The Mindset of My Schizoid Generation

Update: Well now, Tengrain has linked this article to another Crooks & Liars' Mike's Blog Round-Up! Just a reminder to PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GET THE VOTE OUT AND EVERYONE VOTE DEMOCRAT! #BlueWave2022 !!! 

There's been a bit of discussion in the media about the role Generation X - my generation, the generation of Slackers and Grunge and mullets and Gangsta Rap and crazy hair and MTV and Star Wars and neon fashion and (skip a bit, brother) - is playing in modern politics, especially when a recent poll came out suggesting the current set of 50-somethings (NO WE'RE NOT OLD, WE'RE NOT OLD, WE STILL WANT OUR MTV) could arguably be more conservatively radical than even the Nixon-age Boomers.

Well, it may be worse than that: My fellow Gen Xers may be more conspiracy-addled and wingnut-driven than all the other generational groups in America. All the MAGA and QAnon craziness in one easily packaged demographic.

We turn to Shirin Ali at Slate (paywalled) to see how bad the post-punk, post-modern, post-sanity mindset of the Slacker Generation has gotten: 

The Gen X cohort, born between 1965 and 1980, certainly did experience one specific set of significant events that could have defined their politics: They grew into adulthood while Republicans held the White House for 12 years, as Politico points out... They also became the first generation to grow up with personal computers while also experiencing shaky economic times as children and young adults in the 1980s and ’90s.

But it’s not just about what they’ve lived through—it’s also about what they’re approaching. Retirement is an area of concern for Gen X, with the demographic expected to retire in the early and mid-2030s. It’s something they are seriously concerned about, showcased in a study from Transamercia Center for Retirement Studies that found only 22 percent of Gen X were “very” confident they would be able to fully retire with a comfortable lifestyle and 78 percent said they were concerned Social Security would not be there for them when they did decide to retire. This could explain the rightward bend...

I don't know how that could happen: If Gen X is worried about Social Security not being there, you'd think they would avoid the Republicans who are openly planning to gut Social Security if the Republicans retake Congress next year. Back to Ali:

But a closer look doesn’t paint such a simple, red picture for Xers. A Gallup poll conducted from January to July 2022 found that 30 percent of Gen X identified as Republican while 44 percent were independent—the highest proportion of independent voters in any generational block. And Gen X doesn’t actually seem to be aging into conservatism either, in fact, it’s the opposite: In 1992, Gallup found that adult members of Gen X were even more likely to identify as Republicans than Democrats, 32 percent to 24 percent. So really, Gen Xers have swung a little more toward the Democratic party over time (now 27 percent identify as Dems)...

Whew. So if there's any good news, it's that my generation has stuck to the habit of not joining up for shit. Still, where's our collective head at?

Currently, the oldest Gen Xers are 57 years old, and along with every other generation, they likely formed their partisan presidential voting patterns when they were around the ages of 14 to 24, according to a working paper by Columbia University’s Yair Ghitza and Andrew Gelman from 2014. They attempted to debunk the idea that as people age they inevitably become more conservative by arguing that most people’s political orientations in early adulthood carryover at least until late middle age. The theory wasn’t assigned to a specific political ideology, but instead whatever political views people developed through adulthood tend to stick throughout life, whether it’s Democratic-leaning or Republican...

It seems that, yes, our childhoods and college years - the years we form our world-views - do radicalize us for the rest of our lives. Growing up under Reagan and the Bush the Elder term that extended into the early 90s - and then under the Clinton years that stuck to a pro-Capitalist, centrist political policy - made it so that a majority of us Xers - even Indy and Democratic voters - are still affected by the Rightward world-view that instructed us as teens:

Reagan captivated the country and was reelected for a second term in a landslide, followed by Bush I. By the time Bill Clinton landed in the White House, Reagan Conservatives were roughly 30 years old, well past the peak of political socialization.

