Generation Gap
The secret ingredient in Obama’s recipe for success: Younger generations are simply sick to death of the baby boomers.
All but lost in the slough of “what stopped Hillary” analysis is the story of what may be an important generational shift. As Ron Fournier at MSNBC notes, Hillary Clinton retains strong voter support among an “older, whiter, working-class coalition”. Much has been made of the racial and class elements of this demographic, but few have inquired as to the element of age. What explains Obama’s strength among younger voters, remarkable even to the extent of mobilizing this famously feckless demographic?
The answer: Younger generations are simply sick to death of the baby boomers.
Narcissism and self-righteousness have long been the defining characteristics of the generation born in the years after World War II. The resulting over-the-top drama and relentless negativism towards anything from outside their own hallowed ranks was the fuel that drove the rage of the 1960s and early 1970s and which produced the endless soap opera style of the Clinton White House in the 1990s.
In the 60s, you “couldn’t trust anyone over 30″, resulting in a cult of youth-worshipping, sexual promiscuity, and banal “activism” that morphed into radicalism and then into the nihilistic violence of the Weathermen. By the 90s, these same us-against-the-world impulses of this demographic bloat had been channeled into the Clinton “war room” where demonization was the routine way to counter any political opposition. Boomers in the media set the narrative that blamed “the politics of personal destruction” on Republicans like the late Lee Atwater, but their bias was in the form of blind spot — Atwater and the Clintons were merely flip sides of the same boomer coin of unremitting belief in their own perfection and the irredeemable evil of those who might resist the boomer-led utopia.
This pattern persisted with little fading into the Hillary Clinton campaign. From the beginning, the campaign was infused with a boomer sense of absolute entitlement — the right to lead was, to the Clintonistas, self-evident by virtue of her age and “experience”. Age-based sense of privilege moved apace with the age of the boomers and, with Obama, the skepticism of their elders from the 60s was transformed into skepticism of their decedents. Obama was cast as too young, too inexperienced, and (horror of horrors) not sufficiently cynical to be eligible for high office, at least not when matched against one of the poster children of the boomer political elite. Right to the end, Hillary’s campaign has been infested with narcissism — “What does Hillary want?” is its last plaintive plea for the spotlight.
Hillary’s campaign was inhibited in its ability to adjust by the lack of self-reflection common among her generation — they simply could not understand how it could possibly be anything they were doing wrong. It could only yet again be unfair play by those Bad People (i.e. anyone who opposes them on anything). This self-righteous incredulity also explains Hillary’s refusal to make a concession until the last possible tribute has been extracted from the following generation — in this way, it is not dissimilar to the baby boomer approach to Social Security reform, namely, “who cares if we crash the system, give us more stuff”. The protesters had captured the establishment and become what they claimed to despise, all without even noticing it. And the idea that anyone else could have a legitimate gripe was just inconceivable.
The campaign failed for simple demographic reasons in addition to Hillary and Bill’s oft-noted strategic blunders. With the post-boomer “Generation X” (of which Obama himself is a member) entering middle age, the following “Millennial Generation” just coming of age added sufficient new numbers to finally counterbalance the huge weight of the aging baby boom. And the little-L libertarian, tolerant, and laid-back ethos of these younger generations proved impervious to (and not just a little resentful of) the scripts written for them by their self-proclaimed betters. Obama’s message of post-partisanship, even if only partially possible, appealed to the younger generations tired and annoyed with the constant recycling and replaying of decades-old political scripts.
Now that Hillary has finally been forced into her political death throes (which are, by boomer playbook, unnecessarily drawn-out and freighted with demands akin to yet another 60s protest group staging yet another sit-in), the time has come for the coalition of youth and middle-age to begin to emerge from the perpetual shadow of the 1960s and define what politics will look like. Cynics who proclaim confidently that Obama’s campaign cannot possibly live up to revolutionary claims of a “new politics” are probably right, but that doesn’t mean that evolutionary changes aren’t coming. The crowd in the XCel Energy Center in St. Paul was remarkable in many ways, one of these being the easy discourse across the lines of race, age, gender, and even ideology that many think insurmountable. Whites and blacks, old and young, men and women, and liberals, moderates, and conservatives mingled freely in the lines and in the crowds, conversing as friends or at least friendly rivals with people that the boomer scripts would demand they declare war upon.
