Obama's Generation X Factor
This column was written by Lakshmi Chaudhry.
"Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more -- and it is time for our generation to answer that call," declared Barack Obama, uttering the word "generation" no fewer than thirteen times in his speech announcing his intention to run for president. There is no mistaking his campaign theme: it's time for the old to move over and make way for the new.
Obama's book The Audacity of Hope makes it clear just whom he's calling old: "In the back-and-forth between Clinton and Gingrich, and in the elections of 2000 and 2004, I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation -- a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago -- played out on the national stage," writes Obama. It's a theme he's returned to with increasing frequency lately. "There's no doubt that we represent the kind of change Senator Clinton can't deliver on. And part of it's generational," Obama told Fox News in early November. "Senator Clinton and others have been fighting some of the same fights since the '60s. It makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done."
For Obama, who is 46, and his followers, boomer politics clearly have to go. What is less obvious is whom Obama represents. He often speaks to the Millennials, recently telling cheering college kids in South Carolina, "It's your generation's turn." But rarely mentioned is Obama's own generation, i.e., Generation X, the Lost Generation, whose name has been virtually erased from the national conversation.
"We hear plenty about people in their teens and twenties, and even more about people in their fifties, but the stodgy old species known as the thirtysomething has been shuttled off, like Molly Ringwald herself, to some sort of Camp Limbo for demographic lepers," fumes Details editor at large Jeff Gordinier in his upcoming book, X Saves the World. A recent Chicago Tribune article on Obama's message of generational change focuses exclusively on 18- to 30-year-olds, discussing every other living generation in passing but with nary a mention of his own peers.
The irony is that X-ers -- a sociocultural label typically used to describe those born between 1961 and 1976 -- have become invisible at a time when they are changing the face of politics. As Jerome Armstrong, founder of MyDD.com and best known as the Blogfather of the progressive netroots, says, "It's people drawn from Generation X -- the people who have gotten involved in politics this decade -- who have brought about the whole new movement of progressive Democrats."
A 1990 Time magazine cover story described the then-twentysomething generation variously as "lazy," "passive" and possessing "only a hazy sense of their own identity." As the decade rolled along, the same kids would soon be dubbed "conservative." But many of the X-ers were less lost than lost in translation, their rejection of politics-as-usual mistaken for apathy, their questioning of liberal credo interpreted as "backlash" politics, their anxiety about economic security condemned as materialism and their reluctance to be identified either by labels or with larger institutions dismissed as a lack of commitment.
The conservative image was largely a creation of what we now call the right-wing noise machine, which took aim at programs like Social Security and Medicare in the name of generational "fairness." For much of the '90s headlines were saturated with stories fed by Gen X organizations -- the vast majority funded by right-wing and corporate sponsors -- eager to pillory their greedy, spendthrift (read, liberal) elders. That the polling data revealed no such generational divide in support for these programs, merely greater doubts about their future among the young, hardly mattered. The X-er economic philosophy was better described by Ted Halstead in The Atlantic Monthly as "balanced-budget populism," combining fiscal responsibility with a concern for income inequality.
In its voting patterns, moreover, Gen X defies its rightward-leaning rap. The generation that John Judis and Ruy Teixeira recently referred to in The American Prospect as a "bulwark of the Republican vote" has in fact voted Democratic in every presidential election, with the exception of 2004. And that includes 1992, when Gen X came out in large numbers and voted for that GOP favorite, Bill Clinton. There hasn't been much difference between our generation's voting record and that of our boomer elders.
Indeed, many of the political and cultural orientations of Gen X have been recast as the "new progressive" politics. The scalding contempt for the mainstream press expressed by bloggers was ingrained in the Gen X point of view long before the Iraq War. The failures of Judith Miller and the New York Times could hardly surprise the likes of Mark Saltveit, who offered this eerily prescient media critique in 1994:
Where Gen X comedians have remained above the partisan fray, many of their peers have become die-hard Democrats over the past seven years due mainly to their outrage at the George W. Bush presidency. Generation Y may hold the numerical key to a Democratic victory in future elections, but it's those pesky thirty- and fortysomethings who seek to shape the future of the party and redefine the word "progressive."
The Nation "Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more -- and it is time for our generation to answer that call," declared Barack Obama, uttering the word "generation" no fewer than thirteen times in his speech announcing his intention to run for president. There is no mistaking his campaign theme: it's time for the old to move over and make way for the new.
