To Paraphrase the Wonkette: The '60s Are Over. Film at 11.

[omorka]

Just in case anyone missed it, this election will be between a Silent and a Boom/X transitional. That will make it the first election in a very long time in which the Generation Gap of the '60s - or, in more technical language, the conflict between the G.I. Generation and the Baby Boom - is not the dominant underlying paradigm of the discourse. (If Hillary had been the Dem nominee, then it would still be totally all about that, with McCain forced to stand in for the G.I. Generation - plausible, since he clearly identifies with them, but he's not one, and the effect would probably be to make Rodham-Clinton seem even harsher than she actually is.)

There's an interesting article about the aftershocks of the '60s and its backlash here at the New Yorker's website. One thing that the article brushes against is that standing athwart history shouting "Stop!" is precisely what a Civic generation does after its prime, because they've just built a world they like and they'd like to live in it for a while before You Damned Kids run all over it and pick it apart, thanks. The problem that the conservative movement is about to run into is that young Civic generations are in a mood to build a new world, since this one is all run-over and picked-apart anyway, and who are these Old Farts standing in their way? (That the Boom is taking its transition into Old Fart-dom in even worse stride than most Idealist generations isn't gonna help here, either.)

In the article, David Frum says:

There are things only government can do, and if we conservatives wish to be entrusted with the management of government, we must prove that we care enough about government to manage it well.

*whumph clatter clatter*

Whoops, sorry, fell out of my chair there for a moment. Imagine! A conservative talking about actually caring about government! WTF, mate? These are the people who used to talk openly about getting government small enough to drown it in a bathtub. (Would it be irrevocably tacky of me to suggest that that idea, in its turn, was drowned by Katrina?)

Hang on tight - paradigms die hard, and this is gonna be a bumpy ride.

Comments

[princejvstin.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I understand generational/political theory, although I've seen you talk about it before.

[omorka.livejournal.com]

It's specifically Strauss and Howe's generational theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss_%26_Howe), although they're renamed the generations since their first book, and I like their original names (Civic, Adaptive, Idealist, Reactive) better than the re-names (Hero, Artist, Prophet, Nomad).

It's one of the few non-linguistic social-science theories that has ever really worked as an explanatory narrative for me. (It also makes my personal upbringing make sense.)

[awbryan.livejournal.com]

Oh yay! Someone else who knows Strauss & Howe!

I didn't realize C/A/I/R were the originals and H/A/P/N the retreads. Given that, I'm switching back to Original Recipe :)

I understood not only my own upbringing, but my parents', much better when I realized that they were born and raised on the Adaptive/Idealist borderline, where I was raised on the Reactive/Civic borderline. Suddenly the gap between how the older MSMS people were treated as kids and how I and my peers in the '96-'99 classes were treated made sense.

Tell me -- for it is a matter of some debate -- when do *you* think our current Fourth Turning started? (I withhold my answer in order to not bias your response.)

[quantumduck.livejournal.com]

David Frum is hardly a standard conservative. I'm not sure even the big govt. neo-cons would count him as one of their own.

Also, conservatives are generally big backers of a huge military. That creates a war machine as part of govt. - which could hardly be drowned in an Olympic sized pool, much less a bathtub.