They'll grow up when those born in the late 70s stop saying they're Gen Y... Were you too old to play Pokemon? You ain't Gen Y - get serious.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Millennial adults will choose the Boom agenda most fitting their desires and Crisis-era needs. That's how it works between a younger Civic generation and an older an older Idealist generation. Luke Skywalker meets Obi-Wan Kenobe, or heroes of Britain's Finest Hour get their inspiration from Sir Winston Churchill.

Winston Churchill
"Had he been a stable and equable man, he could never have inspired the nation. In 1940, when all the odds were against Britain, a leader of sober judgment might well have concluded that we were finished," wrote Anthony Storr about Churchill's bipolar disorder in Churchill's Black Dog, Kafka's Mice, and Other Phenomena of the Human Mind.

Sorta explains his like of "sotweed" and booze...

This time, I do not think the causal factor is generational. Our system is rigged. The Soviet Duma literally had a lower retention rate than Congress. Even in a landslide realignment most keep their jobs. What we need is term limits!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Millennial adults will choose the Boom agenda most fitting their desires and Crisis-era needs. That's how it works between a younger Civic generation and an older an older Idealist generation. Luke Skywalker meets Obi-Wan Kenobe, or heroes of Britain's Finest Hour get their inspiration from Sir Winston Churchill.

And if Gen X doesn't act as the level-headed pragmatists needed in a Crisis, the Boomers will put together an agenda of punishment, and Millennials will carry it out.

That's what worries me. Not that Gen X isn't doing its job, but that there may not be enough Gen Xers to do the job. Birthrates steadily fell from '58 to '68, bottoming out around '74-'76. Late-wave Xers may end up being the least-politically represented generation in US history.

The GIs held the White House for 32 years, from JFK in '61 to GHWB in '93. Leapfrogging the Silents, early wave Boomers had it from '93 to '09, and Jonesers may hold it until 2032 or 2036, when the Millennials step in.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this.

Originally Posted by aadams1980

This time, I do not think the causal factor is generational. Our system is rigged. The Soviet Duma literally had a lower retention rate than Congress. Even in a landslide realignment most keep their jobs. What we need is term limits!

Sadly, that may be the only practical but really bad solution for an even worse problem. You systematically eliminate expertise just as it develops in earnest.

The correct solution is to end gerrymandering at all levels and in all places, and to go to publicly financed elections. I doubt either will happen.

Originally Posted by njguy73

And if Gen X doesn't act as the level-headed pragmatists needed in a Crisis, the Boomers will put together an agenda of punishment, and Millennials will carry it out.

That's what worries me. Not that Gen X isn't doing its job, but that there may not be enough Gen Xers to do the job. Birthrates steadily fell from '58 to '68, bottoming out around '74-'76. Late-wave Xers may end up being the least-politically represented generation in US history.

The GIs held the White House for 32 years, from JFK in '61 to GHWB in '93. Leapfrogging the Silents, early wave Boomers had it from '93 to '09, and Jonesers may hold it until 2032 or 2036, when the Millennials step in.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this.

H-m-m-m. It's true that late wave Xers might never elect a President, but they could become powerhouses where pragmatism really pays - in the House and Senate.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sadly, that may be the only practical but really bad solution for an even worse problem. You systematically eliminate expertise just as it develops in earnest.

The correct solution is to end gerrymandering at all levels and in all places, and to go to publicly financed elections. I doubt either will happen.

Well, every president since FDR served no longer than two terms. It was established by tradition then added to the Constitution after FDR. If you think about it that job requires a lot more expertise than a seat in Congress. Besides, where are the benefits of their expertise.

To get it passed, you'd have to grandfather (no pun intended) in the people there. But at least, decades later, we could a more honest government

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. It's true that late wave Xers might never elect a President, but they could become powerhouses where pragmatism really pays - in the House and Senate.

Totally. In fact, that may be the crucial role in this Crisis. S&H have said it many times: it wil be up to Xers to keep the Boomers and Jonesers from going overboard.

Originally Posted by aadams1980

Well, every president since FDR served no longer than two terms. It was established by tradition then added to the Constitution after FDR. If you think about it that job requires a lot more expertise than a seat in Congress. Besides, where are the benefits of their expertise.

To get it passed, you'd have to grandfather (no pun intended) in the people there. But at least, decades later, we could a more honest government

A President is a leader in the grand sense. No President gets into the details of anything. But details are the bread-and-butter of legislating. Both are important. Each requires a different skill set .. and temperament.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Sadly, that may be the only practical but really bad solution for an even worse problem. You systematically eliminate expertise just as it develops in earnest.