Obama's book The Audacity of Hope makes it clear just whom he's calling old: "In the back-and-forth between Clinton and Gingrich, and in the elections of 2000 and 2004, I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the baby boom generation -- a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago -- played out on the national stage," writes Obama. It's a theme he's returned to with increasing frequency lately. "There's no doubt that we represent the kind of change Senator Clinton can't deliver on. And part of it's generational," Obama told Fox News in early November. "Senator Clinton and others have been fighting some of the same fights since the '60s. It makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done."
For Obama, who is 46, and his followers, boomer politics clearly have to go. What is less obvious is whom Obama represents. He often speaks to the Millennials, recently telling cheering college kids in South Carolina, "It's your generation's turn." But rarely mentioned is Obama's own generation, i.e., Generation X, the Lost Generation, whose name has been virtually erased from the national conversation.
"We hear plenty about people in their teens and twenties, and even more about people in their fifties, but the stodgy old species known as the thirtysomething has been shuttled off, like Molly Ringwald herself, to some sort of Camp Limbo for demographic lepers," fumes Details editor at large Jeff Gordinier in his upcoming book, X Saves the World. A recent Chicago Tribune article on Obama's message of generational change focuses exclusively on 18- to 30-year-olds, discussing every other living generation in passing but with nary a mention of his own peers.
The irony is that X-ers -- a sociocultural label typically used to describe those born between 1961 and 1976 -- have become invisible at a time when they are changing the face of politics. As Jerome Armstrong, founder of MyDD.com and best known as the Blogfather of the progressive netroots, says, "It's people drawn from Generation X -- the people who have gotten involved in politics this decade -- who have brought about the whole new movement of progressive Democrats."
A 1990 Time magazine cover story described the then-twentysomething generation variously as "lazy," "passive" and possessing "only a hazy sense of their own identity." As the decade rolled along, the same kids would soon be dubbed "conservative." But many of the X-ers were less lost than lost in translation, their rejection of politics-as-usual mistaken for apathy, their questioning of liberal credo interpreted as "backlash" politics, their anxiety about economic security condemned as materialism and their reluctance to be identified either by labels or with larger institutions dismissed as a lack of commitment.
The conservative image was largely a creation of what we now call the right-wing noise machine, which took aim at programs like Social Security and Medicare in the name of generational "fairness." For much of the '90s headlines were saturated with stories fed by Gen X organizations -- the vast majority funded by right-wing and corporate sponsors -- eager to pillory their greedy, spendthrift (read, liberal) elders. That the polling data revealed no such generational divide in support for these programs, merely greater doubts about their future among the young, hardly mattered. The X-er economic philosophy was better described by Ted Halstead in The Atlantic Monthly as "balanced-budget populism," combining fiscal responsibility with a concern for income inequality.
In its voting patterns, moreover, Gen X defies its rightward-leaning rap. The generation that John Judis and Ruy Teixeira recently referred to in The American Prospect as a "bulwark of the Republican vote" has in fact voted Democratic in every presidential election, with the exception of 2004. And that includes 1992, when Gen X came out in large numbers and voted for that GOP favorite, Bill Clinton. There hasn't been much difference between our generation's voting record and that of our boomer elders.
Indeed, many of the political and cultural orientations of Gen X have been recast as the "new progressive" politics. The scalding contempt for the mainstream press expressed by bloggers was ingrained in the Gen X point of view long before the Iraq War. The failures of Judith Miller and the New York Times could hardly surprise the likes of Mark Saltveit, who offered this eerily prescient media critique in 1994:
Today's press corps is largely worthless -- a pack of shallow conformists so easily manipulated that it's a joke.... Maybe the [boomer] Pepsi Generation is doomed to shallow group thought and trend-mongering through years of training by MCA, CBS, and Time. New technology for cable TV, desktop publishing, and cheap recording studios arrived just in time for slackers.When not ranting bitterly against real or perceived injustices, X-ers have relied on their other favorite mode of social critique: political satire. In his book, Gordinier points to a generational legacy of a distinctive brand of political humor that blends angry idealism with a studied disdain for ideology and partisanship -- exactly the kind that's gone mainstream with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
Where Gen X comedians have remained above the partisan fray, many of their peers have become die-hard Democrats over the past seven years due mainly to their outrage at the George W. Bush presidency. Generation Y may hold the numerical key to a Democratic victory in future elections, but it's those pesky thirty- and fortysomethings who seek to shape the future of the party and redefine the word "progressive."
