| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sambista
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16951
Location: way station of life
Back to top |
 Posted: 08/09/19 3:02 am ::: Your Baby Boomer Report Card |
Reply  |
|
i have so many thoughts jumping out over this opinion piece - and apologies for creating a thread about a single published work, if anyone takes issue with that, and especially because it's behind a pay wall - that i can't get it all down in words.
Your Baby Boomer Report Card
this is a subject that i and my boomer counterparts talk about all the time, and this opinion piece barely scratches the surface but provides a great platform to explore, analyze and compare generations.
mostly, i and my boomer counterparts blame ourselves for our crumbling society and, more specifically, the general, social failures of our children and, by extension, the general, social failures of their children. which is why we spend so much time pondering what happened. (i know it's not just me and my friends. c'mon, be honest. you know you've thought about it, too.)
anyway, this opinion piece, as i said, barely scratches the surface. it could've been parsed and expounded tenfold. and i agree with one of the reader comments (which must be read!) that the grade given to the boomer generation was generous.
please share your thoughts, and other references on this topic.
you don't have to be a boomer to play.
_________________
no justice, no peace.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/09/19 10:38 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I loveloveLOVE David Brooks. 
This discussion certainly resonates with me, but I must qualify my thoughts with the caveat that I never like distilling one 'generation' into a simple essence: for example, I am NOT the same kind of Boomer my oldest siblings are, who are 10-14 years my senior.
But for the sake of the discussion, I'll stick with the concepts David presents.
One of the first things that grabbed my attention was his quote:
| Quote: |
| Boomers are bad at politics because they distrust institutions |
I think he misses a very important *positive* here: I believe our generation is the one to begin breaking the grip of Religious Institutions on our culture
Yes, we "distrust institutions", and for good reason. So many of them that fall under the realm of Government and Religion have been exposed for their fraudulence. Religions will not likely die out in our lifetimes, but practically no church holds the same authoritarian grip on its people as did the churches of our parents'/grandparents' time. This is GOOD.
He also suggests:
| Quote: |
The baby boomer political era began in 1992, with the election of Bill Clinton. In the five years before that, these leaders dominated world politics: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, John Paul II, Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand.
Baby boomers have been unable to match that level of talent. During the years of boomer dominance — from Bill Clinton through Donald Trump — America’s political institutions have become dysfunctional, civic debate has crumbled, debt has soared and few major pieces of legislation have passed. |
I'd simply disagree that Ronald, Margaret, or John Paul outshine the likes of Clinton or Obama.
The very first commentary I read included:
| Quote: |
| A new, lower grade below F should be invented for us, for our materialism and the perpetuation of greed as the determining value of the ethos in all major dimensions in life. Shameful and despicable are but two of many words describing my generation. |
I don't share the severity of his grading system, but I certainly agree with the sentiment underlined.
My generation has perpetuated a materialistic, money/status-loving ethos like no other. And that played no small part in Trump's election: "Mr. Richy Rich will give us more 'n more, cuz we already don't have enough", etc.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/09/19 10:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
As a member of Gen X, I also blame the boomers for most of today's problems. They seem pretty intent on holding center stage in the political theater for a while longer. We can only hope the nation survives.
| Howee wrote: |
| I'd simply disagree that Ronald, Margaret, or John Paul outshine the likes of Clinton or Obama |
Obama is not a boomer.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/09/19 12:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| I'd simply disagree that Ronald, Margaret, or John Paul outshine the likes of Clinton or Obama |
Obama is not a boomer. |
Yes, Brooks states that, but I thought he implied that Boomers played a large part in putting Obama in office.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
Carol Anne
Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1739
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/09/19 1:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I stopped paying any attention to David Brooks when he was revealed to have sneered at the lack of good restaurants in real America...yet he faked his "reviews." Scroll down to "SHATTERED BROOKS"
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh040504.shtml
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/09/19 7:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Carol Anne wrote: |
I stopped paying any attention to David Brooks when he was revealed to have sneered at the lack of good restaurants in real America...yet he faked his "reviews." Scroll down to "SHATTERED BROOKS"
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh040504.shtml |
That's funny.
