An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« From the Gazeta Wyborcza, ‘Missile Shield Talks: How the Bush Team Lost Poland’

Jon Swift and Others on Satire-Gate (The Obama New Yorker Cover) »

The Barney Generation

Posted by PATRICK EDABURN in At TMV, Politics, Society.
Jul 15th, 2008 | Comments

One of the hallmarks of a civilized society is how they treat their less fortunate members. From the earliest days of American society we have tried to meet that noble goal. There has always been an unspoken understanding that ‘Society should provide the less fortunate with their basic needs’. This goal is correct and proper and I strongly support the basic premise.

However over the years the meaning of those words have gone through many changes, usually much needed ones but also often controversial ones.

For example the term ’society’ has changed dramatically in the past couple of centuries. At one point it meant mostly the private sector. Families, religious groups, private charities and the like were expected to help those in need. Sometimes local government might become involved but that was about it.

Then we saw the growth of the welfare state and the increasing role of the federal government and the decline of the religious and private charity groups. Today they exist in a balance, with most people agreeing that they should share responsibility (though still debating to what degree each side should be involved).

The term provide has also changed, at one point it was assumed that you would provide the needy with the means to obtain their needs (IE work) while today it has evolved to something of a mix, with some people advocating that everyone should work for their needs while others suggesting that to require any work is wrong.

The term ‘the less fortunate’ has perhaps taken the broadest path of change over the years. At one point racial, religious and ethnic prejudices led to limitations on who was helped. Often moderately needy people would get aid while truly needy ones would be ignored.

Even the term ‘their basic needs’ has gone through a number of changes. If you were to visit a welfare agency at the start of the 20th century they would consider a bed, some clothes and some food to be pretty much all anyone needed to survive.

Today most people look to items like telephone service, television, etc as fairly basic needs. Again, there is considerable debate over how far the change should go but the basic idea that more than food/clothing/shelter is needed is a pretty common assumption.

However in all of the years of evolution there is one thing that has never happened before. People have never sought to remove words from the statement…… but that may be changing. For the first time I am seeing signs that people would like to remove the term ‘the less fortunate’ and require society to provide everyone with their needs.

I first saw signs of this when I began to talk with younger people who came in to my office to discuss their financial needs. Time and time again they talked about how ‘government should provide’ them with the money needed for everything they wanted in life.

I am not talking about just a basic place to live but rather a home as luxurious as they wanted. My parents worked hard to provide my sister and I with a house of about 1500 square feet, which was considered fairly nice by the standards of the day.

Today people expect homes of twice that size and don’t care if they cannot afford it. I have seriously had bankruptcy clients expect that they could erase their mortgages and car loans completely but still keep the property.

I have also seen this is some of my younger friends who expect to be able to buy any car, take any trip and get anything they want right now. Their logic is that someone else has it so they should get it too.

I consider these things to be signs of the Barney effect. These people I mention have been raised with the idea that everybody should be equal, everything should be fair. If you play a game there should not be a score kept because somebody might lose. If you have a competition at school then everybody ought to get a prize.

It is thus hardly surprising that these people now expect that they should be given everything they want or need as an adult. Of course there are many very hard working members of the Barney generation and hopefully they will overcome this trend.

If they do, then there can be much to gain from a generation whose desire to achieve is tempered with a sense of fair play.

If they do not, then we will continue on our trend towards a society where the many depend on the few, and that can never last.

Jim_Satterfield

For example the term ’society’ has changed dramatically in the past couple of centuries. At one point it meant mostly the private sector. Families, religious groups, private charities and the like were expected to help those in need. Sometimes local government might become involved but that was about it.

Then we saw the growth of the welfare state and the increasing role of the federal government and the decline of the religious and private charity groups. Today they exist in a balance, with most people agreeing that they should share responsibility (though still debating to what degree each side should be involved).

