Guest Voice: Obama’s (and America’s) Generation Problem
Jun 16th, 2007 | 15 responses
NOTE: The Moderate Voice runs Guest Voice posts from time to time by readers who don’t have their own websites, or people who have websites but would like to post something for TMV’s diverse and thoughtful readership. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Moderate Voice or its writers.
This Guest Voice post is by Kevin Anderson, a graduate of Lake Erie College in Painesville, Ohio, and a freelance writer.
Obama’s (and America’s) Generation Problem
By Kevin Anderson
Let me say in advance that I wish I did not feel compelled to write this article. You see, I am an unashamed, for the most part, Barack Obama supporter. I wrote an article published on this fine website in October encouraging the Illinois Democrat to run for President. I think he could help unite a divided, almost rudderless nation. I still believe this, but certain facts have compelled me to conclude that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination.
The reasons for this conclusion are many indeed. One could point to the “Clinton machine,†Obama’s lack of experience, race (though this is, in my view, a minor factor), and the historical impulse of the American people to avoid dramatic political change (more on that in a future piece). All of these factors are important, but it strikes me that one factor above all gives us the answer.
In short, blame it on the “Baby Boomers.â€
Yes, that’s right, blame the Boomers. Since 1992, American presidential politics has been dominated by this generation. The election of Bill Clinton in ’92 wrestled political control away from the World War II “Greatest Generation.†Clinton then, relatively speaking, routed Bob Dole four years later. The Boomers’ time had most certainly arrived.
George W. Bush, Al Gore, and John Kerry are all products of the Boomer generation; not coincidentally, they are also the three men who have represented the two major political parties in the last two presidential elections. One could say that the 2000 and 2004 elections were battles between liberal Boomers and conservative Boomers.
So what, you say? Well, one needs to understand (broadly speaking) what experiences shaped the political makeup of this generation. This is the generation of Vietnam, civil rights, the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, Watergate, women’s lib, and an overall revolution in the culture. It goes without saying that the Boomers lived thru a tumultuous and transformative time in American society.
Of course, they are not unique in that distinction. The Greatest Generation lived thru the Depression and a World War. The difference, however, is that while that generation’s character and identity was forever altered by these events, it did not define their future. After World War II, most Americans agreed that American foreign policy had basically succeeded, and while the New Deal would become controversial in the years to come, few argued with it at the time. Ultimately, while forever influenced by their past, the Greatest Generation was able to move ahead and see the future.
Regrettably, the turmoil that the Boomers experienced informs their current understanding of the world. Liberal Boomers never liked Vietnam and were the ones pushing the cultural and political envelope. To this day, many conservative Boomers believe that Vietnam would have been won, if not for a left-leaning media that opposed it. These same conservatives were repulsed by the liberalization (sometimes in excess) of the culture in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s and are equally repulsed by attempts to liberalize it now (think gay marriage).
These ideological struggles were never satisfactorily settled and brought to a resolution. Instead, these fights continue in the form of “proxy wars.†Liberal and conservative Boomers no doubt see Iraq as a new way to battle over Vietnam, a war that ended 32 years ago. Liberal Boomers not only want the U.S. out of Iraq (a position I support), but many also hold the very post-Vietnam view that the U.S. should have a much smaller role in the world. Conservative Boomers see diplomacy as an exercise in futility and seem to believe that, given enough national will, every military intervention will succeed.
Both of these positions, of course, have almost nothing to do with the realities of 2007, but that’s the point: 30 year old battles are being fought using current, actual struggles. In so doing, they have, in my view, hijacked the politics of this republic in order to continue the argument. Keep in mind that Steve Gillon, author of Boomer Nation, estimates that Boomers account for 29% of the total U.S. population. Given the fact that few under 30 bother to vote, this generation can dominate the political class.
2008, then, will be yet another Boomer battle. Perhaps the turmoil of the times made resolution impossible, but it is clear that the two sides are still using the cultural and foreign policy debates of today to settle the debates of 1970. Furthermore, neither side has any interest in moving on…, yet.
Barack Obama, though technically a Boomer, has written of the tired debates of the Boomers. Vietnam means nothing to him, and the cultural issues strike him as silly. He may be right, but his own intuition into the American psyche eliminates him from consideration for any nomination. Regardless of what they tell pollsters, this generation is not tired of partisanship. After all, this generation has perfected it to an art form, precisely because they wish to continue their old arguments. Neither side is fully satisfied yet, so expect the bickering to continue, at least thru November 2008.
Hillary Clinton may not be loved by many liberal Democrats, but it strikes me that she best represents this generation. She opposed Vietnam, has been associated (fairly or not) with feminism, and, most of all, is extremely partisan. This is the woman who coined the “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy,†and enjoys using Republicans and conservatives as foils.
