Barack Obama & Elena Kagan: "All they had to do, in return, was to stand for nothing."

[Karmadillo]

(edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/19-3

Fear Comes of Age
by David Michael Green

<edit>

Perhaps what they both had in common is little to risk. In any case, by the time Gen X came around, the doors were already slamming shut. In part this was because we were actually living beyond our means anyhow, and the principles of economic physics reasserted their inevitable gravitational pull. In part it was because the Boomers were such a large generation that they sucked up a lot of opportunity in the economy for those who came after them. And in part, this happened because regressivism had begun its thirty year (and counting) successful project to undo the anomalous fairer wealth redistribution of the mid-twentieth century, which had scandalously produced a somewhat just economic system for the first time since the industrial revolution, if not ever.

Whatever the explanation, I don't think it's an accident that the people coming of political and career age under such conditions have exhibited a certain degree of conservatism in their outlook on life. I don't mean here ideological conservatism, though there is that as well, but more of a hunkered-down, blinkered, instrumental, cautious, personal conservatism - one that is devoted to the narrowest agenda of self. One might even call it peasant conservatism, to which it is akin.

<edit>

The upshot of all this is that America has been moving seriously rightward, at least concerning matters of political economy if not social policy, for a full generation or two now. Where once there was a right, now there is a rabid right. And where once there was a left, now there is a collection of apolitical careerists. Given the powerful ability of the right to tilt the playing field in every meaningful dimension, the policy options seemingly open to these would-be progressives when they gain office (which happens almost purely because of regressive over-extension, rather than on their own merits) are effectively, but not actually, proscribed to more of the same right-wing insanity that has brought this country so much grief and decline since the Hollywood Cowboy rode into town and borrowed insipid two-dimensional morality plays from the sets of B-movie lots and screened them as the cheap horror production known as American politics.

The same is absolutely true of judicial politics as well. As Justice Stevens has himself correctly noted, every single appointment to the Supreme Court since and including his own, 35 years ago and now again today, has replaced the prior justice with someone further to the right. The entire center of gravity of the Court (and the federal courts below it) has shifted dramatically rightward. Not only do regressives vehemently demand that Republican presidents nominate throaty young Troglodytes to fill any vacancy (as they did when they forced Bush to withdraw the Harriet Miers nomination), but this is in fact probably the single biggest reason that they fight so hard to win the presidency. Sure, they want some twisted pathological freak in the White House who will invade hapless third world countries, slash spending on the poor, keep the womenfolk in their place, and then piously attend church on Sunday (though both Reagan and W typically managed only the first three items on that agenda during any given week of their presidencies, but they faked their religiosity well enough that they were forgiven), but what they really want is somebody who will stick a Sam Alito on the Supreme Court for the next forty years. It's not quite as permanent an establishment of their repressive politics as would be, say, making up some religion for people to adhere to over the next couple of millennia, but it's as close as you can get as long as that pesky Constitution and its evil secular government is still around and in the way.

<edit>

[Radical Activist]

1. Totally out of touch with reality.

First, if you look at the numbers, it isn't Gen X or Y that's moving the country right. It's the baby boomers and it always has been. They voted for Nixon and they voted for Reagan. We only got the first liberal President in over a generation because Gen X and Y are finally able to counteract the boomers. It's the boomers who have gradually gotten even more conservative than the majority of them were to begin with. Blaming that on Gen X is fucking ridiculous. The country is now moving left and will move more left as the large Gen Y further counteracts the boomers.

To the extent that Obama's accomplishments aren't as liberal as what he campaigned on, I'd say it's obviously because the Congress and media are still in the hands of more conservative baby boomers.

[Hannah Bell]

5. scuse me? the boomers voted for nixon?

um, us voting age in all but hawaii & alaska states was 21 until 1971.

thus one of the issues of the vietnam war: draft age was 18 but voting age was 21: "you're old enough to kill, but not for voting".

nixon was first elected in 1968, when the oldest boomers were just 22.

i assure you, 22-year-olds didn't go majority for nixon during the vietnam war.

nor did boomers go majority for reagan during his first term, either.

boomers were 19-34 years old then, & their total for reagan was the LOWEST of any age group. 18-29-y/os went 43% reagan, 43-44% carter, and 11% ANDERSON.