In other words, Gen X isn’t a political novelty, it’s a cohort that came into adulthood when Republicans dominated the White House, and that likely influenced their voting patterns as they aged. Like Gelman’s research found, white voters born in 1952 and socialized during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations were 5-10 percentage points more likely to support Democratic presidential candidates than those born in 1968 who went on to become Reagan conservatives...

Ali also points out something else: About 61 percent of Generation X is White. Of the post-Boomer generations aging into political power, we're the least ethnically diverse... and as such not as affected by social justice issues that the Millennials and Gen Z groups are. While Gen Xers are still informed by some of the racism and sexism they witnessed - Rodney King, the awareness of workplace sexual harassment, et al. - they are not directly affected by those external issues.

Considering this matter as an Xer myself, I have to look back at how I perceived my own demographic and how short-sighted I was. When Obama won the Presidency in 2009, I was under the impression that my generation - which was coming to that moment that the Boomers were starting to age out of power allowing Xers to fill the gaps - would be more Left-leaning than how we turned out. I knew me and mine grew up under Reagan and were influenced by his role, but I had hoped we were also too jaded and cynical to buy into the Far Right Ayn Randian fantasies that had been in vogue during the 80s. 

I know we grew up to "Red Dawn" and "Rocky IV" and "Top Gun," reading "Atlas Shrugged" instead of "Great Gatsby," all of that. But I know that also we grew up to the downfall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Communism as a political-economic global threat. I would have figured a majority of my fellow Xers would have turned away from the "socialism"-baiting of the Far Right: Where "socialism" was Dog-Whistle code for the anti-Semitism and racism that still informs much of the hatred and extremism of the modern Conservative movement. 

I had hopes that my generation - which brought us Grunge and the Internet and a Slacker mentality - would have been too split, too schizoid to cause any damage to the nation and world. It seems I was wrong. Too many of the kids from the 1980s grew up to be the QAnon conspiracy nuts of the 2020s.

What has happened is that the large plurality of Generation X has tuned out, given the high percentage of non-party affiliation my generation has today. But it's left my era a bit over-represented by the Reagan-spawn who are leading the rabid mobs of the modern GOP voting base, which is a shame. It'd be nice if more of the independent-minded Gen X voters reappraised their place on the political battlefield and realize the Far Right Fantasy is a nightmarish realm of racism, poverty, and pain.

It's not too late, Xers. You can still vote Blue this midterms and save the next generations from wingnut doom. GET THE DAMN VOTE OUT FOR DEMOCRATS THIS 2022!!! 

Presidential Character: Week Forty-One, There Was Competence But Not Confidence

"You gotta dance with who brung ya" - one of Molly Ivins' favorite sayings.

In the first election I ever cast a vote, it was for George H. W. Bush.  For a couple of reasons.  First, I grew up in an old-school Republican house (so old-school my dad still doesn't think Nixon did anything wrong).  Second, I came of age during the Reagan years, and as such had a hazy, complacent view of the political arena despite my years reading Doonesbury and sympathizing with the plight of the proletariat.  Third, seriously Dems?  Dukakis was the best you could do?!  Tsk...

Looking back, I grew into a kind of bemused awareness - this was in college - that while Bush was a competent enough political operative, there was a kind of distance to him, a disconnect that separated him from the immediacies of day-to-day living in America to the high-ended objectives of his administration with regards to economic and international issues.

I couldn't put a label on it then, other than noting that by 1992 during a hard jobless recession that had a direct affect on me - graduating with a bachelors and no job prospects lined up - that President Bush didn't seem focused on fixing the economy that would mean job opportunities for meself and others.  Hindsight can give me now a better understanding.

In hindsight: What happened was that Bush the Elder (as I've taken to calling him) had come to the Presidency as the Heir to Reagan and was stuck dancing to the agenda of a Passive-Positive administration that left him incapable of fulfilling his own more Active instincts.

He had taken on the mantle of a social conservative agenda that he himself wasn't too comfortable with: when you look back, you'll see Bush trying to take a moderate stance on abortion (for cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother) that was counter to the hardline pro-fetus stance (no exemptions, never, and no contraception either, you sluts and whoremongers).