But is this the classic chicken and egg conundrum? Did the creation of government systems really come first? Modern conservatives certainly believe so. It seems to be a matter of gospel to them. But it's equally possible that the government institutions they dislike so much and blame for so much came about because of their inability to deal with large scale economic crises. It was after all the Great Depression that saw the initial expansion of government services. Last night I was watching a feature on the local news with local food pantries pointing out their empty shelves and telling of how their donations have dropped and in fact people who used to donate are now clients.

The definition of "society" has expanded out of a necessary recognition that we no longer live in a 19th century economy that is largely agrarian and in fact now no longer live in an industrial society where my dad could work for a company for his whole working life and just maybe I could go and do the same thing for the same company myself. We live in the land of relocation for career or just to find a job. A friend's son-in-law was caught up in a mass firing at Sprint (Let's be honest and not call it a lay off.) and had to move to San Antonio, over a thousand miles away from family to land a decent paying job. We live in a time of smaller families, with fewer resources to spare to be able to help relatives as much as many would like to. So admit to all of these changes when looking for reasons for people to feel the way they do, right or wrong. Simple answers are rarely right.

JSpencer

Good points Jim, to which I would only add this: Those members of the "Barney" generation I come into contact with all work and don't act as though they are entitled to anything special. The fact is, even when they buckle down and have dual incomes, it will be harder for them to realize the American dream in the way their parents and grandparents did, and most of them know it. So are there people who feel entitled to things they haven't earned? Sure there are, but reality will cure them of that delusion soon enough.

Don Quijote

I have also seen this is some of my younger friends who expect to be able to buy any car, take any trip and get anything they want right now. Their logic is that someone else has it so they should get it too.

They have been watching TV for the last twenty years and they have observed that people can have really crappy jobs and live very luxurious lifestyles.

runasim

This post is such an overstatement and oversimplification of life as we know it, I thought at first it was deliberate, and comical satire.
Of course, if you take anything to an absurd extreme, it will, indeed, represent an absurd extreme. .

Speaking realistically, though, I certainly hope that society has changed and so has our understanding of it. Conditions have changed, and It would be horrifying if we were unable to adapt to changes or to learn anything new about ourselves and our society in the process. In many ways, our undestanding is not keeping up with changes, because people mistakenly take the past to be inherently and unquestionably superior to the present. They are looking back at a golden age that never was all that golden.

Without question , some modern trends are quite worrisome. On the other hand, some aspects of the American past were simply dead wrong. While some children may be overindulged and feel entitled to unearned praise and luxuries, the rigid and often harsh childrearing practices of the past often killed the spirit of many a young person, who then grew up to be an intolerant and harshly judgmental adult in his own right.

We are looking for a golden mean, at least I hope we are, and the mean extends to extremes - in both directions.

I don't follow at all what's wrong with being fair. Western culture, from sportsmanship in sports to the justice system, is based on the principle of being fair.
That fairness doesn't always materialize is a hard lesson we must all learn. That it's smetimes impossible to be equally fair to everyone is another such lesson.
It doesn't follow, however, that we should stop looking up to fairrness as a worthy ideal. Should we scrap the notion of justice as well, since that's not always forthcoming?

Patrick E

Of course nothing is wrong with being fair. If you will notice I make it clear int he first paragraph that I think it is very important for us to help those in need.

My concern is that the younger people of today seem to expect society to take care of everyone, and for me that is a problem.

But I did make it clear that if we can get the next generation to combine both a desire to work and an ideal of fairness for all that this would be the best goal.

pacatrue

There are tons of issues in this post that I can't take the time to address; however, as the post seems based upon Patrick's personal experiences, I thought I'd share one of my own observations. When I was in college about 15 years ago a few of my friends worked as they went to college, but some 50% or so were full time students. I now teach college a bit and every single student in my classes (undergrads) works. Most about 20 hours, but 2 or 3 in each class work full time and try to be full-time students on the side. Some kids come in half-asleep because they stayed out partying, but an equal number come in because they were doing overnight inventory at the Gap. I don't have stats on any of these things, so I don't know how my experience matches up with people at large. My point is just that your experiences and mine make up a rather complicated experience for younger people.

