|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
October 14, 2008 - 6:28am.
Whatever this national election's outcome, one thing seems clear: it marks the end of the boomers' presidential reign. As if applying a devastating coda to this era's highly leveraged lifestyle, our current financial crisis indicates that we have reached the end of that political generation's dysfunctional hyper-partisanship and lack of fiscal discipline. Nothing displays our collective desire to move beyond the boomers more than the fact that the two most exciting national candidates fielded in this election are -- in effect --post-boomers: Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. Even the Republicans' turn toward John McCain represents an implicit rebuke of the boomers' political generation in that he promises a pre-boomer return to adult supervision in Washington. The dullard of the four? That would be the quintessential boomer Joe Biden. Just look at this campaign and you see how much each side wants to avoid the perceived boomer lineage, with McCain promising not to rerun the mistakes of Vietnam and the GOP desperately trying to tar Obama with Sixties radical William Ayers. Talk about a time warp! Run these scenarios in your head and see if they don't make sense. First, if Obama wins, the combination of a cleansing recession early in his first administration and his ability to mobilize fervent political support among the young suggests that he would be poised to achieve a second term come 2012, much like Ronald Reagan did in 1984. Add eight years to every prominent boomer politician's current age and you've got a geriatric cast clearly past its ruling prime -- McCain's inescapable image handicap. But say the 72-year-old McCain wins and then can't go the distance. Once you slip Sarah Palin into the Oval Office, does anyone think that wouldn't represent the same generational watershed within the Republican Party that Obama's elevation signals for the Dems? And if McCain were to go that distance? Then we're talking about another eight years of a Republican president at odds with a Democratic-dominated Congress, and judging by the almost complete legislative logjam of the past two years, that will likely only hasten the boomer generation's political demise. Will we miss the boomers? In my opinion, the boomer generation represents one of the weakest cohorts of politicians America has ever produced. Like most revolutionary generations frustrated by the lack of political change they affected in their youth, the bulk of the boomers' talent and ambition thereupon went into the private sector. This dynamic is common to demographic change agents throughout history: denied on the political front, they turn to far less restricted domains of business and technology in an attempt to change their world from another angle. The result is typically a huge burst of creativity and entrepreneurship. We saw this in Europe after the failed revolutions of 1848, in the United States following the Civil War, and in today's China after Tiananmen Square. The serious talent simply skips a political process they consider "low" and "demeaning" and instead chooses the real "business" of social and economic progress, believing that "what's good for my company is good for my nation!" If I were to compare the boomers as a political generation to one from America's past, it would be the last quarter of the 19th century, or roughly from 1875 to 1890. The reason why that comparison will strike so many of you as obscure is that most Americans can't name any presidents or prominent politicians from that age, but know well the industrial and financial titans such as Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller. Decades from now our children will remember giants like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Rupert Murdoch, while virtually all boomer politicians will slip into well-deserved obscurity. After 46 years of living in the boomers' shadow, care to guess how eager I am to see them gone? Hint: I voted last week!
Thomas P.M. Barnett (tom(at)thomaspmbarnett.com) is a visiting scholar at the University of Tennessee's Howard Baker Center.
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
|
What's your point? You're
Submitted by zuzumamu on October 14, 2008 - 10:54am.What's your point? You're basing your entire ramble on George Bush and Bill Clinton, the latter of which will NOT be forgotten, the former will be notorious throughout American history I assure you. Your entire premise seems to be based on some personal grudge against an entire generation,and virtually useless to any reader who happens by.
I believe if the author
Submitted by ralphcat on October 14, 2008 - 11:52am.I believe if the author checks the definition of the Baby Boom generation (1946 to 1964), he will find that he himself is a member in good standing of the very group he reviles. In fact, so is Barack Obama.
Sincerely,
Your fellow Boomer (since 1952)
Like a bolt out of the blue, fate steps in and sees you through -- Jiminy Cricket
Nothing says "ignorant" and
Submitted by Ladywolf55 on October 14, 2008 - 12:04pm.Nothing says "ignorant" and "lacking manners" like dissing your elders. Your elders have wisdom you can only dream of, and you don't have the intelligence to realize it. So goes the people, so goes the country... downhill.
Times were good to the
Submitted by DejaVuAllOver on October 15, 2008 - 12:37am.Times were good to the boomers, relatively speaking. That they weren't very idealistic is no surprise to anyone. Now it's time to pay for their consumption-crazed ways. Babies DO grow up, eventually, especially when the times force them to. I'm 50 and have had about enough of these gimme-gimme soccer moms and easy-money suburban corporate twerps, anyway. Go away FAST is all I have to say.
I have mixed feelings about
Submitted by jzelensk on October 15, 2008 - 7:28pm.I have mixed feelings about this column. There is no doubt that the Clinton and bush terms were anything but the shining lights of American history.
Let us not forget that most of Clinton's policies were bottled up by the Gingrich Congress; were boomers in charge of Congress? The 1994 GOP crowd probably were in the main boomers. I remember them when I was in college -- these guys wouldn't walk on the lines in the sidewalk, they were so uptight.
The bush administration was actually run by Cheney and a lot of other pre-boomer types. So I'm not sure that it's correct to place all the disasters of the past 8 years on a "generation."
There are many, many boomers who have been disgusted with bush, his actions, and everything that he stands for. What would the US and the world be like had the real winner in 2000 been allowed to take office (Gore, a boomer)? Radically different. What would Barnett be writing today in that case? Did boomers on the Supreme Court hand the presidency to bush? Well, no. Hmmm -- there were none there at the time.
Right wing boomers have to stand guilty and convicted, but so must right wingers of other generations who had a hand in this criminal enterprise.