And that is what really frightens the boomers. Ever resourceful, some boomers have signed on to the Obama bandwagon in hopes that they can coopt it and twist it into a tool for their tired scripted games of political kibuki warfare. Obama’s speech in St. Paul sought specifically to guard against such moves, arguing,
Now, the other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a good thing, that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate that the American people deserve — on the issues that will determine the future of this country and the future of our children. But what you don’t deserve is another election that’s governed by fear, and innuendo and division. What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. What you won’t see from this campaign or this party is a politics that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to polarize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.
Debate without demonization and criticism without crisis — now that is a prospect to drive a stake into the heart of the 1960s.
The challenge for McCain is, however, not quite as daunting as it might first seem, as least by the generational metric. Though much has been made of McCain’s age, he is actually not a baby boomer. He is, in fact, too old, having been born in 1936 and been a mid-grade military officer when the baby boomer protesters and draftees were cementing the cultural ethos of their generation. And McCain has made noises similar to Obama’s about eschewing the politics of demonization. There is an opening, albeit narrow, for McCain to join the generational coalition that seeks to move past the boomers’ dominance.
Addendum: John M. Broder at the New York Times has a similar take from a year ago.
Obama isn’t Generation X, he is still a baby boomer but some researchers split the baby boomers and he would be an Echo Boomer.
Btw, McCain’s generation is the only one not to have a president (Silent Generation).
Oops, not Echo. That’s Millenniums.
Obama I guess is Generation Jones.
The point is that he was born in the 1960s and is therefore too young to partake of the formative years of the boomers’ distinctive political culture.
The drawing of exact lines in terms of years is a purely arbitrary exercise anyway. The important factor is whether he is a member of the generational group that was present at and/or defined by Woodstock and other key events of the 1960s. He isn’t a member of any such community. In his style and substance, he has much more in common with Gen-X.
Echo. I would add that the Boomers left later generations with an overly romanticized vision of what the ’60s were actually like. They were ugly. So were the ’70s.
Bob, even the inventor of the "Generation Jones" concept agrees with my central point that Obama represents a generation very apart from the boomers with a very different approach to politics.
Yes, Tully. My point is that much of that ugliness was a direct consequence of Boomers’ dominant political culture and that many of the ugliness that persists to the present is a direct consequence of the Boomers’ tireless efforts to make their ugly modes of politics not only dominant, but mandatory. And I don’t think I am atypical of the Gen-Xers to say that I’m sick and tired of the bunk.
For example, every time I read another of Mullen’s periodic efforts to say “2008=1968″ (Mullen is one of those aging boomers that I mentioned who sign on with Obama out of a seeming effort to hijack it back into their old scripts — Mullen himself is more explicit about it than most) I feel like I need a shower even worse than the aging hippies do. Literally EVERYTHING is all about the 1960s to those narcissists who refuse to EVER grow up.
I wasn’t saying he is a true Baby Boomer, what I am saying is that he isn’t part of Gen X. He is part of a different group all together. His is too old part of Reagan’s Youth but too young to be a flower child. That’s my point.
"Political death throes?" Heh. Dream on. The Cyberdyne Systems model HIL-2008 is not so easily destroyed.
Just don’t miss the forest for trees. Analogy breaks down and is always imperfect. The new activists think they’re the heirs to the old activism, but it’s a flawed vision they begin with.
BTW, I agree with what you wrote, Jason. I wasn’t trying to be argumentative.
I do understand why years can be arbitrary since I was born in 78 and don’t feel like a Gen X but also don’t feel like a Millennial.
Although I too and sick of Boomers.
Slice the post-boomer generations as thin as you want, Bob (a project which has the effect of making the boomers very large and everyone else very small — it seems interesting that nearly everyone who appoints themselves authorities to draw generational lines seems to be a boomer), the central point remains unchallenged — that the younger generations are sick and tired of boomer dominance and have JOINED TOGETHER in that sentiment and that Hillary’s most reliable base of support is generational rather than gendered or racial.
And to continue the analogy, Tully, the hydraulic press of their combined weight is crushing the HIL-2008’s head. And its last remaining chips will be hurled into the molten cauldron of anti-boomer political revolt.
You didn’t read my last comment did you Jason? I am making the Boomers SMALLER not larger. You cut Boomers (traditionally 1946-1964) into TWO groups. Boomers (1946-1953), Gen Jones (1954-1964).
Also last I checked being born in 1978 hardly makes me a Boomer.
Someone is sure ultra sensitive today. I wasn’t even arguing with your post just one little definition (that Obama is a Gen Xer).
Tully, the hydraulic press of their combined weight is crushing the HIL-2008’s head. And its last remaining chips will be hurled into the molten cauldron of anti-boomer political revolt.