When the legislature is nothing but an old gentlemen's club, of course old gentlemen are the only ones with appropriate "experience". I would prefer the regular staff keep things on an even keel while we semi-regularly trade one set of amoral, grandstanding sonsofbitches for a newer set that can at least articulate values not twenty years out of date.

Originally Posted by njguy73

And if Gen X doesn't act as the level-headed pragmatists needed in a Crisis, the Boomers will put together an agenda of punishment, and Millennials will carry it out.

That's what worries me. Not that Gen X isn't doing its job, but that there may not be enough Gen Xers to do the job. Birthrates steadily fell from '58 to '68, bottoming out around '74-'76. Late-wave Xers may end up being the least-politically represented generation in US history.

The GIs held the White House for 32 years, from JFK in '61 to GHWB in '93. Leapfrogging the Silents, early wave Boomers had it from '93 to '09, and Jonesers may hold it until 2032 or 2036, when the Millennials step in.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this.

Actually I see Gen X moving quickly into the political realm, with alot of "rising stars" out there. Obama, as an Xer is only the first. I really dont buy the "Generation Jones" theory, and Ive always seen a difference between those born in 1960 or before and those born after.

Originally Posted by njguy73

And if Gen X doesn't act as the level-headed pragmatists needed in a Crisis, the Boomers will put together an agenda of punishment, and Millennials will carry it out.

The most dangerous practice for a Reactive generation is to maintain cynicism and alienation into a Crisis Era. The level-headed among a Reactive generation are the ones most likely to be accepted as "junior partners" -- by the more sane members of the Idealist generation. That's not to say that the "junior partner" role is an easy or unrewarding one. Example: civilians control the military and make the ultimate decisions on diplomacy and armistices.

Time tends to remove the Reactives who could be most dangerous. Criminals end up dead in firefights with each other or with the police. get sent away for long prison terms or to the execution chamber, and those who end up back in circulation have their lives so messed up that they can't get command of anything. Adventurers who take too many or unwise chances get crippled or killed. I look at the Reactive 'success stories', and as a rule I see people who would have succeeded in any other generation.

That's what worries me. Not that Gen X isn't doing its job, but that there may not be enough Gen Xers to do the job. Birthrates steadily fell from '58 to '68, bottoming out around '74-'76. Late-wave Xers may end up being the least-politically represented generation in US history.

Where have we had age gaps in the Presidency? Seven or more years since 1809?

1809 Lincoln............1822 Grant, Hayes
1822 Grant, Hayes... 1830 Arthur
1843 McKinley..........1856 Taft
1874 Hoover............1882 FDR
1890 Eisenhower.......1906 LBJ
1917 JFK.................1924 Carter, GHWB
1924 Carter, GHWB....1946 Clinton, Dubya
1946 Clinton, Dubya...1961 Obama


13, 8, 13, 8, 16, 7, 15

The last gap is likely to disappear or be shortened; someone born in the 1940s could still become President. Someone born in the 1930s? Time has run out, because anyone born in the 1930s is now at least 70 and will be at least 72 by the time that President Obama will be up for re-election. If you want to claim that Dick Cheney was really pulling the strings in the 43rd Administration, you are entitled to that opinion.

We had no Presidents born in the 1810s, the 1890s other than 1890 (considered part of the 1880's), the 1930s, or the 1950s (yet).

I see little reason for us to not have a President born in the 1970s; such a President could be a hero General (unless Petraeus takes that role in 2016).

The GIs held the White House for 32 years, from JFK in '61 to GHWB in '93. Leapfrogging the Silents, early wave Boomers had it from '93 to '09, and Jonesers may hold it until 2032 or 2036, when the Millennials step in.

The Civil War discredited late-wave Transcendental politicians who took a huge skid as the Gilded supplanted them. The Gilded, which acted like a Civic generation, held the White House from 1868 to 1896 -- 28 years. The Progressive Generation had a normal stay in the White House -- 24 years. Missionaries stayed in for 25 and might have stayed in longer were it not for the death of FDR. The Lost had only 16 years.

Why not the Silent? Probably their strongest two candidates, Robert Kennedy and Ted Kennedy went down ... one to an assassin, and the other to a DWI/vehicular homicide scandal. It wasn't for a lack of qualifications. I can think of many Silent figures who would have been better than Dubya -- many of them Republicans, in case you think my partisanship shows too blatantly.

There's no good way of predicting when Presidents will be born. People born before 1950 are probably never going to have another chance to be President, especially if Barack Obama is re-elected.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The most dangerous practice for a Reactive generation is to maintain cynicism and alienation into a Crisis Era. The level-headed among a Reactive generation are the ones most likely to be accepted as "junior partners" -- by the more sane members of the Idealist generation. That's not to say that the "junior partner" role is an easy or unrewarding one. Example: civilians control the military and make the ultimate decisions on diplomacy and armistices.