DLS

"Today they exist in a balance"

Phffft. The federal government alone dwarfs private organizations and is seen as a surrogate parent, not merely an extension of one's family. "Cradle to grave security" is the expectation of too many nowadays.

DLS

"an industrial society where my dad could work for a company for his whole working life and just maybe I could go and do the same thing for the same company myself"

This is an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation (decades out of date, in fact; worse still is the "thirty years and out" with a lavish pension and retirement benefit package to be enjoyed for 25-40 more years of one's life) and certainly doesn't create any "need" for government assistance programs to substitute for this.

"had to move to San Antonio, over a thousand miles away from family to land a decent paying job"

There's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes you have to move. There is no "right" and it's certainly not reasonable to expect to get another good job where one currently lives or where one prefers to live. That's especially true if where one lives, jobs are being killed through mistaken policies, including overly expensive as well as intrusive government. In some parts of the nation, roots are deep and people don't wish to leave where they grew up or spent their youth, but sometimes you have to do it if that's what it takes to get a good job, if the growth and the jobs are elsewhere.

* * *

"My concern is that the younger people of today seem to expect society to take care of everyone, and for me that is a problem."

In addition, there is an anticipation that the work won't be hard and the pay will be great, right out of school. That may be true on teevee (I don't know the details, as I've avoided watching television for ages), but not in the real world.

DLS

"For the first time I am seeing signs that people would like to remove the term ‘the less fortunate’ and require society to provide everyone with their needs."

The most ambitious liberals and radicals thought that was possible and going to happen in the 1960s but reality intervened.

Sometimes, though, I believe we'd be better off if we scrapped all the existing programs and bureaucracies and replaced it with a true income redistribution scheme, where there would be flat or progressive income taxation the revenue from which would be, among other things, redistributed in part to give everyone a poverty-level or other suitable identical stipend. That is, a dream of the radicals then and among some still today, a Guaranteed Minimum Income or Basic Income Guarantee, achieved through direct, pure income redistribution. This would be done in place of all the other programs we have today, which would be ended (only fools would want to retain all those programs, too). It would be a much less messy, Byzantine, often-counter-productive, and even expensive system than that we have today.

DLS

"If they do not, then we will continue on our trend towards a society where the many depend on the few, and that can never last."

Rob a few Peters to pay a lot of Pauls, and you'll have the votes of the many Pauls.

Can it last? No. We'll see such a thing unfold starting in the next 10-20 years as demographics and finances of retirement programs in this country (not as bad as in Europe, but still quite bad) lead to a higher tax burden on a shrinking labor force.

DLS

"The definition of 'society' has [changed] out of a necessary recognition"

... that to be deliberately vague, oblique, or euphemistic by replacing the word "government" with "society" makes it more acceptable to many.

JSpencer

When I think about the kind of future that's going to be faced by today's young people, I suppose I can understand why some of them might choose to harbor a few delusions. There is a vast difference between naive, idealistic views of government and the facts of personal responsibility though, and as I said earlier, reality will intervene there soon enough. One area I strongly believe the government needs to play a greater role in however, is providing leadership in creating a healthcare system that covers all citizens without the absurdly high insurance premiums some of us are paying. That of course is a subject all it's own.

DLS

I believe most people will want federally provided health care, as they see no better alternatives. The simplest thing to do is to extend Medicare to everyone and if this is insufficient (as it may be seen for current beneficiaries), then make changes or reforms, but this is the most logical thing to do, use an existing program.

Also, with Social Security, there is a need to raise the retirement age to a realistic value for today (70-73 or so) and to control the future costs of the program, but I'm suspecting that as many Boomers retire (and who knows how younger taxpayers will feel about this, or what it will do in making them think about their own future), there will be a desire among many to increase benefit levels and the replacement ratios from what they are today, as many will be relying primarily or exclusively on Social Security, I believe many more than is commonly or currently suspecte.

AustinRoth

Patrick's post is both accurate and inaccurate at the same time. Their is a large contingency of youths (and adults) that live their lives lazily, and with the attitude that 'The Wold Owes ME!'