- no previous page
- next
1/3
Recommended
- Who decides Oscar winners? White men over 60
- Top Twelve Most Patriotic Songs Ever
- Obama only goes after leaks that don't benefit him
- American dystopia more reality than fiction
- Who Lives The American Dream?
- The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
- The hunk factor and the 2012 elections
- Wikipropaganda On Global Warming
As for Generation X, so many of them do seem lost, shallow, soulless, given to mutilating themselves with abandon, drinking themselves sick, whining, complaining, and spending money on foolish pursuits and ephemeral goals. But they're not all that way. Although you will almost never find one without his trusty cell phone, Ipod, notebook computer, or a host of other gadgets (while to watch them have personal conversations on the horn right in public is truly depressing), there are Gen Xers who are artistic, serious, believe in the pursuit of excellence, and possess a healthy skepticism about the capitalistic excesses of the modern world. There are? Where, praytell, are they? Once again, however, these relatively enlightened young people are few and far between and hard to meet. Since they have such trouble linking up with the handful of elders who can really impart something of value that they don't already know (or think they know), they fall into the easy trap of thinking the entire older generation (ha ha ha) are just like their parents. Hey, kids, not every Boomer even had brats like you. Don't lump them all under the same umbrella. It just ain't so.
Getting to Obama, he strikes me as smart, thoughtful, and confident. But he is still very young for a president and vulnerable to being manipulated by those who will try to mislead him. Already, he is handing out welfare by the hundreds of billions to the richest Americans. Where did he get the idea that such a policy is going to help us out of a deepening recession? How will he have money to spare for the idealistic reforms he envisioned and spoke about in his campaign that we truly need? Most disturbing of all, what the heck is he doing increasing the FBI budget and using the FBI to scrutinize the backgrounds of even the lowest level applicants for jobs in the Executive Branch? No, I don't see an entirely rosy picture with Barack at the helm, even though I wish him the best, that is, until I can see what he is really all about. So far, we're getting some very mixed messages. And if the author truly believes that one exceptionally young president signals the end of an entire generation's influence and power, that writer is sadly mistaken. The best of them have yet to be acknowledged. Will they ever be? Time will tell.
Posted by gkc99 at 05:26 PM : Nov 23, 2007
You could be speaking of more than half the members of Congress, 3 generations of the Kenndys, most all of the Hollywood role models. Oh and you have a foul mouth too, his name is Bush.
Oh wait, Romnuts still calls him that!
You''re right! Bushit has done an incredible amount of damage. The deserter, drunk driver, coke snortering pimple punk from Yale who got ahead only because his Daddy has money and power is hardly the exemplar of the American Dream!
Posted by ramos937
And of course the GOP is right there to ignore it''s own little drunk driving, coke snorting thug in the WH while playing on anything that can "damage" the dems.
Hillary, oh she''s a socialist and married to BJ Bill
Obama, he did drugs and his middle name is Hussein
Edwards, what can you say about the breck girl except he''s a trial lawyer.
He doesn''t do anything.
Look at his record in Congress. NOthing but talk.
To be a real leader you need to talk and then follow up with action.
As the people in Illinois say: "Wheres Obama?"
On Clinton - You like her or you hate her. Very few folks in between. Also, should she win, we can look forward to the tabloids and right wing talk show hosts making a career off her.
On Obama - Little by little, his past is coming out - death of a thousand cuts. I never knew he did drugs while a young man. Also, he is unable to handle awkward questions in a competent manner - too easy to rattle.
His appeal to the X generations and the Millinea generations, but boomers are still very much in charge of the country and hold the money. I don''t know what he thinks those generations can do for him, or what he intends to gain by telling them he was a druggie, alkie, and goof off. We already know no one is perfect. It''s not a new concept.
I''ve read most of his proposals for change and they don''t tell me much. He''s just proposing propping up the same old programs in a different way. We need to hear new ideas on how to phase old programs into something much better.
We need a health program, not that allows us more fricking money to buy health insurance. We need a way to get health insurers out of the picture altogether. I don''t like having a middle man decide on my health care. The only thing these companies do is suck off the people for gains for their shareholders.
We need a program that directly provides health care for our people. One that holds them to cost without profiteering. These people are making millions off the suffering of the ill. Who the hell gave them permission to do THAT?
Why don''t you whack on that idea for awhile, Mr. Obama??
His willingness to be a solid role model for our nation''s youth about how to overcome a troubled past, his understanding of the issues facing our public school systems, his ability to consistently cross the aisles and unite will serve this nation well in a time of moral crisis.
If you want to engage in dialog, let''s do so. Telling lies is not dialog.