Bush had taken on an economic conservative agenda of mass deregulation and massive tax cuts ("Read My Lips, No New Taxes"), when during his administration he made a bipartisan deal with Congress that included tax increases.

Bush pursued an international relations agenda that relied heavily on diplomacy and personal communication that would have impressed Nixon, with an emphasis on increasing trade to open global markets like never before... but angered up an increasingly isolationist, America-First right wing that abhorred deals like NAFTA and sought U.S. hegemony in the wake of the collapsing Communist opposition.

Things I think Americans take for granted even today, was how Bush was able to build on the trust Reagan engendered with the Soviet Union to further improve international relations.  On the one hand, it proved helpful to keep the USSR on the sidelines when one of their client states - Iraq - went rogue, invading Kuwait, drawing Bush in with a truly international coalition to free Kuwait and weaken (but not topple, which would have busted the coalition) Iraq.  While the neocons of today looked back and considered it a failure that we didn't invade Iraq then and overthrow Saddam, hindsight proved that an occupation would have driven away our allies, depleted our resources fighting an unending insurgency, and given neighboring Iran the opportunity to sway the large Shia Iraqi population to their influence.

Bush, remembered, presided over one of the more peaceful political overthrows our planet's ever seen (with the sad exception of at the time Romania) when the Soviet Union, unable to maintain any economic or military control of Eastern Europe, allowed their satellite allies freedom to self-determine their rules.  The summer and autumn of 1989 witnessed nations like Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and finally East Germany bring an end to one-party rule, open borders, and basically celebrated like free drunken hippies.

I will never forget, sitting at the apartment at Gainesville the whole night of Nov. 9th, watching just hour after hour of people dancing atop the Berlin Wall on the television, tearing at the graffiti-ed concrete with pickaxes and shovels, wanting oh so much to hop onto a plane and just fly out there to join in, although knowing that 1) I had no passport and 2) by the time I got there the party would be over kinda kept me planted in the sofa.  Bush's diplomatic efforts, tied in with political leaders like Gorbachev who sought peaceful reforms, made a lot of that happen.

Part of me wonders to this day if Bush had stayed in office for a second term, if the collapse of Yugoslavia into Balkanized factions driven to civil war would have been curtailed or controlled to a more peaceful ending...

Pity of it was, by 1992 none of that mattered: what mattered was a broken economy that needed an infusion of government investment to boost jobs and wages.  And Bush, sad to say, found himself stuck in a one-note conservative platform ("cut taxes, cut regs") because those were the Republicans that brought him to the Big Dance.

It didn't help that Bush the Elder faced one of the more peculiar third-party attempts in the nation's history: a disgruntled business executive, Ross Perot, decided to muddle into politics on a platform of trade protectionism, balanced budgets, and an idea of "direct democracy" allowing direct input of the electorate through the burgeoning Internet.  Part vanity project, part serious reform movement, Perot became a banner to rally among the far right and/or centrist voting base, which cut more into Bush's political support than the Democratic challenger's.

Bush's final problem was simply an inability to present himself in as confident a manner as possible.  Part of that image had come from his seeming acquiescence to the Vice Presidency under Reagan - at a time when those in the know believed Bush's political views could and did differ from Reagan's - and part of it had come from an increasing vibe of disconnect during his own Presidential tenure.  While he showed confidence in 1988 campaigning as the successor to a popular Reagan, by 1992 he could no longer campaign like that: he had to campaign on his own successes.   Because his domestic success - passing a bipartisan, tax-increased budget - was in opposition to his party's platform, he couldn't.  He had to ignore what he did and campaign on what was expected of him by the base.

As an anecdote, during that tenure Saturday Night Live was at its apex of political satire and commentary (seriously, the 1992 political skits should be bottled and preserved for future generations).  Dana Carvey, doing about as pitch perfect a Bush impersonation (and even a Perot impersonation) ever seen, slowly depicted week by week a desperate, almost pleading Bush trying to figure out what to do to please people (holding up a sign "Message: You're Pissed" at one point).  It's as apt a description of how Bush struggled towards his loss in November to Bill Clinton.