I don't see much evidence that Gen Xers are acting level-headed.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Time tends to remove the Reactives who could be most dangerous. Criminals end up dead in firefights with each other or with the police. get sent away for long prison terms or to the execution chamber, and those who end up back in circulation have their lives so messed up that they can't get command of anything. Adventurers who take too many or unwise chances get crippled or killed. I look at the Reactive 'success stories', and as a rule I see people who would have succeeded in any other generation.

A case could be made that the 3-strikes-you're-out law, though draconian, was preseasonal. And can you imagine if Timothy McVeigh decided to think long-term, instead of doing something that sent him to the death chamber early? He could be leading armies on Washington today.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Where have we had age gaps in the Presidency? Seven or more years since 1809?

1809 Lincoln............1822 Grant, Hayes
1822 Grant, Hayes... 1830 Arthur
1843 McKinley..........1856 Taft
1874 Hoover............1882 FDR
1890 Eisenhower.......1906 LBJ
1917 JFK.................1924 Carter, GHWB
1924 Carter, GHWB....1946 Clinton, Dubya
1946 Clinton, Dubya...1961 Obama


13, 8, 13, 8, 16, 7, 15

The last gap is likely to disappear or be shortened; someone born in the 1940s could still become President. Someone born in the 1930s? Time has run out, because anyone born in the 1930s is now at least 70 and will be at least 72 by the time that President Obama will be up for re-election. If you want to claim that Dick Cheney was really pulling the strings in the 43rd Administration, you are entitled to that opinion.

We had no Presidents born in the 1810s, the 1890s other than 1890 (considered part of the 1880's), the 1930s, or the 1950s (yet).

I see little reason for us to not have a President born in the 1970s; such a President could be a hero General (unless Petraeus takes that role in 2016).



The Civil War discredited late-wave Transcendental politicians who took a huge skid as the Gilded supplanted them. The Gilded, which acted like a Civic generation, held the White House from 1868 to 1896 -- 28 years. The Progressive Generation had a normal stay in the White House -- 24 years. Missionaries stayed in for 25 and might have stayed in longer were it not for the death of FDR. The Lost had only 16 years.

Why not the Silent? Probably their strongest two candidates, Robert Kennedy and Ted Kennedy went down ... one to an assassin, and the other to a DWI/vehicular homicide scandal. It wasn't for a lack of qualifications. I can think of many Silent figures who would have been better than Dubya -- many of them Republicans, in case you think my partisanship shows too blatantly.

There's no good way of predicting when Presidents will be born. People born before 1950 are probably never going to have another chance to be President, especially if Barack Obama is re-elected.

I think if we do have a President born in the 1970's, it will be the first woman President, the one who benefited from feminism the way Obama benefited from civil rights.

Originally Posted by Mustang

Robert, very good analysis. But it unnecessarily blurs key philosophical distinctions simply to label anybody who identifies, or has identified, with the Republican Party as automatically some hyphenated form of conservative. The "neo-cons" began as radicals, Trotskyites, and big boosters of LBJ, about as far from conservatism as one can possibly get. They merely transfered their leftist baggage to the Republican Party after the Carter years without changing their "Progressive" outlook and Wilsonian foreign policy one whit. All they did was put on a more conservative suit of clothes. Underneath the clothes remained the worst excesses of the political Left, proudly maintained and absolutely unchanged.

They were not then conservatives and they are not now conservatives. They were radicals then and are fascists now. All they have changed is their rhetoric in order to appeal to a different audience. This is precisely the same thing that Mussolini, Hitler, and the rest did a saeculum ago. None of the earlier fascists were ever conservatives. They were Anarchists disillusioned with the direction of the Socialist Left who sought a new support base on the Right (social conservatives). And today's "neo-cons" have pursued precisely the same course. But at no point did yesterday's fascists become conservatives, and at no point will today's fascists ("neo-cons") ever become conservatives either. They merely tailor their rhetoric to create a support base among "social conservatives." Big difference.

Very good analysis, but for two points. The neocons are both:

* Ethically/politically universalist and
* Economically free trade globalist.

This cosmopolitical character of neoconservatism makes it impossible to label it fascist. What is fascism? It started out as a marriage between socialism and nationalism, denying both the coming of communist utopia as well as the Brotherhood of Man (man's true brotherhood was to members of his nation, not his class - only through national solidarity could something resembling socialism be achieved).
For all their cynicism, I say the neoconservatives are still lefties at heart. They only decided to make a "right" turn when the liberal left turned inimical to Israel. So called neoconservatism is a matter of ethnic solidarity more than anything else.