« The Roberts Court, admin law, & federalism | Main | Lawyers’ Conferences vs. Legal Academic Conferences »
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Hillary Clinton and the Endless Narcissism of a Generation
I don't mean to sound as if I'm endorsing a candidate in this post, Democrat or Republican. But after listening to Senator Clinton's combative speech last night, I find myself wondering again why so many people persist in seeing the Democratic race as being about race, or gender, when it is also and obviously so clearly about an endless and increasingly tiresome generational struggle.
Can anyone fail to ignore the endlessly pivoting justifications of Senator Clinton's generation for their permanent place in the driver's seat of American life? In 1968 it was a question of trust: the famous slogan, of course, was "don't trust anyone over 30," and all those best-and-brightest types in the generation in power were mere technocrats who failed, in one person's words, to "consider a more human and eventually a more progressive perspective." In 1992, in the face of any number of economic and political crises that arguably required experienced leadership, the line was that "the defenders of the status quo" must step aside: "Your time has come and gone. It's time for a change in America." It was enough to "know the old ways don't work," even if one had to admit, "I don't have all the answers." And those who mocked anyone who would exalt mere "vision" over experience were derided. Last night, lo and behold, the message was one of experience: "Who is tested and ready to be commander in chief on Day One?" (Aside from, you know, that other guy.)
May one indulge a fantasy and look forward to other campaign slogans as the baby boom generation continues to grasp at power in the years to come, albeit with increasingly arthritic fingers? For 2020, perhaps: "Gerontocracy -- A New Vision for Democracy," or "Superannuated!," or, in a little bit of double entendre, "For Our Social Security."
And for 2120? How about "Heads Floating in a Jar -- Because It's About Using Your Head -- Not Your Body."
Posted by Paul Horwitz on March 5, 2008 at 10:04 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00e550adfcdf8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hillary Clinton and the Endless Narcissism of a Generation:
Comments
Paul, love ya but gotta disagree. And, by the way, I'm on record as having been for Obama ahead of the curve (well, as of last November).
I'm assuming you were born in the late 1960s, about the time a REAL generational struggle was going on. If there is a generational struggle today, it is a shadow compared to those days.
Nothing today compares to the Strawberry Statement, or the Chicago Seven (recall it was Jerry Rubin who set the demarcation for intergenerational conflict). It was The Who who sang about "My Generation" and guess what: your generation listens to them! I went retro easy listening in my later days, but the idea that we would have listened to any of our parents' pop music in the 60s (Frank Sinatra, Johnny Mathis, Jack Jones, Eydie Gorme, just to name a few) sends shivers down our now aging spines.
Nobody, I think, spits on Gulf War veterans, nor is there anything like the chasm between Vietnam vets and the "Class of '46."
I'd venture to say it's a relatively frequent conversation, as well, among parents who fall into the boomer cohort that we are remarkably, as compared to our own parents, involved in the lives of our children, and with what seems to be their consent. Our parents seemed barely to know what we were doing with our lives; we, on the other hand, seem to know just about everything. That's probably of our doing, from pre-natal yoga, to playgroups, to organized soccer, to helicopter parenting.
In political terms, the paradigm of parent-child relationship where the boomers were children were those of Ronald Reagan with his stepson Michael, and children, Patty and Ron. They didn't get along. There's no generational issue between Sen. Clinton and Chelsea, by all accounts. Indeed, Sen. Clinton gives off oodles of "baby boomer mother" vibes - the law firm partner who still runs the homeowner's association, gets to all the school events, helps fill out college applications, and gets to the treadmill a couple times a week.
Posted by: Jeff Lipshaw | Mar 5, 2008 12:06:14 PM
Jeff, love ya too, if I may be so bold (I was at the dentist's office today, and the gas has really filled me with an unfiltered love for humanity and the desire to express it). Fair points, all, although it speaks to one aspect of my post -- the generational conflict aspect -- and not the other: the degree to which the BB generation has repositioned itself in ways that have suggested all the way along the line that whatever strengths it brought to the table at some particular moment in its lifeline were THE strengths needed. Cheers, Paul
Posted by: Paul Horwitz | Mar 5, 2008 4:28:37 PM
While I certainly agree that there is not generational conflict on the level of the one in the 60's, I think there is an important, if subtle, one nevertheless. It isn't over policy (after all, Obama and Clinton espouse basically the same policies) or lifestyle, but over, I think, trust. I don't think it's coincidence that young people skew towards Obama in polls and older (over 60) skew towards Clinton. That in itself supports the idea of at least a generational disagreement, if not conflict. The older people I've spoken with (and mind you, it's an admittedly small sample size) laud Clinton's "experience". When I ask for details about that "experience", they aren't able to give me substantive answers. They did, however, go so far as to say they'd vote for McCain if Obama got the nomination because "experience" was so important to them. Let me be clear about that: they prefer Clinton and Obama holds the same party and views (largely) as she does. Yet they'd vote for McCain, who most definitely does NOT hold the same views. Clearly, their vote is not based on policy (and let me stress again this is a small sample size, so I'm hesitant to generalize too much). My guess as to their voting criteria ties in with Paul's idea of a narcissistic view of their generation: that only they have the unique qualities needed at any given time to meet the challenges of the day. In short, no matter how disparate McCain and Clinton are in policy, they are much closer in age/generation. A generation that others of the generation trust implicitly, perhaps.
So my take is that "experience" is merely a codeword for "same age/generation as us". When being a member of a certain generation is more important than actual policy, I think that's a strong argument in favor of Paul's thesis.
Posted by: Shannon Riordan | Mar 6, 2008 8:20:22 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