All this talk about Bush the Elder and little yet about his Character.  Mostly because I want to note something else: this is as far into the Presidential Character as Prof. James David Barber took his 4th edition of his textbook.  Bill Clinton will be the second jumping off point into the Unknown where I have to make my own interpretation.  As for Bush, lemme dig up a quote or two on him:

By the summer of that election year, asked "What about George Bush?" I was puzzled that "the basic question about Bush, is not character, but world view.  What is his vision?  What is his direction?"... (p.457)

(from Barber's New York Times 1989 article) ...Those who think he will be simply a steady, middle-of-the-road chairman of the White House team might well be wrong.  There are signs that this Presidency could be far more innovative - for better or for worse - than the last one...  Mr. Bush wants a mission.  It is important that he likes normal, ordinary politics and that he invests much energy in that work.  His character is Active-Positive, a pattern that means he is ready to learn, to change, to develop in office, as distinct from the fixated types, such as Nixon or Johnson... (p.458-9)

That in hindsight was a common part of Bush's style: a negotiator type, someone capable of dealing and Adapting as the circumstances required.

Problem was, the Republican Party that brought him to the dance didn't like changing their tunes.  And Bush didn't have enough confidence to make the Party see that the dance style had changed from Charleston to Rave.

Next Up: There was this article about The Future Imperative relating to this guy.  I gotta go find it.

Presidential Character: Week Forty, The Dawn of the Pax Reaganicus

Or is that Pax Reagana?  Damn it, I've lost my Latin skills!  I told you I'm bad with languages... got a hard enough time keeping up with Anglish...

Basically I'm talking about the Reagan Era, the moment when Ronald Reagan became President.

There are moments in American history where the flow of history - much like a mighty river - shifts direction and the whole landscape changes.  Usually wars - the American Revolution, Mexican-American, Civil War, World War II (but not necessarily the first one), Vietnam, the War on Terror - and sometimes economic disasters - the Great Depression, the Great Recession - but rarely an election of a political leader.  Oh, Lincoln's election was pivotal, but that was part of the Civil War, sort of co-sponsoring the national shift from slavery to emancipation and states' rights to federalism.  No, I'm talking about election of the likes of Andrew Jackson, a forceful personality who basically willed an entire nation's political and economic structure to his whims.  There's a reason the 1830s-1840s is called the Age of Jackson (or Jacksonian Democracy).

Another such election was Reagan's.  Which is slightly ironic in that Reagan's personality was not forceful like Jackson's, nor was he Active like Lincoln.  In his Presidential Character book, James David Barber designated Reagan as a Passive-Positive, and for good reasons.  Pass-Pos Presidents don't tend to leave a major impact on history, and yet pretty much the Eighties and even the Nineties could be considered the Reagan Era.  We're still living (2013) in the aftermath of that era, so much that the Republican Party still pursues the policies of that era out of some fevered nostalgic hope to reclaim the past.

What Reagan brought to his tenure as President was an affable charm.  It was that part of him that made him a relatively successful movie actor of the Thirties and Forties.  This made him as a political figure more an entertainer than enlightener, but for him it worked.  To quote Barber:

By the time Reagan reached the stage of the White House, he had more experience pleasing audiences than any American politician since William Jennings Bryan... And not since Harding had a happy-talk President's character and style fit together so nicely with the public's yearning for positive thinking in politics.  The President had a terrific sense of humor, which he exercised regularly in what started out to be formal prep sessions by his staff... (p.256)

Reagan's nickname became The Great Communicator.  No other President could pull off a bon mot, a one-liner, a poetic reading, a shaggy dog tale, and a comeback like he could.

With this persona in play, Reagan could be on the one hand ruthlessly micromanaged by his own staff - like an actor with an entourage handling all the chores, with a chief of staff doubling as publicity agent and gatekeeper to the media - and on the other perform flawlessly at staged photo-ops and televised national addresses.  With control of the persona, there was control of the message.

