Obama and the Boomers

http://www.radioopensource.org/obama-and-the-boomers/

It finally occurred to me the other day what it is about Obama that I don't like, and it's his open disgust with the generation that happens to be mine. Listened to this show last night, and found it fascinating, if at times infuriating. Anyone want to listen and discuss?

http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/ros/open_source_070212.mp3



I forgot to add that there were a number of Kerry mentions during the hour, making this ON topic.

but isn't Obama technically a Boomer? He's a couple years older than I am (and three days younger than my brother), and I'm considered a Boomer even though I've never felt like I have very much at all in common with those who are traditionally considered Boomers. I guess therein lies the problem, huh?

At the beginning of the audio the guest breaks down voting citizens into much smaller demographic groups, putting Obama in a different sub-category from what they call real boomers.

It's absolutely true that he's technically a boomer. But, as you said, was raised in a very different cultural era than those of us who were born 10 years earlier.

infuriates me. It's actually surprised me how vehement I feel. Here I am, like many of us my age, having worked for a better society all my life, and pressing on, despite disappointment after disappointment, and to be judged by boomers like Bill, Hillary, Gingrich and W., or activists-turned-yuppie-scum--totally not right.:grr:
That second paragraph in your quote above makes me even madder. I had Reagan as governor, too, and at NO time did I ever buy that Reagan line about "morning in America"; it was phony optimism, based on phony premises. Even at the time, I thought that 1980 marked the beginning of a long night in America.: ok, "eve of destruction" more or less fits. Little did I know that it would last THIS long: 27 years so far. I think we're finally coming out of it, but. .

BTW , how dismissing a huge generation is supposed to "unify" the country is a mystery to me.

The first time I could vote was 1988, and I voted for Dukakis. I've always voted Dem for prez. But I just can't hate Reagan -- in spite of all the knowledge I now have about Iran/Contra, how the media went unbalanced, how the rich have gotten richer while the poor have gotten poorer, there is no way that I would ever despise Reagan, like I do Bush. And it's all due to a memory I have when I was in high school.

Back in 1986, I was really interested in space and the astronauts -- I remember doing a paper on it for class and just generally being excited about the space shuttle missions. And then the tragedy happened. I still remember exactly where I was when I learned that the space shuttle had combusted into flames. It was a snow day in Conn., and my neighbor friend had called me to tell me the news -- I didn't believe her, it was so horrifying to hear. I cried, and I watched TV all day not believing my eyes. Later in the day, President Reagan made a speech on TV, and it comforted me immensely. It just made me think that it was going to be okay, and the nation would get through this. I'll never forget that, and it's one of those Reagan moments that you just can't take away.

Later in college I learned of the horrors in Central America, and it was enough for me to be smart enough not to vote for Bush, when everyone else did. But a president is about a lot of things, and Reagan had a special talent as a politician of making you feel that everything would be alright. I'm sure my experience is very typical for Gen Xers, even liberal Gen Xers, who were just kids when he was president. I hope this makes you understand a little bit where we're coming from.

(Post Script: when another space shuttle blew up in 2002, I cried again, as I was still reeling from 9/11. George W. Bush did not comfort me one IOTA. He is not a leader and has nothing to recommend his character whatsoever. We Gen Xers also have the memory of George W. Bush, too, which will mean the Republicans have a LOT of repair work to do.)

I think as much as anything because it is a broadbrush condemnation of an entire class of people. He ignores that without the babyboomers' energy behind the social movements of the 60s, he would not have had the opportunities he has.

There are three other things I resent:
1) Kerry is not a baby boomer and shouldn't be classified as one. His sense of duty, his politeness, and his history are that of a war baby. The self indulgence of the baby boom years is the opposite of Kerry.

2 Ignoring the lessons of Vietnam now is escapism. Blaming Kerry because he was attacked by liars on his service is disgusting. Obama will be hit on something himself - It's what Republicans do. Kerry's actions in Vietnam and protesting are proof of the hero he is - and are not Clinton's talk, avoiding the draft, and disgusting letter or Bush's lack of real service or consequence. (This attacks the troops - did anyone ever say that Dole's WWII service was a handicap.)

