!
October 2nd, 2004 at 6:53 pm
Steve, I read every word of Klein’s article on Sadr. I have a very serious question for you. How can YOU have read that screed and NOT believe that Klein is making kissy-face for Sadr. True, she says that he is “…someone who wants the foreigners out so he can shackle and control large portions of Iraq’s population himself…” and later says that his position is one of “dangerous fundamentalism” and follows this with “…to defend Sadr’s democratic rights: It’s the best way to fight the rise of religious fundamentalism in Iraq.” OMG, what tortured reasoning.
Klein says to lay off Sadr because he is the future of Iraq and oh, by the way, he has a couple of minor warts.
Sheesh Steve, Marc had it right. I’m wondering if YOU read the article.
October 2nd, 2004 at 7:00 pm
Well, since Marc and Totten have objected to pulling quotes in midsentence and being left wing (The Steve rule), let’s take the whole quote in full context and see what Roper finds so objectionable, in lieu of the Karl Rove/Monsieur Laguerre cut the sentence up formula for reading and reinterpreting. In all seriousness GM, what is it you find objectionable in the following?
“It was an instructive lesson about who Sadr actually is: not an anti-imperialist liberator, as some on the far left have cast him, but someone who wants the foreigners out so he can shackle and control large portions of Iraq’s population himself. But neither is Sadr the one-dimensional villain painted by so many in the media, a portrayal that has allowed many liberals to stay silent as he is barred from participating in elections and to look the other way while US forces nightly firebomb the civilian population of Sadr City, where the fighting recently knocked out electricity in the midst of a Hepatitis E outbreak.
The situation requires a more principled position. For instance, Muqtada al-Sadr’s calls for press freedom may not include the freedom of women journalists to cover him. Yet he still deserves to have his right to publish a political newspaper–not because he believes in freedom but because we supposedly do. Similarly, Sadr’s calls for fair elections and an end to occupation demand our unequivocal support–not because we are blind to the threat he would pose if he were actually elected but because believing in self-determination means admitting that the outcome of democracy is not ours to control. “
October 2nd, 2004 at 7:24 pm
Any one hear or know for sure anything else?
Interesting question. I believe the name for the book came from the band Generation X, which featured Billy Idol before he became an 80s pop icon. Generation x is actually the 13th generation since the founding of the republic.
October 2nd, 2004 at 8:00 pm
“For the record, I’ve never been a big fan of the “THIS-generation-takes-life seriously-while-THAT-generation-is-filled-with-self-centered-little-weasels†line of thinking. Each generation has it challenges, liabilities and advantages.”
I agree. It’s easy to play the generational warfare card, but the fact of the matter is that every generation has assets and liabilities, contributions both positive and negative.
“And, while many admired the boomers’ idealism, they were often resentful of what they felt was the conflicting double message those same Boomers foisted upon their Gen X kids—namely, ‘change the world and pull in a great salary with benefits while you’re doing it.’”
That’s an extremely interesting insight. In many ways, xers have and will continue to be servants of the boomers idealism and dreams, and tactical commanders (literally, and figuratively) for the boomers’ crusades, both at home and abroad. The liberal boomer dream of a green economy and sustainable business will be advanced in coming years by pragmatic xers who aren’t consumed by visionary purity, and therefore able to make these kinds of ventures profitable. If the neocon boomer crusade to democratize the Arab world continues beyond Bush, xers will begin to play the same role the lost generation played in WWII, as pragmatic, no-nonsense generals and senior officers (think: Eisenhower, Patton.) Xers, in short, are not terribly good at dreaming big dreams, but very good at helping boomers realize theirs, too cautious to be great strategists, but just practical and tough enough to get the job done.
“Even at these early stages there are heartening signs: College students have rarely been big voters. This year all that could change. As Steve mentioned, it appears there’s a lot of registering going on among 18-24 year olds. Whether that continues as a trend remains to be seen.”
The first yers could vote in 2000, but it was literally only one year of them (and they were cuspers anyhow), so their influence just wasn’t going to register. I anticipate signifcant gen y turnout in coming years.