It is through that manipulation of Reagan's image that an ambitious political agenda could be unleashed.  Reagan's rise to power - from actor to governor of California to President - came through his association to social and economic conservatism, as part of the Goldwater movement of limited federalism.  He challenged Ford for the 1976 primaries coming from the Far Right vs. Ford's pragmatic moderate platform, and was the bannerman for the conservatives once more in 1980.  Reagan's victory, along with Republicans winning control of the Senate, was viewed as a shift in the national mood away from the FDR-to-LBJ liberalism.

Yet appearances were modestly deceiving.  For all of the conservatives' hopes of pushing massive legislative changes, very little went in the Far Right's favor.  The massive tax cut Reagan achieved in 1981 proved disastrous and Reagan quickly switched gears on that, raising taxes by 1983 to help pay off the increased deficits those cuts created.  During his second term, Reagan pushed for and got an Income Tax reform bill in an attempt to straighten out and simplify a bloated tax code. Social welfare programs saw some cuts but for the most part remained intact, due to a Democratic House unwilling to bend on those programs.  As a Passive-Positive, Reagan was amenable to compromise and working with Democratic leadership (Tip O'Neill especially) to get deals done.

The biggest difference between rhetoric and reality for the Reagan administration was the Cold War.  Reagan came into office in 1980 as a kind of "cowboy", presenting himself as a Cold War Warrior standing up against the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union: yes, this is an actor relying on movies like Star Wars to help explain his world-view.  It was this persona that pursued a massive arms build-up that forced the Soviets to spend beyond their own means.  Yet it was another movie The Day After, about a nuclear holocaust, that woke Reagan up to the fact that a nuclear war was unwinnable, and he seriously began pursuing an arms limitation treaty with the Soviets after having spent the 1980 campaign decrying such negotiations during the Carter years.  As a result, Reagan is the President who achieved getting a massive arms reduction treaty passed.  Both the massive defense spending and the nuclear arms reductions - a one-two punch - began the late Eighties dominoes of events leading to the end of the Cold War in 1991.

Reagan received a lot of criticism from the Far Right for failing to pursue their objectives - an end of the New Deal policies, pursuing an honest-to-God war against Communism - and yet today he's still the patron saint of the Far Right, of the Republican Party as a whole.  Because of two things: First, Reagan's administration is the only administration of the last eighty years the Far Right can accept (can't accept Bush the Elder or Ford or Eisenhower as they were too "moderate", can't accept Bush the Lesser considering all the disasters he presided over, and can't accept Nixon's because yeah Watergate); and Second, Reagan did achieve making hard conservative values acceptable to the mainstream consensus.   Such as deregulation of businesses, downsizing of government, limiting abortion access, giving politically-active religious groups more political prestige, and other social conservative issues.

It's that particular agenda that defines the Reagan era.  It's one of the core elements of the modern Republican agenda - to deregulate everything, to privatize everything, to shrink the federal government down to where Grover Norquist can drown it in his bathtub, to insert conservative religious values everywhere - that we live with and fight against to this day.

And as a Third point: Reagan's Affability, his popularity, remains untouched even to this day.  Although like other Passive-Positives he filled his administration with untrustworthy underlings - Reagan presided over a scandal-filled administration that produced a Savings And Loan fiscal crisis when that sector was deregulated; and the Iran-Contra Affair that saw illegal arms deals to Iranians to free Middle East hostages, with the funds illegally going to support Nicaragua Contra rebels - Reagan himself remained untouched by most of the scandals.  And despite the fiscal damage of the S&L crisis, the American economy remained churning and most Americans didn't seem to care.

Reagan's legacy remains: the idea of shrinking the federal government's role in the lives of Americans (and in the deregulation of billion-plus corporate industries) remains potent even as the Reagan era itself has technically ended.  Not many Passive-Positives can claim such a legacy.

Next Up: Bush the Elder.  There's not really anything fancy I can say about that.