Then Obama will lose in the fall. Basic math. Chasing out Boomer Dems leaves insufficient votes to take the general. It’s not enough to repudiate (and thus alienate) them–you have to convert them.
I don’t think that hydraulic press is nearly as big or pwerful as you think, and that there is a very real near-even division in the party. When it comes to counting votes, it’s all about the numbers. Watch over the next several weeks as the sausage-making process continues, and the Clinton/DLC faction extracts their pounds of flesh out of the party in exchange for their "unity" efforts.
Sorry if I misread the intention of your original comment, Bob. I assumed it had a purpose greater than just picking irrelevant nits.
Tully, it will ultimately be up to the Boomers themselves to decide whether to accept a non-dominant position in the party and the broader political culture (Republicans also have a Boomer problem in the form of the so-called "religious right" that favors confrontation and demonization over all other political modes and seeks to make that choice mandatory with their anti-McCain movement). I don’t think it is reasonable for them to stage yet another sit-in and make endless demands as the price for their acquiescence.
And at the end of the day, any flights of Boomers from one party to the other in their search for perpetual dominance will probably balance each other out anyway.
Anyway, if they flee to McCain, that’s fine with me too. Its not about a party, its about rejecting the Boomers’ style of sit-ins and demonization. And when it comes to that, they have no where to run to that can get them back into power.
Yep–I’m warning of the dangers of factional triumphalism. And I do have a teensy bit of practical experience in the field. I’ve seen many times from the inside, up close and personal, how both parties can easily manage to lose elections they should have been able to walk home in, through one faction chortling about achieving dominance of the party by siezing power from another faction–only to have that turn utterly hollow because they drastically both reduced their base vote and alienated the swing in the process. The DNC is not immune.
Obama can’t win without Clinton’s help. She has signalled loud and clear there will be a hefty price attached to providing that help. Crush her and destroy her and she WILL return the favor. She has the tools, she has the technology.
Bob, some info on generations:
- Generation X is a term used to describe generations in many countries around the world born from 1965 to around 1982. Often, however, the generation is considered to be between 1960-1979
- Tweener, also known as Generation Jones, is the generation born between the Baby Boomers and Generation X. Tweeners are primarily the offspring of the Silent Generation; mostly they were children in the 1960s, and teens in the 1970s
- (born 1944-1960) The Baby Boomers were the generation born just after World War II, a time that included a 14-year increase in birthrate worldwide. Baby Boomers in their teen and college years were characteristically part of the 1960s counterculture, but later became more conservative, eventually gave birth to Generations X and Y. Most academic and demographic literature uses 1946 and 1960 as the cutoff years of the Baby Boom generation
As you can see, there’s some serious overlapping taking place. However, it’s fair to call Barack Obama either a Tweener or a member of Generation X. It’s probably more correct to call him a Tweener, considering the fact that he was born in the very very early 60s (1961).
Generation X, therefore, is permissible but it’s more correct to call him a Tweener. Whatever the case, it’s correct to note that he is not a member of the Baby Boom generation.
If he wins in November, he will be the first member of the generation after the boomers to take over, and their time has truly come, at least politically.
And she has the support.
Obama has beaten the baby boom candidate, yes, but there are still a lot of baby boom voters out there. Obama needs their support.
And there are now even more voters who are tired of being ordered around by the boomers, Michael.
What I am saying is that while it may be tricky to do, it is important that any concessions given to Clinton’s supporters do NOT reinforce the notion that a boomer "sit-in" is being rewarded with renewed dominance while the ones that danced with Obama from the beginning get (once again) shoved aside in favor of the narcissistic boomers.
for example, if Hillary’s sit-in were to result in her getting the VP nod, I think the net effect would be yet another boomer hijacking. Because of their self-absorption and aggressive tactics, with Hillary in the lead we would have a version of Cheney, where the top of the ticket was only nominally in charge but where the real tune was set by the boomer VP. And the result would be to totally sacrifice any potential for a generational evolution in politics in favor of a return to the exact same scripts that Hillary used all along. And Bill would be even worse, especially once he was able to set up a THIRD power center in the White House (complete with dancing girls of course).
If the price is paying Hillary a $20 million bribe to pay off her campaign debts (the ones she claimed only a month ago not to have), fine. If the price is to put her in the cabinet or in some kind of janky “health care czar” position, fine. But the time for boomers to occupy positions of DOMINANCE is now past.