In the end, though, she best represents the jaded cynicism that is conventional with all Boomers, especially liberals. In the minds of many, she represents pure pragmatic ambition, with a willingness to hide ideology in order to gain power. Boomers assume all politicians are power-hungry cynics, so Sen. Clinton does not faze them. She will fight conservatives and they will fight back. It’s unpleasant for us non-Boomers, but it is what they want.
As I said, issues like experience, a relationship with Tony Rezko, and lackluster debate performances will also hold Obama back. It’s just too bad that he cannot do anything about the biggest obstacle in his way.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
15 Responses to “Guest Voice: Obama’s (and America’s) Generation Problem”
[...] Anderson – a graduate of Lake Erie College in Painesville, Ohio, and a freelance writer – wrote a fascinating guest post for The Moderate Voice. His main point: baby-boomers have dominated American politics for years, [...]
[...] Originally posted here: Joe Gandelman [...]
I saw a poll (yes, yet another poll) some time ago but I can’t find it anymore. Essentially there were two questions made to democratic voters. The first was something like “who best represents the values of the Democratic party?” and the second “Who do you think is going to win the nomination?” The results were pathetically predictable; Obama won on representing values but Hillary was expected to get the nomination. And that, in short, is what is wrong with Democrats.
I can’t wrap my mind around the idea that many people will openly admit that they like Obama more than Hillary, but are resigned to her getting the nomination anyway. Well that’s just dandy, isn’t it? Why fight at all, why have nominations? Just let whoever “everybody knows” will get it run. Ugh, makes me sick. Hillary is the Republican’s best hope, if she gets the nomination and they played their cards just right, they could win in ’08. An Obama nomination (and let alone a Gore one should he choose to run) would be much harder to beat. Obama gets quite a few positives amongst Republicans a huge ones amongst Independents. Democratic voters know this, but seemingly refuse to risk changing the “usual path”, even for the better.
[...] Clark Link to Article Guest Voice: Obama’s (and America’s) Generation Problem » Posted at The [...]
This is a ridiculous post. If you are giving up based on demographics, why the heck did you ever start supporting Obama? The generational divide is the main looming domestic issue, and is precisely what Obama is capable of taking on, in great part because he does not have a Boomer mentality.
Obama’s non-Boomer appeal easily extends to voters in their mid and late 30′s. Also, your argument requires that you dismiss the under-30 group. The circumstances that have kept them at home on election days past have drastically changed. We have the internet, a war, and a candidate who is a spiritual peer of this group. I am not counting on them, but the ease with which you, an Obama “supporter”, write them off, is highly suspicious.
[...] Clark Link to Article Guest Voice: Obama’s (and America’s) Generation Problem » Posted at The [...]
Obama is part of Generation Jones
Many commentators still miss an important part of the equation with Obama–he clearly doesn’t think of himself as a Boomer (he made his post-Boomer status a centerpiece of the speech in which he announced his candidacy for the Presidency)…and his public statements clearly indicate he doesn’t consider himslef part of Generation X. His bio and political temperment and policies point unambigulously to his real generation: Generation Jones–the heretofore lost generation between the Boomers and Xers. Jonesers, born 1954-1965 (Obama was born in ’61) have emerged in recent elections as a key voting segment–if you google the term, you’ll see tons of major media attention that this term/concept has received. Obama really does personify Generation Jones, and Jonesers–who were 28% of the 2006 midterm election electorate–relate to Obama in a way which could be hugely helpful to him in this election.
Also, when you speak about liberal Boomers vs. conservative Boomers, it’s worth noting that the real Boomers (born from approximately 1942 to 1953) are the most liberal (ie. Dem-voting) US generation, while Jonesers are the most conservative (ie. GOP-voting) US generation–a fact which underlines the absurdity of the traditional lumping together of these two very different generations into one (ie. the ridiculously inaccurate Baby Boom “Generation” of 1946-1964). Fortunately, a concensus has been emerging among generations experts that Boomers and Jonesers are, in fact, two seperate generations, and numerous political experts have commented that whichever party is able to swing Jonesers their way in ’08 will win the Presidency.
Wendy: Yes, you do make a great point. The 1946-64 timeframe given for Boomers is “broad,” to say the least. I don’t honestly consider Obama a real Boomer, but, technically he is.
I had not heard the “Generation Jones” term used, so I thank you for the info. Still, if you were born before 1960, you experienced quite a lot. True, they probably couldn’t vote, but they experienced the end of Vietnam, Watergate, Roe v. Wade, and other turmoil. Note that Obama was born after 1960, so he likely sees this as historical in nature
biwah: Well, I remain an Obama supporter precisely because I think Boomers, at least those active in politics, have been a trainwreck for the US body politic. Obama represents, in my mind, a new beginning for this country.