However, it is not as bad as it may seem. There is the existence of a smaller but eventually more influential group that does not subscribe to that mentality (and some who mature from it). Those are the people who, as a whole, grow up into responsible, productive, and successful adults. They tend to associate with others of similar basic tendencies, even if the particulars vary, like religion and politics.

In the end, most are unaware that they are actually in a small minority, as all their friends and associates are like minded. These are the people who come to dominate in adult life.

This divide is nothing new, or really associated to current government programs. Some of them do indeed worsen the situation, but they are not the root cause. This divide has existed as long as recorded history, and almost certainly beyond.

To show that point, I refer to two quotes:

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." - Socrates to Plato

"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond
words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and
respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise
[disrespectful] and impatient of restraint" - Hesiod, 8th century BC

runasim

AR's age-old quotes took the words right out of my mouth.

i disagree, though, about the generalization of which type is in the majority or minority. Where do hard-working youths fit in who don't succeed because they can't handle full time minimum wage jobs and classes with tuition fees at the same time? It's a sad truth that hard working plus responsible don't always add up to success, as it's measured today.

We can't even discuss what success means these days. It used to be that one could opt out of high salary success and still live adequately well to pursue other goals (artistic goals for, example). With the cost of living rising (first rents, now food and gas) choosing that sort of moderate success becomes more and more problematic.

Americans love to talk about choices We hate talking about what choices do various people really have. It's too temptingly easy to talk about stereotypes and an imagined world of equal oppportunities, instead.

Just like complaining about the young has been the case forever, so has the assumption that if someone is not successful, i.e. well-off, it's his own fault.

It's necessary to talk in genralities in order to point to commonalities, but let's not forget that a generalization is just what it is, and it doesn't come anywhere near to
painting a complete picure or presenting more than superficial insights.

runasim

Patrick,
I've been thinking about your definition of 'fair', and I realize that I think of what fair is differently. .A question of sematics, perhaps.

I understand now how you link fairness to helping the needy, but I've never thought of it that way. To me, helping the needy is an act of humaneness (or charity, in a sense) wrapped in a larger concept of pragmatism. I firmly believe that in order to keep the fabric of society toagether, we must bring up the lower rungs of it. Not helping the needy leads to higher costs for society in the long run.
In other words, i don't think helping the needy is fair as much as I think it is smart.

Of course, we need to discuss effective ways to be samrt and self-defeating ways to be smart, but that's another topic.

pacatrue

Quoting from runasim:

"Just like complaining about the young has been the case forever, so has the assumption that if someone is not successful, i.e. well-off, it's his own fault."

Reminds me of yesterday's coverage of the Obama NAACP speech. Many people seem to fall quite quickly into the idea that blacks are particularly irresponsible. (The topic was apparently only 2 paragraphs of Obama's entire speech, but that's all many people saw in the speech.) Would they applaud so heavily if a candidate had gone to Dayton Ohio, where the economy has declined recently, to lecture the people there that they need to shape up because their troubles are their own fault? How about Appalachia where low education and low standard of living has been common for centuries? Does this reveal the moral flaws of the entire people living there? It seems to be acceptable to consistently upbraid only blacks. And maybe immigrants.

By the way, terrific quotes, Austin Roth.

DLS

Austin Roth: Didn't some graffiti at Pompeii, too, read something like "Parents suck"?

Things have changed for the worse in this country, though. Not just the entitlement mentality but (probably related to it -- self-centered and the kind of self-absorption we see among many bloggers, for example) the decline in civility and increase in vulgarity and poor behavior (such as on the roads in a number of metro areas).

"Many people seem to fall quite quickly into the idea that blacks are particularly irresponsible."

There's the quiet, successful group that doesn't make the news. They are leading ordinary lives and fully involved in their work and home life (I worked for one such example doing electronic warfare stuff in Maryland once -- he was not only our boss but the tech wizard, the "E.W. god" as we called him).

blog comments powered by Disqus