3) Emotionally, it annoys me that my generation will be represented in history by Clinton and Bush - neither of whom represent the idealism of the 60s.

Nice, succinct arguments

I didn't listen to it, but I want to throw my 2 cents in anyway, kind of generally.

I'm a boomer, and I don't see anything particularly terrible in the excerpt you posted (plus none of those are Obama's words, if I understand correctly). I will say that my generation has given us Bush I, and Bush II, and the best Democrat we could muster was Clinton. While many of us have worked hard to make the world a better place, unfortunately many have not. Whatever grade you would give our generation, I don't know how it could be an 'A'.

I think it's true that people are sick and tired of Vietnam, even though now is exactly when they should be paying attention (maybe that is why they want to avoid it).

And anyway, the bottom line for me is this: if I support anyone, it will be the one I think will govern best. EVERY one of the potential candidates is flawed in my eyes. Even Kerry isn't perfect - he's just a far sight better than what we seem to be left with. So, I can pick through their flaws and focus on things like this that might bug me (and this one might, if I listened to the tape), or I can concentrate on deciding on who I think will govern best.

Hillary's out though. I think she's revealed her character as totally untrustworthy and out for Hillary only. Several of the other candidates at least seem to have a commitment to being public servants.

And I haven't ruled Obama out.

But I do feel that this kind of talk is no way to ask for my vote - it's snotty and divisive. At this point, the only candidate I will not vote for (in the primary) is Hillary.

The audio is interesting - these are Cambridge-y, PC types, and there was a lot of talk about "Has the boomers' governing time passed?" which I found frankly stupid and pissed me off.

And then there was Peter Beinart, waxing rhapsodic about how Obama really wants to tackle the important issues like health care and the environment (unlike Kerry, of course. :eyes:)

I'd say to them, "not so fast!"

I agree with many of the points made in this thread. True Kerry is not a boomer but a war baby--I suppose that makes him even more irrelevant? That's just crazy. And what about the other top politicians and leaders who are as Kerry says, "a little grayer"? There are competent and incompetent people in all age groups. Just because one ex-coke-snorting-ex-alcoholic intellectually rigid "president" happens to be a complete and total boob doesn't mean that we all should just shut up and go away now. Many of us in our 40s, 50s and 60s have a lot more to offer.

I suppose Obama is aiming to capture the younger vote. But the current generation gap isn't as wide as it was when we were that age in the 60s and 70s. I communicate with my 24 year old daughter very well, and we agree on almost every issue. So I don't see where trying to divide the generations and pit them against each other is going to work particularly well.

There's a thread now asking people who was the candidate they most loved in their lives. I was struck by the number of people who picked one of the 2004 candidates. (There were a lot of the 1960s too) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3106928&mesg_id=3106928

For people who loved Kerry, Dean, or Clark, there was a sense that that person was unique and special which transended politics. (It's been said here many many times with Kerry.) In each case the attachment was intense. It may be that with times so bad, a superman is needed and there are few exist through history.

Think of 1976, 1984, 1988, and 1992, I know in each case I had a favorite (or favorites) in the primary - but there was no intense disappointment when my favorite dropped out or lost. I was excited when we won in 1992, but not because I liked Bill Clinton himself. It was that our team won.

For 2008, the spotlight is incredibly intense and the idea that it will go on for more than a year is mindboggling. In that glare, the flaws of each canddiate will look huge. Add to that the fact that so many have a deep sentimental attachment to an "if only" 2000 or 2004 possibility, who will look progressively better to them, the contrast will lead to designating the candidates weaker than they are. In fact, if you go beyond the top 3 they are not worse than our choice in many years, including 1992. (The problem is the early emphasis on the top three )

probably.