Now, you and I want this change, but my central thesis is twofold: 1. The Boomers are not yet ready for this change. They’re still fighting over, from my viewpoint, ancient history and are not ready to give it up. 2. Yes, if the other demographics show up come Winter ’08 (and Nov. ’08), this could change. Very recent history tells me that my generation (sadly) will not. Maybe we’ve become jaded by our Boomer parents (I haven’t, but I’m guessing others have). Even if the other generations do show up, the chances of a semi-united front are slim. Thus, advantage Boomers.
Yes, I am a real supporter, and I hope I’m wrong. But look at the national (and state) Dem. polls; check out the Hillary supporters vs. the Obama supporters. Hillary has the now traditional base, Obama has a very new base.
Generational politics are fascinating if only because they are in most ways meaningless. Were you to put 20 people in a room and have them write down what they thought made up and categorized the various “Generations” you would have 20 completely different schemes.
Yet, the myth persists that there are there easily identifiable groups called generations that have noticeable impacts upon our social/political world.
They probably don’t.
Oh, I admit there is a shared vocabulary common within age cohorts, especially among folks of a certain class and level of education, and these are exactly the people who are writing the books, teaching in the colleges and universities, serving as television talking heads, etc., but making the jump from that shared vocabulary of an elite to devining the political thoughts of the “generation” as a whole is certainly mistaken.
So I think what Kevin idetifies is real, but I think it is confined largely to the chattering classes. So if Obama (or any other candidate) wants to appeal to the greater mass of voters he or she needs to not identify the chattering classes with the whole country.
Kevin, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that Obama is “techincally” a Boomer. There is no technical or official definition of Baby Boomers; generational boundaries are determined by the opinions of experts, and none of them have a monopoly on truth. Years ago, the most common definition of Boomers was 1946-1964; in recent years, the Boomer defintion has typically been moved up (ie. earlier starting point of around 1942/1943) and shortened to 10-15 years. The increasing acceptance of Generation Jones has partly fueled of this re-drawing of the generational map, and I believe the last three books about US generational alldefined Boomers as around 1942/1943 to 1953/1954/1955, and all included Generation Jones as a bona fide generation between Boomers and Xers. Also, I’ve studied these issues for years, and don’t see 1960 as significant in distinguishing between generational personality development. I think the cut-off is the mid-1950′s, and then later, the mid-1960′s.
Any canny candidate (and HRC certainly is one) is going to try to avoid getting bogged down in the social issues and Vietnam vocabulary identified with Boomer politics. So Obama is not an obvious standout in adopting a different vocabulary and focusing on other issues. However, HRC is tied to those issues and takes the larger risks by disavowing them, in part because she is the de facto feminist candidate, and more generally because her supporters are those who were strongest for Kerry and are entrenched in the Boomer political vocab.
I am agnostic as to whether the younger voters will turn out for him in the primaries, and indeed this question is critical – but there are many circumstances that say we are in a new era, electorally. The technophilic younger generation has not swung the outcome in a national election yet, but it could very well do it in ’08. I am not sure where Kevin gets such an assured sense of pessimism. It is not justified by the moderate margin in the polls IMO.
Generally, the Boomers do not want the party to be over in America, and are clinging to irrelevant political beliefs that have deeply damaged the Dem party’s coherence on most issues. HRC will utilize most of the same old rehtoric. Obama has cast his lot on the rejction of various outmoded notions that still plague the Dems (though it’s largely something one just senses – it’s more in attittude than in any obvious substantive way, so far). The younger generation, including most of Gen Jones (my first time hearing this term too), has fewer illusions and is less invested in the right vs. left paradigm (i.e. social programs vs. tax cuts, workers vs. trade, thoroughly in the box thinking), which has changed a lot during the time many of us came of age, and will be looking more for coherence and less for push-button dogmatic satisfaction. If nothing else, Obama is willing to go further in building the script from scratch in a way that makes sense to younger voters but will feel uncomfortable to Boomers.
Finally, I think SS/Medicare are enormous generational issues which will create a significant divide when it fully surfaces, and that this is a big reason for my own support for Obama. But it is unlikely that any of the major candidates will bring this to the fore on their own, so it’s likely to be a mainstream issue only post-’08.
[...] gonna get beat like one of Michael Vick’s dogs Barry has a generation problem: Since 1992, American presidential politics has been dominated by this generation. The election of [...]
Wendy: I’m confused as to how 1942-43 could the start of the Boom. Weren’t most GI’s in Europe or the Pacific by then? In terms of the 46-64 designation, that’s the one I’ve always come across.
biwah: We agree more than we disagree. It’s just a question of whether the youth vote shows up in big enough numbers to offset the Boomers. Call me a huge skeptic on that.
Kevin, you’ve identified the key reason why Jonesers were originally mistakenly lumped in with Boomers: both Boomers’ parents and Jonesers’ parents happened to have a lot of kids. But generational personalities stem from shared formative experiences, not head counts. No generation before or since the Baby Boom has been defined by the fertility of their parents. It’s irrelevant that GI’s were still in Europe. Boomers and Jonesers had dramatically different formative experiences, and that created two very different generations.