It was the "greatest generation" & older who went for reagan: 54-55%.

it's you who doesn't have your facts straight, bubba.

possibly because your interest is in bashing your elders, not truth.

[Radical Activist]

7. A majority of 18-29 years olds (and those under 21) supported Nixon in '72.

The myth of the boomer generation is always more appealing than the reality. The majority of boomers were never liberals or hippies.
A majority of 30-44 years olds voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html

More than anything else, this graph says it all about what generations are more liberal and put Obama in the White House.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584499389399483.html#project%3DEXITPOLL0811%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

On behalf of Gen X and Y, you're welcome. We're voting more liberal than the boomers ever did.

Here's another one for the 2008 Presidential election since you have to click around the link above.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_r1AxIJszWSA/SxE1CFO0p_I/AAAAAAAAE4A/D3MmpkGBq0o/s400/vote+by+age.JPG

[Hannah Bell]

8. Au contraire.

Here's the 1980 election:  Boomers (born 1946 - 1961) were
19-34 years old.


             18-21      22-29   30-44    45-59      60+
      
Reagan        43%        43%      54%     55%       54%    

Carter        44%        43%      37%     39%       40%

Anderson      11%        11%      7%       6%        4%



In case you weren't around in 1980, Anderson was that years'
Nader.  He was billed as the progressive candidate outside the
two corrupt parties.

here's the modern comparison election, in which the young
(your wonderful generations, no doubt) split their vote for
gore/bush due to defections to nader:

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_00.html

A minority of boomers voted for Reagan in 1980.  A majority of
their elders voted for him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980



1984:  Boomers were 23-38

          Mondale         Reagan

18-24:     39%              61%

25-29      43               57

30-49      42               58

50-64      39               61

65+        36               64



Every age group went majority reagan in 1984, but the age
group LEAST likely to vote for him was the BOOMERS.

Those younger & older were MORE likely to vote for reagan.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_84.html


and boomers were the *least likely* age group to vote for
nixon in 1972.



I'll say it again:  you're full of shit.

[Radical Activist]

9. So in zero of those years did a majority of boomers vote for a Democrat.

In contrast, Gen X helped put Clinton in office, supported Gore in a year when the party ignored young people, and then gave bigger margins to Obama.
And you're calling ME full of shit? :rofl:

Spin all you want but there's really no comparison. The article's suggestion, that it's Gen X pushing the country right rather than the boomers, has no factual support. Your attempt at spin meant including people born in the late baby boom, who may be part of a technical surge in births, but are certainly not culturally part of the boomer 60's generation. You're fudging the numbers. But hey, why not throw in the fact that a majority of 18-21 year olds voted Ford over Carter, which made them MORE Republican than the rest of the country.

You also argue that boomers voted less Republican than others age groups in the 80's, but that has nothing to do with the premise that boomers are somehow more liberal or Democratic than Gen X or Y. Actually, I'm not sure what your premise is anymore. You questioned the accuracy of my statement and I provided links showing I was correct that boomers voted for Nixon. Are you ready to apologize and admit your error?

You wrote: "i assure you, 22-year-olds didn't go majority for nixon during the vietnam war." As the links I provided show, they most certainly did.

Your most bizarre counter-argument is that a plurality of voters under 30 gave their vote to Gore, a candidate who completely ignored young voters and their issues. So let's just be clear. Gen X and Y still voted for Gore over Bush, but the boomers voted for Nixon, Ford, and even gave more votes to Reagan than Carter in '80. And you still claim that boomers are more liberal? hmmmm... Once again, the mythology of the boomer generation is a far cray from the reality.