October 2nd, 2004 at 8:40 pm
One possible caveat of the increased voter registration among the 18-25 kiddoes is that it may be a construct of motor voter sign ups, college registrations by dedicated Reps/Dems at the college level. It will be very interesting to see if the increase in registration results in increased voting. So far, the students I’ve talked to have increasingly signed up, but have voiced that they “probably” won’t take the time to vote. “why bother” said one, “it won’t make a difference.”
I usually give extra points on an exam for proof of voting (and no, I don’t care who they vote for, I just want them to use the franchise). I’m not sure that will even motivate them. Usually, it produces only about a 20% effort in my classes.
October 2nd, 2004 at 8:48 pm
So, any followup on what you found offensive in that two paragraph section of the essay by Klein GM, or is it just easier to smear with quotes from cutoff sentences and reinterpretation? I mean, seriously, what is it in those two paragraphs that is offensive or indicative of ‘kissing up to Sadr’? What an odd reading, to put it mildly.
October 2nd, 2004 at 8:56 pm
Kerry should show up here and express his support:
http://cbs5.com/news/local/2004/10/01/8000_Hotel_Workers_Off_the_Job.html
October 2nd, 2004 at 9:09 pm
Gen X: The best I’ve been able to turn up is the following: “Generation X” was the title of a 1965 British self-improvement manual for young adults by Charles Hamblett and Jane Deverson, and Billy Idol got the idea for his band name from that book. Then Coupland’s novel introduced the term into its popular usage, inspired possibly by the above, but most likely by a 1983 Paul Fussell book called “Class†that refers to a class “X†of people who chose to step outside the usual divisions of social hierarchy and instead “wanted to hop off the merry-go-round of status, money, and social climbing that so often frames modern existence.â€
Okay, now on to far more frivolous, non-web-related pursuits for me.
October 2nd, 2004 at 9:18 pm
PS: Cool, GM, that you give your students points for proof of voting. I’m hectoring my kid to hector his friends.
Also cool, Steve, that you use “Nickel and Dimed†as a teaching tool. Love that book.
And thanks for the additional Gen X insight, Ken.
October 2nd, 2004 at 9:53 pm
I also use David Wagner’s “The New Temperance”, an awesome book that I would guess Ken would appreciate too.
Others I guess would see it as more evidence of my support of islamic extremism-fascism and 911…what can i say…
October 3rd, 2004 at 9:08 am
Steve, I didn’t respond to your last posting re: Klein because I didn’t see anything different than what you had posted before. Your reasoning still lacks according to my lights. However, your wondering why I didn’t post says that you are playing the provacateur. I just don’t see the need to post a reply to EVERYTHING you say, though you perhaps enjoy it. When it’s obvious that you are beating the proverbial dead horse, I’ll just let you do it. Ho’kay?
October 3rd, 2004 at 9:20 am
Ho’kay, I guess I kind of expected that.Everytime someone shows the contexts of decontextualized chopped up quotes in midsentence, there rarely is much left to defend the intitial chopped up midsentence quote based accusations/false claims.
And now, I’m not only a ‘stalker’, I’m a ‘provacateur’, as though asking for a reasonable reply to a reasonable argument made by Klein somehow violated the norms of civil discourse.
October 3rd, 2004 at 9:59 am
Steve, ok, one last time. Your adding the full context of the paragraph did not, to me, change my belief that Klein is promoting the message of Sadr. She used a different rational, she spruced it up with “democracy” verbage, but it’s still nonsensical given the specific differences between the two thought that I “took out of context” (at least according to you). If you wish to play the wounded victim that is your business, if you wish to have rational discourse, then let’s have more of your ideas and less of the lengthy quotes, links and asides.
Klein supports Sadr’s position, his methodology and though she wraps it in a nice package, with pretty bows and lot’s of curley ribbon, it’s still garbage.
Ho’kay?
October 3rd, 2004 at 10:07 am
Steve writes, “So, any followup on what you found offensive in that two paragraph section of the essay by Klein GM, or is it just easier to smear with quotes from cutoff sentences and reinterpretation? I mean, seriously, what is it in those two paragraphs that is offensive or indicative of ‘kissing up to Sadr’? What an odd reading, to put it mildly.”
Notice please that I quoted you in full, not partially, not out of context. Note also that you mark my posting as a smear. Hardly the verbage of one asking for “…a reasonable reply to a reasonable argument…” (and that was contextually correct, though not all you said.)
Give it a rest Steve, you are overbearing and boring!
October 3rd, 2004 at 10:27 am
Wounded victim? Heck no, I feel vindicated putting that full context quote and seeing that you’re not able to demonstrate clearly how it is that she is ‘kissing up to al sadr’. I know that if someone tells me that I’m a theocrat who wants to shackle fellow americans, i rarely take that as being kissed up to. different standards i guess.
You do a good job asserting, but it’s pretty hard, looking at the full quote as opposed to your chop off in midsentence confuse the reader approach, to see how you have shown remotely how it is that Klein has kissed up to Al Sadr. Sounds to me, actually, like she’s a brave woman activist/writer who has the courage to go to Iraq at this time period and write critically of people who could easily do her unarmed person great harm.
So, GM, any clear arguments as to how it is that, aside from being your opinion–which are a dime a dozen–Klein actually has ‘kissed up’ to Al Sadr in that piece? I mean, seriously, isn’t that what rational discourse, what you call for from me, based on–i.e. evidence?
October 3rd, 2004 at 10:29 am
Roper says that Klein is wrapping up Sadr in a pretty package, I see this instead:
“Similarly, Sadr’s calls for fair elections and an end to occupation demand our unequivocal support–not because we are blind to the threat he would pose if he were actually elected but because believing in self-determination means admitting that the outcome of democracy is not ours to control. ”
I”m curious how that is ‘wrapping Sadr’s methodology up in a pretty package’?
October 3rd, 2004 at 11:11 am
Because Klein has already stated that he is NOT interested in establishing a democracy, but rather another Thugocracy.
October 3rd, 2004 at 11:58 am
No kidding, *and* Klein also makes it perfectly clear that keeping Sadr out of the elections only increases his base of power and that that is an utterly luny policy [ostensibly] when one considers that he has virtually no chance of holding his own against other political forces in elections that he himself supports holding {!}. Talk about the US policy of kicking itself in the feet. Nothing new, but truly ironic.
Again, there really is nothing in that article that Klein wrote that shows her to be a person who ‘kisses up’ to Al Sadr. Those two full paragraphs, unchopped up, in their full context, reveal that all too clearly.
October 3rd, 2004 at 12:01 pm
GM, I aplogize also for, in the process of responding to your posts respectfully and with thoughtful arguments that refute chopped up midsentence quotes out of context, that I am ‘overbearing and boring’. Civil discourse indeed.
October 3rd, 2004 at 1:26 pm
Just out of curiosity I went belatedly to check out Naomi Klein’s newest essay “You Can’t Bomb Beliefs†to see what the whole kafuffle was about. And having read the whole thing carefully, I must say—with the exception of Steve’s take—I’m confused by the response it’s getting here. Whatever she’s written in the past that one might quarrel with, I see no apologies for Sadr in this piece. Instead, her current essay seems to be an effort to paint a picture of the often-seemingly contradictory complexities that make up the psycho/political landscape of Iraq, complexities that, if we are to imagine a way out of this mess, we would do well to recognize, rather than simply seeing only a reflection of our own US-centric points of view and wishes.
As with many difficult socio-political problems, it’s a lot easier— and certainly far more comforting—to use a black and white scale to judge the various players and issues at work. However, a black and white-based diagnoses will inevitably be faulty, because—like it or not—the on-the-ground reality in Iraq is wrought in shades of grey.
Just to preempt any obvious quarrels, I’m not saying all things in Iraq are all grey all the time. There are assuredly monsters in the world, a couple of whom seem to be at work right now in Iraq. But we would be wise to distinguish between true psychopaths like Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, and thuggishly militant fundamentalist demagogues with a following like Sadr.
To use the umbrella term du jour, “islamo-fascists†to cover all is neither accurate nor productive.
Al-Zarqawi is a terrorist who, like bin Laden, is clearly our sworn blood enemy out to do us grave harm. While Sadr—however much we may loath him—only attacked US forces (which, however you want to pretty it up, invaded and are occupying his country) when attacked himself.
“…It was only after US occupation powers closed down Sadr’s newspaper, arrested his deputies, fired on peaceful demonstrators and surrounded his mosque that the Shiites were goaded into battle….â€
Of course the other element at work in Klein’s essay is her angry and unequivocal opposition to the US invasion, which clearly colors her assessment of US intentions. Yet, whether one agrees with her view of the war itself or not, the following ‘graph is worth a second look.
“….Even under the best scenario, the current choice in Iraq is not between Sadr’s dangerous fundamentalism and a secular democratic government made up of trade unionists and feminists. It’s between open elections–which risk handing power to fundamentalists but would also allow secular and moderate religious forces to organize–and rigged elections designed to leave the country in the hands of Iyad Allawi and the rest of his CIA/Mukhabarat-trained thugs, fully dependent on Washington for both money and might….â€
October 3rd, 2004 at 2:30 pm
Rosedog, your take is mine. I too am amazed that anyone, regardless of political orientation, could read that essay to be an endorsement of Al Sadr or something along those lines.
October 4th, 2004 at 10:20 am
It appears that I am in between Gen Y and Gen X. This is all a bunch of bullshit anyway. How can one say that Gen X ends on this date and Gen Y starts on this date? If I was born 1 year later I would be less cynical?
Ken had an interesting statement about “The young people born in the 1980s and 1990s however are a completely different breed, truly good (and trustworthy – unlike us shady xers) kids.”
It is important to look at youth culture at the moment to better understand “gen y.” Hip hop is filled with vulgar hate, materialism, and arrogance. Hip rock music is filled with petty narcissistic observations. Reality TV is filled with pointless sex and as well as a good bit narcissi. This is a reflection of Gen Yers. Youth culture is totally directed by corporations these days and the Gen Yers see no reason to rebel. Did you ever see the Frontline episode about Conyers County Georgia and the syphilis outbreak? Do you watch MTV?
Can anything really worthy come from generation who are dedicated viewers of shows like The Simple Life and Jackass? Or listens to 50 Cent or Queens of the Stoneage? No No No.
Gen Yers might be more pleasant. But that is because there minds are too busy thinking about what to buy. Consumption and fame are the obsessions of the youth of today. Nothing else really matters. Humble achievement is not a worthy goal for them. They want to be rockstars and actors. Not restless authors, artists, and musicians.
Look at what they call “art.” I am somewhat in the mix of Gen Y culture (not by choice but rather employment) and I can assure you that it is hallow and simple minded. Much worse than the Gen X grunge crap. That was bad enough.
I am glad to see that some students of certain academics that post on this site are reading Knikled and Dimmed. And yes I think it is a fantastic book (I recently mentioned it on my own blog). But I doubt it really resonates with them. They go home and turn on the TV.
But the fact that many of the posters on this site have a rather delusion view of the current youth and the world in general does not surprise me. Now that they have revealed that they are in the academic world it all makes sense. After all, the academy takes Post-Modernism seriously.
Luckily some of them also have a foot in the real world (like Cooper) and have a bit of perspective on things. Students today don’t want to report from warzones. They want to be entertainment “journalists†hanging backstage. We are screwed. It is going to get much worse before it gets any better.
October 4th, 2004 at 10:29 am
Hold it, on the one hand when students have protests against the current occupation, they are condemned by the Legeres as evil incarnate America haters. When they don’t protest, they are stupid!
I’m not sure why you like nickled and dimed, the book is by an author who is a well known opponent of the US occupation of Iraq, you should hate Ehrenreich as much as you hate Piven and Cloward, Chomsky, Klein, Henwood, etc.
And students not wanting to report from warzones, how does that make them any different from almost 30 something prowar writers like Michael Totten? Why the former are condemned, the latter are heroic…
October 4th, 2004 at 11:23 am
I am critical of them for not rebelling against the likes of YOU (tired old college teachers) and THEM (the ruling class) or the corporate fed culture.
The youth at the protest represented a small minority of trust fund Anarcos and Sectarians. Not the mainstream by far. I would be critical of anyone holding a “bush=hitler” sign. Nor do I think the puppet show is working. Theatre is another tactic leftover from the 60′s.
I am critical of them for not coming up with some original thought.
October 4th, 2004 at 12:22 pm
It is possible for me to disagree with Doug Henwood about departure vs. occupation. I actually have not read any of his comments on the war. What I DO like about Henwood are 2 essays he wrote about Globalphobia and Outsourcing. Both opinions are totally contrary to Chomsky and the Anti Globalization movement. I like that fact that he wrote something original and contrarian.
I don’t hate Piven or dislike Poor Peoples Movements. I just think it is a relic. My wife managed to get through grad school in Social Work and now runs a highly innovative homeless assistance program without having read it. I like Michael Harrington’s book Towards a Democratic Left. But it is irrelevant to modern politics. It is simple. I want to read new ideas.
Do I have to agree with these people 95% of the time? How about 75% of the time? Is it a take it or leave it all or nothing? If I disagree with them do I “hate’ them? Sounds very Bushish and simple minded.
They only person I have a distaste for is you and your totalitarian way of looking at the world.
Plenty could be in the Sudan right now…
October 4th, 2004 at 2:05 pm
Old? Old? hmmm…wow, now, this is exciting, Josh has new powers of ESP that enable him, through the power of the internet, to know my age from a discussion board…I’d respond to your simplistic stereotypes of the youth at the protests, but CNN and Time, slightly to the left of you, have already shown otherwise. You “Bush=Hitler” sign stereotype shows how little credibility you have when evaluating protest phenomena. Maybe you’ve been watching too much Bill Oreilly or Britt Hume for your information on how many Bush=Hitler signs there were at the NYC protests. And no original thought? really? I thought that funeral procession of coffins was pretty damned good theatre, broadcast to the world via CNN, Time, even FOX!
Your take on Henwood is completely completely incorrect. In fact, Henwood’s articles that you cite are entirely consistent with the critiques of Chomsky on the issues of outsourcing or globaloney. My own guess is your belief otherwise is about as solid as your belief that a person who supports the right of armed resistance against the current occupation of Iraq or against Hitler is a ‘pacifist’ (?).
My totalitarian way of looking at the world. I’d guess your evidence for that is about as strong as your evidence that Chomsky would disagree with Doug’s critiques of the ‘globalization’ issue or the outsourcing issue, or as strong as your bizarre belief that I, a practicing karate monsieur, am a ‘pacifist’ (!)…
October 4th, 2004 at 6:20 pm
You are probably right about Henwood. You would know more than me since you are his stalker. To tell you the truth I really don’t care much about Doug Henwood. I have enjoyed his last three essays in The Nation. I gained a certain amount of insight from the analysis in those essays. If it is the “wrong” analysis than so be it.
So Steve. You are the absolute expert on Doug Henwood. What this knowledge will get you… I don’t know. Maybe start a Doug Henwood fan club. Maybe start a new philosophy called Henwoodism. Start a church of Doug Henwood.
Man get some help…. or a hobby.
October 4th, 2004 at 7:42 pm
I am right now worshipping at the statue of Doug that I have in my office.
And I promise, I shalln’t blow your cover dystopian comrade.
October 4th, 2004 at 9:45 pm
“It appears that I am in between Gen Y and Gen X. This is all a bunch of bullshit anyway. How can one say that Gen X ends on this date and Gen Y starts on this date? If I was born 1 year later I would be less cynical?”
Spoken like a true xer. If you were born in 1976 or 1977 as you suggest, you’re very much an xer. Only those born at the beginning of the 1980s are cuspers.
As “this all” being a “bunch of bullshit,” I will allow William Strauss and Neil Howe to answer your rather pointed statement:
“Q. Is there really such a thing as a generation? Or, given that people are being born all the time, is it just an recent and arbitrary invention?
A. There is nothing either recent or arbitrary about generations. In cultures all over the world, archaic myths and epics originally relied on the generations—not years—as the standard unit for tracking the rise and fall of empires and religions. Some of the most renowned pioneers of the western study of history (such as Polybius or Ibn Khaldun) pondered obsessively over how generational changes regulates the ebb and flow of events. From Toynbee to Schlesinger, modern scholars who have discovered cycles in history have also pointed to generational succession as the underlying mainspring.