Gosh, I’m generally a lover generational analysis but the "Boomer bashing" is just getting too much. Where is the Gen X version of Tom Brokaw to begin to see some virtue in the Boomers? When I was a kid (I now realize I’m a tweener) those of "The Greatest Generation" were in "The Establishment". So as we head into the conventions are you now telling me "the whole world’s" not watching!?
PS The 70’s were not our fault!
"But the time for boomers to occupy positions of DOMINANCE is now past."
Hey Jason,
Have you looked at Congress lately?
Yep. And once Congress develops the institutional capacity to do anything faster than a snail’s pace, I’ll get worried about that too.
Weren’t the arrogant neocons also part of the Republicans’ boomer problem? Or were they all born during the war? Let’s see: Bill Kristol was born in 1952. Bingo. Richard Perle, 1941. Wolfowitz, 1943. Feith, 1953. Who else? Bush, of course, 1946, the same year as Bill Clinton — and me. Ye gods.
That said — the hatred around here is so thick and undiscriminating that I slunk off and stopped posting. Ironically, you’re doing the same polarizing you decry, except it’s "all baby boomers=bad," "everybody and anybody else=good." "Don’t trust anyone born between 1944 and . . . let’s see . . . when can we start trusting them again?"
I grant you that complaining about this is rather like a diminutive version of white people being racist for 200 years and then saying, "OK — no more racism! Racism is bad!" because they see it coming at them. Still, you have to grant that to be historically accurate, you are talking about a minority of that generation called the counterculture and "the movement." They (OK, we) did a lot of damage to the entire culture — making drugs OK, promiscuity OK, divorce OK, hating your parents OK (lotta heavy karma coming back there, eh?). Yes, they (we) had something in common with the sense of entitlement, absolutism and self-importance of contemporaries on the right.
Still, I would imagine that that crowd of people chatting easily across lines of sex, race, and age did not have a big hole in it between ages (say) 55 and 65. Some of those were probably boomers who’ve rejoined the human race, or even never left it. (I count myself a rejoiner.) More important than how old you are is whether or not you cling to the supposed virtue of glory days which have long since been exposed as largely inglorious, and that got their real intensity from nothing more than the fact that they were your goddamn youth, so get over it already. I agree vehemently that it is long past time to leave the ’60s (and ’70s) in the dust, but guess what? Even people who "were there" can do it, and even people who weren’t there (but who were indoctrinated by college professors with graying ponytails) can cling to it and all its arrogant factionalism.
For the record, from the start I’ve preferred either Obama or McCain to Clinton.
if Hillary’s sit-in were to result in her getting the VP nod
My humble opinion is that that was just a counter-offer to the first low-ball offer to Clinton. I think a deal’s been struck or is very close to being struck, but we won’t know the result for a while. One in which Clinton can’t collect unless she delivers on her end in good faith (snicker) first, with a visible assistance effort on the campaign trail.
I still advise being VERY wary of factional triumphalism, especially in the area of identity politics. The electoral tent shrinks very fast when you do that.
The problem, Tully, is that some people define ANY recognition of one side’s own victory as "factional triumphalism". Basically, according to the demands of some people, anything other than giving Hillary everything she might demand, without any resistance or question of any kind, is “factional triumphalism” or “disrespect” or something else justifying yet another boomer-esque tantrum/sit-in/protest.
Much has been made on other threads of some Obama supporters being ungracious in victory, but less has been said about the countervailing reality of continued tantrums from some Hillary supporters who simply cannot accept ANY loss for their side as legitimate, no matter what. The baby-boomer pattern that I am critiquing in this thread is to ALWAYS find an excuse to get offended WHENEVER the other side wins or refuses to comply with demands or otherwise fails to recognize the boomers’ own self-image of absolute transcendent entitlement.
Amba, criticism isn’t “hate”. The practice of characterizing all criticism as “hate” is part of a project to suppress criticism, especially since the practice is rarely deployed symmetrically. I agree that there has been some posts and comments around here that go farther than I would like in recent months, but to characterize every piece of criticism as “hate” is just tiresome. I maintain that there does appear to be a distinctive political culture within the dominant parts of the baby boomer generation and that those distinctive elements are personified in Hillary Clinton’s patterns of behavior. If you disagree, feel free to refute with counter-evidence or counter-analysis, but it shouldn’t just be waved away as “hate”.
And, yes, the so-called “neocons” were a part of the same pattern (though I will continue to claim that the pejorative “neocon” is applied by many people like Glenn Greenwald as an all-purpose bashing of anyone and everyone they disagree with rather than a coherent description of an actual pattern). If you bothered to read the whole post, you might have noticed that I alluded to that already.