Now, remember....Brooks IS (technically) a Republican. My main take on him is as the counterpoint to Mark Shields on PBS's newshour schtick on Fridays.
This quote....
| Quote: |
| But as if to offer a cry for help, Brooks never got to the “red states” at all. Instead, he compared life in his home base (Montgomery County, Maryland) with life in the aforementioned Franklin County. Unfortunately, Franklin County is in Pennsylvania—and Pennsylvania is a “blue” state, just like Maryland! |
....is a bit misleading. IFF he went to Franklin County, it may be in a *blue* state (though not in '16), but Franklin County is about as RED as it gets in PA. I know Franklin County well. Of course, if he never even went there, and pretended otherwise, then shame on him, but I don't think he'd enjoy his current status as a journalist, if that were his general M.O.
Regardless, I can overlook his shoddy, misleading journalism way back then in light of the points he made in the OP's article. And catch him once on PBS on a Friday....I wish more "Republicans" had his sensibility.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Last edited by Howee on 08/10/19 8:10 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
sambista
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16951
Location: way station of life
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/19 2:00 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
The very first commentary I read included:
| Quote: |
| A new, lower grade below F should be invented for us, for our materialism and the perpetuation of greed as the determining value of the ethos in all major dimensions in life. Shameful and despicable are but two of many words describing my generation. |
I don't share the severity of his grading system, but I certainly agree with the sentiment underlined.
My generation has perpetuated a materialistic, money/status-loving ethos like no other. And that played no small part in Trump's election: "Mr. Richy Rich will give us more 'n more, cuz we already don't have enough", etc. |
even though i don't/didn't have kids, i blame my generation for how our kids (very generally) turned out. and their kids (very generally) don't seem to be doing so well either. to the point where, at least from where i stand, i get genuinely encouraged when i meet "kids" of those generations who really have it all together.
what i wanna know is, how did we get it so wrong? our parents, i thought, knew what they were doing. (we're talking about parenting now, and social comportment, not politics or other categories you might identify.) did we so reject what they represented that the pendulum had to swing so far in the wrong direction?
or is it just the nature of things for us, at any point in the timeline, to judge that generations after us are more screwed up than we are?
_________________
no justice, no peace.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66900
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/19 7:44 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| I'd simply disagree that Ronald, Margaret, or John Paul outshine the likes of Clinton or Obama |
Obama is not a boomer. |
Yes, Brooks states that, but I thought he implied that Boomers played a large part in putting Obama in office. |
My recollection is that Obama rode a youth wave to the White House while the near retirement boomers went for McCain.
Of course Brooks stacks the deck in the boomers favor in a number of ways, such as including non-boomers like Bob Dylan in their accomplished members.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16358
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/19 12:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
What a load of nonsense.
The same, of course, could be said about virtually everything David Brooks writes.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/19 2:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
What a load of nonsense.
The same, of course, could be said about virtually everything David Brooks writes. |
I generally agree with that, and avoid anything with Brooks' name on it. He was hired by the NY Times to be the conservative op-ed replacement for the irreplaceable Bill Safire, but he can't approach Safire's common sense insights, wit or brilliant writing ability. And he's not even conservative. He's become a ponderous faux intellectual like the Times' other major bore, Thomas Friedman.
Nevertheless, he makes a few decent observations. As a pre-Boomer, a child of Depression parents, my generation had to make it on their own, but we had strong matrix structures of family, neighborhood and church. My sense it that our children, and those of the Boomers, have not been as successful or content, largely because they have been given so many things instead of earning them on their own, they have never had to fight or die for their country's values, and the three matrix structures have declined. All of which are culturally corrosive things.