And, yes, people in their 40s need to enter politics. There is something sickening in the fact that there is no more than 4 or 5 senators that are less than 50 and so many who are more than 70s.

The problem is that people are, luckily, living longer and that our governing organisms have not figured out what to do to include all the adult generations in the process. The laws that will be done for us and our children will be done by people who, with the exception of a couple like Edwards or Dodd, have grown-up children, no idea what schools these days are, and who have not had to buy an health insurance policy for years. No surprise they are so far from reality on these issues. Inclusion does not only mean women and minorities. It also means inclusion of the youngest generations.

the USSR disappeared because it was governed by old men. It was unable to adapt to the realities of this world. It would be too bad that the US have the same fate. McCain is going to be 70s. Hillary 60s. Edwards 54, Dodd and Biden in their 60s, Obama 45 , ... This is not a reflexion on Kerry. This is a reflexion on US politics. One of the reason the French election is so refreshing is that it is a new generation to arrive to power. May be this is also the same attraction that goes for Obama.

I somehow doubt that Obama wants to get baby-boomers out of politics. That he thinks that it is their turn is fine. He will have to prove that he is the man, just as anybody else.

And do not forget. Obama's experience in the 60s and 70s was NOT the typical experience of the US kid.

It's been part of his stump speech in these early days. Hopefully, he'll change it now, but it still grates on me. Look, I like him, but I don't like that line.

of Kerry's agenda. When Kerry bowed out of the race, Obama was one of the first to issue a nice statement about Kerry. He respects Kerry, and he knows that it was Kerry who gave him the prime spot at the '04 convention that made him a star. He does need to distinguish from him, however, in the primaries because of the simple fact that Kerry lost the '04 election. We need to accept this, guys. But when it comes to real ideas and policies, it is obvious that Obama has pulled away from the Clintonistas, and going more to our wing of the party.

but having read his speech, he makes it perfectly clear that he is not talking to me.

That's his prerogative. It's also my prerogative to say if he doesn't want to talk to me, fine, but I find him arrogant. And divisive. More here:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/weekinreview/21broder.html?ex=1327035600&en=b1368edf6827a3a9&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

And, as someone who is absolutely no fan of Reagan, I agree with a lot of what is said here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0701140218jan14,1,872374.story?coll=chi-news-hed

I'm seeing it slightly differently. These thoughts echo Kerry's completely:

I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.



It doesn't matter how long you've been there to know it really does have to change -- Kerry also spoke of how he's never seen things as bad in Congress as they've been (in the GOP controlled Senate). Kerry worked to get a new generation of Fighting Dems in the Congress.

And here:

What's stopped us from meeting these challenges is not the absence of sound policies and sensible plans. What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.


"Smallness" is Kerry's word -- he used it in his thank you note to the bloggers. "Petty and trivial" -- Kerry talked about how mockery has replaced real debate in politics. "Avoiding tough decisions" -- Kerry spoke of that in regards to global warming where he went after BOTH parties. "Not the absence of sound policies and sensible plans" -- like Senator Kerry's which Obama is clearly embracing.


He has a series of paragraphs saying "Let's be the generation ...", and talks about stuff that Kerry agrees with. totally.

Yes, there was the dig about "10 point plans", but Obama readily acknowledged that the ideas are already out there. He just wants to implement them.

that we would see this differently. And as I said, there is a lot to like about him, and I would certainly vote for him over Hillary. And I am old enough to remember how people were calling Kerry himself an arrogant upstart back in the day, something I'm sure he also remembers well.

I've just found Obama's dismissive tone insulting. And right now, when I don't have to support anyone, it works against him in my mind. I agree that the tone in DC is hideous, but I'm not sure this is a great way to set about correcting that.

By the way, Camille Paglia is back writing at Salon today. I often disagree with her, but enjoy reading her - highly opinionated - opinions. Anyway, in today's column she links to a video of a meeting between Hillary and Code Pink back around the time of the Iraq vote in which Hillary lets her placid politician mask slip. It's kind of long, but if you watch it be sure to stay till the very end.