And I wasn't voting age but I do know that Anderson was a Republican who ran against Reagan in the Republican primary before he declared as an independent. He was no Ralph Nader. And you're calling ME full of shit?
:eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

10. in zero of those years did a majority of any age group vote for a democrat, so

not sure why you think the boomers are special in that regard; that group was the *most likely* to vote for democrats.

i lived it, i was a working adult, & i know what anderson was billed as. he ran as an anti-war, progressive candidate, to the left of any republican, & was endorsed by a number of prominent liberals, e.g. gore vidal.

i didn't say anything like boomers are more liberal than other age groups. read my post again & quit setting up straw men:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8371691&mesg_id=8372069

i said they didn't go for nixon or for reagan in 1980, as you claimed.

you weren't there & you're full of shit, sorry.

[Radical Activist]

12. It's not a straw-man when I was responding to an argument in the OP editorial.

I did show that boomers voted for Nixon in '72. We don't have a an exact age break down of '80, but it's clear that the 60's generation typically associated with the phrase "baby boomer" in political terms narrowly voted for Reagan in '80. So, I'll take your apology now. Maybe the objective reality of what happened isn't how you would like to remember it. Liberals and hippies were always in the minority of that generation no matter what you and your friends did.

I've conclusively shown, in response to the OP, that Gens X and Y have a more liberal voting history than boomers. And what's your point again? I guess you took it personally and need to defend your ego. Typical boomer drama.

[stray cat]

2. I knew where Obama stood - however i am an informed voter who does their homework

[FrenchieCat]

3. A twofer smear wrapped up in garbage.

[cbayer]

4. Karmadillo,

Please be aware that our rules regarding copyrighted material require that you limit the text to four paragraphs or less with a link.

Thanks,

cbayer
DU Moderator

[kenny blankenship]

6. Just a personal quibble: there's no such thing as an "apolitical centrist"

Anybody who answers to that description accepts the what the dominant culture says is normal and desirable in most important aspects of life - perhaps even in all aspects. Such people have a political ideology, even if they don't know what it is. They have picked it up by osmosis, and it is fully formed and active. Maybe they can be moved to object and to step ever so timidly out of conformity with the mainstream when confronted by extraordinarily unfair or harmful circumstances. But otherwise and for the vast majority of occasions, an apolitical centrist will be A-OK with things as they are and have been. I leave it to you to decide our national status quo is, in fact, rightwing, FAR rightwing, leftwing or somewhere balanced in the middle.

Here's a final hint: if you like what happened in this country during the last 30 years, you'll be real pleased with your new "apolitical centrist". The last 30 years have been unrelentingly, unwittingly rightwing, and so are "apolitical centrists."

[Hannah Bell]

11. one quibble: i'd say they've been very wittingly rightwing.

[MidwestPerspective]

13. Actual experts say Obama and Kagan are part of Generation Jones

Green's claim that Obama (born in 1961), let alone Kagan (born in 1960), are part of X defies what almost every actual expert says on this topic. I realize that Green isn't trying to claim any expertise about generations, but it would have been helpful if he would have taken some time to research this topic.

Virtually no experts anywhere have said that Obama, or Kagan, are part of Generation X. By contrast, a long list of prominent experts have said that they are part of Generation Jones. Reasearch Generation Jones, and you’ll see it’s gotten lots of media buzz; in fact, the Associated Press' annual Trend Report chose the Rise of Generation Jones as the #1 trend of 2009. Many top commentators from many top publications and networks (Washington Post, Time magazine, NBC, Newsweek, ABC, etc.) specifically refer to Obama, and much of his cabinet, as part of Generation Jones.

Here is a 5 minute YouTube video with over 20 nationally influential pundits talking about Obama as a GenJoneser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ta_Du5K0jk

It is important to distinguish between the post-WWII demographic boom in births vs. the cultural generations born during that era. Generations are a function of the common formative experiences of its members, not the fertility rates of its parents. Many experts now believe it breaks down more or less this way:

DEMOGRAPHIC boom in babies: 1946-1964
Baby Boom GENERATION: 1942-1953
Generation Jones: 1954-1965
Generation X: 1966-1978

Here is an op-ed in USA TODAY about Obama as the first GenJones President:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090127/column27_st.art.htm

Here's a page with a good overview of recent media interest in GenJones, with many media references to Obama as a GenJoneser:
http://generationjones.com/2009latest.html