tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post5621266721641985518..comments2024-03-28T18:59:21.172-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Bad news for Sanders and Biden: No Silent Gen member has ever won presidencyagnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-20484224310373082502015-10-11T16:24:37.538-04:002015-10-11T16:24:37.538-04:00Statistically that seems about possible. Purely by...Statistically that seems about possible. Purely by chance. Feel like finding out what they are and showing how they map to generations, and ideally are spaced at intervals that map to changes in crime rates? Since every one of Strauss and Howe's generations have had the US Presidency, those aren't the real generations being skipped over, and counting back in 20 year intervals from modern generations finds no generations skipped over. We might learn something. <br /><br />Sorting in order of incumbency, the largest difference in birth years between one incumbent and the next is 27 years, between Eisenhower and Kennedy, before that, the highest difference is 18 years between Buchanan and Lincoln.<br /><br />Sorting in order of years of birth, the largest difference in birth years between Clinton at 22 years younger than Carter. No other difference is larger than 18 years (Johnson-Eisenhower). Median gap is 4 years.Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-84174592639859964972015-10-11T13:53:02.315-04:002015-10-11T13:53:02.315-04:00"I think the lack of Silent political leaders..."I think the lack of Silent political leadership at the highest levels in the US is mainly being a small generation plus luck."<br /><br />It doesn't matter if you give every generation 20 years. People born from 1925 to 1944 have never been President, despite making up a good fraction of the main candidates for over 30 years.<br /><br />"In terms of running the birth years of US Presidents against the Generations described by Strauss and Howe, the only one of their generations skipped over is the Silent Generation, if you go by S&H's years"<br /><br />In the original post on turnover and stability, I didn't say that the skipped-over generations mapped onto commonly accepted groupings. But there are entire 20-year-long cohorts that never gave us a President, and these gaps seem to happen at somewhat regular intervals.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-73559555314772570112015-10-09T18:20:18.593-04:002015-10-09T18:20:18.593-04:00In fact, the Silents have come out best (with rega...In fact, the Silents have come out best (with regard to personal well-being) over the last 50-60 years. Though some early Silents felt the great depression, by the time they ht adolescence and adulthood the economy was humming and America was a dream in terms of social equity and ideals of fair play and cooperation. It would be none other than Silents (the least diverse of all generations) who would become dominant activists, lawyers, and overall leaders in the push to make America a more "vibrant" and "sensitive" place. After a "just following orders" joyless period, many Silents became eager to make a splash by critiquing the G.I. machine like precise culture (which made the affluence of Silents possible) that simply made many things (like drugs, infidelity, divorce, unusual art, fraternizing outside of your race, etc.) out of the question. <br /><br />But since Silents would always be the cautious type, they often only dipped into these taboo things very tentatively. Some should've been more tentative; during the great 60's transformation, some Silents evidenced sexual psycopathy ( I just read an article about a serial pedophile being sued for 1960's abuse of Boy Scouts; the pedo was a Silent born in the very late 30's). The Silents sensed that the young Boomers were a different beast; they had been encouraged to follow their hearts and desires while Silents were steered towards minding their responsibilities by wise Lost parents and no-nonsense early G.I. parents.<br /><br />So with ample encouragement the Silents, with a mixture of envy and admiration, led the Boomers along. Though it was obvious by the late 60's that the Boomers were already making a mockery of the very things that resolute G.I.s and sensitive Silents held dear, the Silents would always be hopeful that, with enough communication and generosity between the camps, Boomers would finally overcome their gargantuan egos and do a better job of inheriting the Silent legacy of refinement and awareness. But this would never come to pass; Strauss & Howe expressed concern in the early 90's that if the Boomers never grew up and set a better example, our goose would be cooked by the 2020's. Looks like they were right.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-74035533356787317482015-10-09T00:15:19.801-04:002015-10-09T00:15:19.801-04:00Feral,
Man, your point that Gen-Xers have never e...Feral,<br /><br />Man, your point that Gen-Xers have never experienced a world in which institutions work as they should is so true. In college there was a giant financial aid bureaucracy. The financial aid office was housed in a four-story building. There were Pell Grants, Stafford loans, work-study programs, scholarships, FAFSA forms -- and we STILL graduated with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt! <br /><br />The bureaucracy the GI Joes created worked just fine for the Boomers; for them, college was essentially free. For us, it was just a big con. All of the financial aid programs that benefited the Boomers were still there, at least in name -- the financial aid bureaucracy was certainly fully staffed with Boomers -- but we still needed to borrow to pay the tuition. The system was broken and didn't work any more.<br /><br />After college the pattern just continued -- you graduated without a job and had to do temp work or be underemployed, and even if you got a real job you'd probably get laid off eventually -- then the housing bubble created by Boomers caused housing prices to triple in just a few years, etc., etc. <br /><br />The thing is, since the media was still 100% controlled by Boomers, NONE OF THIS WAS EVER ACKNOWLEDGED. At least not until blogs came along. That was the worst part, the media talked about the housing bubble like it was an unmitigated good -- but it wasn't so good if you didn't own a house! And all of the financial advice that the Boomers gave was totally outmoded -- i.e. to save up for a 20% down payment, "brown bag your lunch for six months, cancel the cable TV, and stop patronizing Starbucks." Yeah, gee, that's just great advice for me, living in Los Angeles, where a decent house costs $600,000. If I follow that advice I can probably save $2,000 per year, which means that I'll have saved up a 20% down payment ($120k for a house that costs $60k) in only 60 years! