LAT op-ed: Boomer generation's division has paralyzed American politics

[DeepModem Mom]

Gregory Rodriguez
Blame it on the boomers

....If the 2004 presidential election between John Kerry and George W. Bush taught us anything, it was that the wounds of Vietnam and the 1960s have still not healed. As a result, the 1960s generation has come to power remarkably split, and this division has paralyzed American politics.

Thirteen years ago, Neil Howe, co-author of "Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069," predicted that "after midlife, boomers will take on a darker tone. They stigmatize what they don't approve of…. They scream down those they don't agree with." He was right. We're now halfway into the roughly 30 years that boomers are likely to hold power, and there is no indication that the politics of polarization is easing.

It would be difficult to find two more polarizing figures than the two presidents who came of age in the 1960s, Clinton and Bush. Now that boomers hold a majority of seats in the House of Representatives and a plurality in the Senate, Congress is more divided than at any time since the end of World War II, and political parties have become more ideologically pure.

The good news is that the generations waiting in the wings tend to be less partisan and ideologically devout than the boomers. Surveys indicate that younger adults are less likely to identify with either major political party or vote a straight party ticket. A disproportionately large percentage of Generation Xers, born roughly between 1961 and 1981, identify as political independents.

The bad news, however, is that Xers have been so turned off by boomer-era politics that they are the slowest generation in American history to acquire political power....It is ironic that the political emergence of the Xers, a generation that is routinely maligned for not exhibiting boomer-like passion, might be the antidote to the politics of polarization. But what this nation needs now more than ever is to have the so-called slackers of Generation X run for office. Only when they dominate the ranks of political leaders will we be able to finally declare the 1960s officially over.

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-rodriguez13nov13,0,497014.column?coll=la-tot-promo&track=morenews

[firefox]

1. I think the guy is completely goofy

People live in the here and now. His whole premise is goofy. The 1960s were officially over on January 1, 1970.

[ret5hd]

3. is that why the whole "Swift-Boat Vets for the Truth" thing...

was so ignored by everyone?

[firefox]

10. Yes

The 2004 election did not produce one memorable monent or call for one serious change of course. Social Security reform that was waiting in the wings came out of the blue after the election. There was all kinds of crap filling the airwaves, but who was really listening outside the political junkies that ate everything?

Let's say that the population of the US was 210 million in 1970 and that half of them are dead. Now do you think that 105 million people that were alive in the 60s can drag the rest of the country back to the 60s? I still like the Monkeys, but that does not mean I have Vietnam syndrome.

But wasn't Kerry a fool to dwell on Vietnam? Clinton even had to jump in and tell him to get off of it and talk about the issues.

It would be interesting to know how many Americans could even find Vietnam on a globe if they took the names off the countries.

[karynnj]

12. Kerry didn't dwell on Vietnam

Clinton advised him to talk economy instead of WOT and Iraq (both of which Kerry did in Sept). Clinton also advised him to come out for the gay bashing amendments.

Clinton won (the first time) against a President with approval ratings below 40% with a third party candidate who was primarilly blasting Bush. That was a much easier situation than Kerry's against W. Clinton also had a fawning press - that by and large gave him as msny passes as they gave Bush in 2000. Kerry had a press core that played with the negative SBVT stories well after they were dicredited.

[ret5hd]

13. i guess my injudicious lack of a "sarcasm" smilie...

made you take my statement seriously. :rofl:

[firefox]

18. I took it as sarcasm

I took it that you thought it was a big deal. It was and it wasn't. Kerry took the bait and made it one to the political junkies. But it was ignored by most people. Most people did not vote.

[havocmom]

4. Was thinking about the people I know who actually went to Woodstock

All the drugs, free love and mud... To a one, they are all wingers now.

Me? Didn't do drugs. Was the designated driver WAY before the term ever came up or MADD held a meeting. Rather short list of intimate partners. Pretty boring and straight laced. And I'm branded as some sort of unAmerican pervert because I actually work on keeping the American democratic process alive.