For me it's less negative about the baby boomer generation, and more just looking forward to the future. It's more negative on George W. Bush, who come on, people -- is about as bad a spokesman for the baby boom generation as you're going to get. And Clinton is a disappointment, with his "problems".

The Kerry stuff is just BS, but that has nothing to do with the topic, but the entire MSM narrative about him. They don't get Kerry nor will they ever. I admire him very much, but I don't mind hearing about a new generation and Obama.

Hold on a second -- the guy just said "My country right or wrong" and how to get it right, crediting Obama with that -- of course, that's Kerry's line!

I guess I don't think of Kerry as being pegged in a generational way, because he's always listening to younger people. Like that BlogRadio interview -- Kerry is very comfortable talking to Gen Xers and giving their ideas a chance. I found it especially funny that one of them asked Kerry if he got his e-mail of a YouTube clip. Heck it gave me a deja vu of talking to my parents, asking them if they got the KO YouTube I sent them. I think Obama actually is emulating Kerry all the time -- all the ideas on Iraq and diplomacy with Iran and Syria, talking about Reagan talking to the Evil Empire, which shows . . . respect for elders (ha, ha).

So it's all interesting, and I don't think you guys should take it too seriously. If Obama is showing a new look and has a message about talking differently, WHILE at the same time embracing Kerry's ideas, well, let's just say we all know the truth of where the REAL ideas are coming from.

Obama talks, and this reminds me of Kerry.

It is one of the reasons I like Kerry. He is a true progressive, because he wants to make things better, and understands the world we live in, and not an artificial lost paradise as it existed supposedly in the 60s and 70s. No surprise it will appeal to younger generations.

Obama is my age and from all the people running now he is really the one that appeals to me. But Kerry does as well and Kerry is neither a typical baby-boomer nor a typical Washingtonian politician. What's more important, at least for me, than the generation thing is that both people have an international background in common. In this program they say Obama is truly multicultural, has a different vision of the future of the country, knows that it's about the world, knows something about other cultures etc. But Kerry with his kind of European upbringing, with his time in Asia etc. has the same different vision of the world. These are the things working for me, I guess. And maybe for Mass and a bit for you, beachmom, as well.

This program is really great talking about America as a multicultural society. I was tempted to say, Kerry and Obama aren't typical Americans, but actually THEY are the real Americans, not these close-minded, conservative Evangelicals.

I've always been told that technically I'm a boomer. But I've never felt like one. I've never identified with the 60's generation, because I was born in 1963. That's supposedly the tail-end of the baby boom. But's a million miles away from those who were born right after WWII. I was very young during the Vietnam War, and not particularly paying attention to the news. I graduated from high school in 1981. So if Obama is considered a post-boomer (isn't he around 50 yrs old?), what does that make me?

And 1964 is the last baby boom year. My youngest brother was born in '64, and I'd say his values are similar to mine, even though I'm 12 years older (three other brothers in between us, I'm the eldest).

It has to do with what age your parents are, too. If your parents were WWII generation or close to it, your values would be shaped in part by that. So by that measure, Kerry is a boomer too, loosely speaking. My parents were in their teens during the war, and my Dad joined the Army at 18 so he wouldn't be drafted in '46. He ended up being stationed in Japan during the post-war occupation and saw no combat.

I understand that Obama was raised, in part, by his mother's parents. So I wonder what effect that had--being raised by an older generation.

And I've never connected to the boomer trends. At the same time, I think boomers get blamed for a lot of stuff that the 'greatest generation' actually did. The pollution and endless development, that was them. Boomers are the ones that stepped in to start cleaning things up and making change. So I don't think it's fair to beat up on Boomers, but I also don't think Obama is doing that. It is time to inspire a new generation. If he can get people to look at this country and the world in a new way, I don't care what language he uses to get there. There is an under 25 generation that really is 'waiting for the world to change'. If he can tap into their aspirations, we'll all be the better for it.