Q. How long is a generation?
A. The length of a generation roughly matches the span of time between birth and full adult status. In modern America, generation have ranged in length from 18 to 25 years. Generations born from the fifteenth through the eighteenth centuries were, on average, slightly longer.”
“It is important to look at youth culture at the moment to better understand “gen y.” Hip hop is filled with vulgar hate, materialism, and arrogance. Hip rock music is filled with petty narcissistic observations. Reality TV is filled with pointless sex and as well as a good bit narcissi. This is a reflection of Gen Yers. Youth culture is totally directed by corporations these days and the Gen Yers see no reason to rebel. Did you ever see the Frontline episode about Conyers County Georgia and the syphilis outbreak? Do you watch MTV?”
Who do you suppose is currently producing the pop culture for America’s youth? It’s generation x friend. Eminem and 50 cent and Outkast and Tray Parker and Matt Stone and Quentin Tarantino, not to mention most TV writers and reality TV producers and and record producers and a strong majority of those working on the creative end of the culture industry are xers at the moment. In much the same way that boomers made culture for themselves in the late 60s and 70s, and made culture for xers in the 80s, xers made culture for themselves in the 90s and culture for yers now. That will change over the next decade though, and as it does we will see a significant shift in the zeitgeist of the culture. The era of the slacker and mindless sadism and violent, pornographic nihilism will be over. The era of grunge (already, arguably long gone) and cynicism and the era of gangsta rap and bitches and hos and thugs and pimps will be over. A new prudishness will sweep the culture (just as in the 1930s) and violence, sex, and cynicism will be out.
“Gen Yers might be more pleasant. But that is because there minds are too busy thinking about what to buy. Consumption and fame are the obsessions of the youth of today. Nothing else really matters. Humble achievement is not a worthy goal for them. They want to be rockstars and actors. Not restless authors, artists, and musicians.”
Again, you’re talking about gen xers. Gen yers will be scoutish conformists who restore the social and civic fabric, and also be quite populist (not so trusting of free markets) but they will also be the most prudish generation since the “greatest generation,” and demand “modesty” and “decency” in culture and society.
I reccomend you go read Strauss and Howe’s “Generations” or “the Fourth Turning” to understand more about what I’m saying.
For a quick wikipedia summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss_and_Howe
October 4th, 2004 at 9:49 pm
One more point:
“Q. You describe Boomers as having been born between 1943 and 1960, and 13ers as being born between 1961 and 1981. Why do some others give different dates.
A. Many years ago, demographers got into the habit of applying the “Baby Boom†label to all Americans born between 1946 and 1964. They did so for only one reason: because these dates roughly bracket a 19-year period of unusually high birthrates. No one ever pretended that they had anything to do with location in history, with attitudes and behavior, or with self-identification—all elements that we think are necessary to define a birth-year generation as a socially vital concept. And, whatever its name, continuing to define “Generation X†as a “twentysomething†generation makes absolutely no sense at all. A generation is not an age bracket. If you’re interested in where, how, and why we draw these boundaries, see Generations.”
October 4th, 2004 at 10:39 pm
Josh,
One more point:
That STD outbreak in Georgia was in the mid 1990s, and almost exclusively among late xers. (Columbine and the other school shootings were committed by late xers as well.) The fact is that since all xers entered adulthood and the statistics began only measuring gen yers rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs, youth substance use and abuse, and juvenile crime and suicide have fallen markedly, and in no small number of cases massively, across the country – even in inner cities, and poor rural areas. Many in the news media seem mystified by these developments, but anyone who understands generational dynamics isn’t particularly surprised.
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:50 am
Geben mir bitte eine poker Brotchenmv
October 29th, 2010 at 2:27 am
Can it be genuine that Naonka Mixon is a junior high Physical Education educator?
January 17th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
I believe am having some issues with accessing this weblog in outdated Firefox.
July 14th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Superb website you have here but I was curious about if you knew of any community forums that cover the same topics talked about in this article? I’d really like to be a part of group where I can get opinions from other experienced people that share the same interest. If you have any recommendations, please let me know. Many thanks!