Where those wild-child types died is beyond me. They sure are a bunch of anal control freeks in the here and now. I'm pretty much the same as I always was, just understand it better now.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. Me, too

except the folks I hung around with in my youth were pretty much like me-into politics, not drugs. And they are still liberals. Maybe taking too much "stuff" effected their brains?

But my husband was a full bonefide hippie, and HE's liberal, too, as are all his friends....go figure. Maybe we're just lucky.

[Warpy]

14. I agree, but for a different reason

The baby boom was officially an 18 year period from 1946 to 1964. The people born in the first cohort between 1946 and 1955 experienced the best part of the 60s and knew quite well what all the fuss over Vietnam was about, since they caught the brunt of it. The people born in the second cohort grew up with parents lamenting the people in the first cohort as being communists, terrorists, anti American, and you get the drift. When they came of age, it was the time leading into the Reagan revolution, something they all embraced wholeheartedly, and Vietnam was over. The division in the baby boom is more one based on age, although there were some vets among the older boomers who still looked for higher meaning in their year of hell in a war based on lies.

Anyone who expects monolithic thinking and behavior from any cohort of people is nuts, although broad generalizations do exist.

It's especially mistaken to expect such thinking from a generational phenomenon that spanned 18 years but encompassed two very different experiences.

[DeepModem Mom]

17. That division into time period is new to me, and interesting --

I think you may have a point, Warpy.

[readmylips]

2. Hey guy, it's about bush dirty politics O.N.L.Y.....

It has nothing to do with boomers or generation X. Bush and cronies, started by Nixon republicans, have tarnished politics and elections. Put the blame where it belongs; on the republicans.

[spooky3]

11. Agreed. Clinton "divisive"? With 60-70% approval AFTER the scandals?

The largest group who strongly opposed him were the right wing nuts. And they will be divisive whenever they don't get their way.

It's hardly appropriate to tar him with the same brush as Bush.

This guy should leave social science to the real scientists.

[zanne]

5. The problem with the "generations waiting in the wings" is,

though they may be less partisan, they're also less passionate about what goes on in politics. I find alot of young people to be apathetic about the government and society in general unless it directly involves their pocketbooks. Sad, but true.

[starroute]

7. Some generations just drop out of politics

There was a big gap between Eisenhower, born in the 1880's, and JFK, born in 1917. Except for Lyndon Johnson, the whole line of presidents who followed Kennedy for the next 30 years were of the World War II generation -- all the way up to Bush I. After that, there was another 20+ year gap, from the World War II-ers to the Boomers.

We're likely to spend another 20 years working through the Boomers, from the present crop up to the late Boomers, like Barack Obama (b. 1961). But then, I wouldn't be surprised if Gen X was skipped entirely, just like the generation of people born in the late 20's and 1930's.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. when I was growing up,

what I recall was everyone in my generation that I knew (with one exception) was against the war. The people that thought it was a good idea were people older than us, namely my parents. I think the idea that the draft was very active might have had something to do with it. I know there were some who went over to Viet Nam who thought it was a good idea, but no veterans of that conflict I know think that way.

So where are these conservatives coming from?

[newscott]

16. I don't know a lot of the younger boomers

and I'm in the very last year fell for the Reagan bullshit.

Not me, but a lot of people in my age group, tail enders.

[otohara]

9. It's About Stealing

and disenfranchising,lying and the press who went along with all of it

[loyalsister]

15. Gen xers who do care

many times drank the Koolaid of 80's materialism.
I know some of them who are in my state legislature. 30 somethings who are doctors and lawyers. Up and coming hard core RWers.
DAMN right the "slackers" need to run for office!

[welshTerrier2]

19. Here's a hint: quit reading the LA Times

it is rapidly on it's way to being a right-wing rag ...

the author is totally wrong ... what kind of macaroon blames the entire boomer generation for the polarization of the country ... is it just possible that bush's hostility for the two-party system could be the cause of the problem ???

and don't let anyone sell you on the idea that ideology is an inherent evil either ... that's crap ... an ideology that believes in democracy, living cooperatively with other countries, using war only as a last resort, valuing the individual and on and on sounds pretty good to me ...

boycott the LAT ... find a better place to read the news ...