That said — the hatred around here is so thick and undiscriminating that I slunk off and stopped posting. Ironically, you’re doing the same polarizing you decry, except it’s "all baby boomers=bad," "everybody and anybody else=good."
My assessment as well, amba. Bye now.
boomer-esque tantrum/sit-in/protest. Jason, that’s not criticism, it’s just name-calling. It assumes that everything people do is driven by their age/generation and that all people of a given age/generation are alike. It’s actually very boomer-esque of you, if you will. And so is saying that any kind of objection to a generalization is "suppression." Tactics you learned from "us," if you ask me.
Let’s just discriminate against idiots of all ages, please. :) I’m sure my generation has more than its share, but it still might not even be the majority. I know quite a lot of people around Hillary’s age who can’t stand her or Bill or their tactics. You have a common cause with those people, but you’re tarring them with the same brush as Hill and Bill because they’re the same age. That’s kind of stupid . . . like "never trust anyone over 30." If you’re better, as you claim, for heaven’s sake BE better.
Now I’ll go away again to keep this site boomer-free and pure. ‘Bye
No one asked anyone to go away from this site, Amba. And if I were to have quit talking publicly every time someone criticized a group to which I belonged, I would never have been able to post anywhere ever.
People people people, quite barking at each other - except Amba, who’s the only one speaking sense here. This conversation started out well but it’s just turned into a "I’m not listening to you and my opinion is all I want to hear!" shouting match. Come on guys… think about what you’re saying…
…and consider one thing; regardless of when Obama was born - ask yourself this question. Will he really DELIVER on his promises of CHANGE (if he comes into power)? Would McCain?
The acid test for a good leader, is his track record with his family. Ask yourself… how is he raising his kids? Do his kids respect him? How is his relationship with his wife - really? Now I know you can’t see what’s going behind the scenes, but the cracks will show in time. We just have to look at the Clinton’s for evidence of that.
The rule of thumb is this… if a man leads his family well, is honest, law abiding and doesn’t chase after other women, then he is better qualified to lead a country. Easy right? Well no, it’s not easy to lead your family. And it’s a rare breed of man who can. But those who do, tend to make the best leaders. And this is nothing to do with the generations either. It’s just how it is.
The last president who I thought did a reasonable job as president was Ronald Reagan, since then it’s been a circus parade - full of party acts who talk the talk but woefully come in short. In England it’s the same, we hear so many promises of change from our leaders, and not one has come up with the goods (except Churchill).
Having studied and seen leaders down the generations most turn out to be cowardly lions so consumed with their power that it destroyed them - remember Nixon?
Weak leaders dwell in EVERY generation (and each generation has its own baggage); not only the 60’s and 70’s (there were many generations before that and more will come - you’re thinking is too myopic). It’s a fact… everyone is the same deep down - you just need to crack open the history books to see all the mistakes each generation has made.
If you’re looking to Obama to change things, it’s a mistake. Ask yourself, what can you do to change the environment you live in? There’s plenty to do, what with carbon footprint issues, food shortages and fuel hikes. There’s enough for us to be getting on with. Expecting Obama and his kind to fix things is foolish thinking. And bickering about who did what to whom i.e. in relation to the generations makes no sense and wastes precious time.
One writer here talked about how you’re moving your narrow-mindedness from colour to age. How silly. Come on guys - talk sense and think. Obama and McCain are just men, filled with many, many flaws. You know as well as I do that leaders make many promises they don’t keep - and these guys will be no different. It’s rare that I’ve seen any leader, anywhere in the world have true integrity and guts.
And if there are, you don’t hear about them in the news - notice that? And they certainly don’t become presidents - I wonder why that is?
If you’re pinning your future on either of these guys then you’re in for trouble. It’s up to you to take responsibility of your own life. You can make a difference - even bigger and better than your leaders ever can. Right on your own doorstep.
Sure we should expect our leaders to be an example, but you’ll be bitterly disappointed if you expect Obama or guys like him, to fix the problems we had a hand in making.
So bleating on about this generation or that generation is pointless. Because when all is said and done, history has shown, all generations are flawed, and no generation learns from the mistakes made from the generation before it.
Nuf said.
Stop the Boomer Bashing! "Narcissism and self-righteousness"??? Try brave and creative. There’s a great post on http://www.Vaboomer.com titled "Can Boomerism Really Be Dead?" today. Read it.
LOL. Performative contradiction much?