To be more specific about fighting and dying for America's values, I don't consider any war since WWII to have been a war to protect America itself. They were mostly foreign adventurism. Yes, of course, many American soldiers have died, but a great bulk of them in Korea, Viet Nam, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan were wondering "what the f*** am I doing in this godforsaken foreign land, and for what purpose?" There have been no good answers to these questions since WWII.
So also with the fights, marches, riots and social movements for equality, sexual freedom, voting rights and anti-discrimination -- all the major changes via legislation and court decisions were over by the Nixon administration. Yes, a few more things had to be accomplished, but the heavy lifting had been done and the foundational settings were handed over and taken for granted by people born after the early 50's.
In short, the mid to late boomers didn't have to work as hard for national security or economic security and didn't have to fight as hard for social and cultural goals as their predecessors.
I don't know what the current generation is called, but American society today, though it calls itself "progressive", has actually become far less liberal, far more intolerant, and far less versed in classical education and virtues than was the society of the 50's and 60's. It is more technological, but to a masturbatory and isolationist fault. Kids stare at LCD screens all day instead of playing outside. People fiddle with smart phones in restaurants instead of talking to each other. No one wants to read anything over one paragraph. Writing skills have been reduced to inanities such as "LOL" and "LMAO". Porn is more popular than going to the library.
The result -- IMHO but YMMV -- is a society that is Balkanized, isolated and full of anomie, anger and xenophobia. More mental illness. More unhappy. Yes, Mr. Brooks, less successful in the overall sense. |
|
sambista
Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 16951
Location: way station of life
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/19 2:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| So also with the fights, marches, riots and social movements for equality, sexual freedom, voting rights and anti-discrimination -- all the major changes via legislation and court decisions were over by the Nixon administration. Yes, a few more things had to be accomplished, but the heavy lifting had been done and the foundational settings were handed over and taken for granted by people born after the early 50's. |
i suppose your idea of heavy lifting is relative. things were far from over in the '60s and early '70s, personally for many of us, and socially and politically as a nation.
_________________
no justice, no peace.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 08/10/19 9:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| As a pre-Boomer, a child of Depression parents, my generation had to make it on their own, but we had strong matrix structures of family, neighborhood and church. My sense it that our children, and those of the Boomers, have not been as successful or content, largely because they have been given so many things instead of earning them on their own, they have never had to fight or die for their country's values, and the three matrix structures have declined. All of which are culturally corrosive things. |
You might find any number of Boomers (and their kids) who'd contradict you on the 'never had to fight or die' thing: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., have claimed the lives of too many. And, imo, they DID die for "their country's values": no, not democracy and liberty, but our current country's values of corporate greed. [see: Haliburton, et., al] Which makes the life loss more egregious.
I'd also disagree that family and neighborhoods have deteriorated. That's still alive and well in America. Changed, perhaps, and maybe in some ways for the BETTER. Just cuz it don't look/act like yer mama's family doesn't mean it's not as good. Religion's DECLINE is hardly a "corrosive" factor---Religion is itself a "corrosive" factor, in its corruption and fraudulence, and its demise is a POSITIVE to be prayed for.
| sambista wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| So also with the fights, marches, riots and social movements for equality, sexual freedom, voting rights and anti-discrimination -- all the major changes via legislation and court decisions were over by the Nixon administration. Yes, a few more things had to be accomplished, but the heavy lifting had been done and the foundational settings were handed over and taken for granted by people born after the early 50's. |
i suppose your idea of heavy lifting is relative. things were far from over in the '60s and early '70s, personally for many of us, and socially and politically as a nation. |
Really.
"Legislation and court decisions" were seldom ENOUGH. For example, the abolition of Slavery certainly didn't instantly create a panacea for former slaves. 150 years later, the ramifications still affect our lives, and some of the heaviest lifting is yet to come.
Homosexual activity between consenting adults was only decriminalized on a federal level 16 years ago, with marriage rights being available nationwide for only 4 years. Point being, the "heavy lifting" was carried on by many a Baby Boomer, long past Nixon's administration.
And there's more for us Boomers yet to do.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
|
|
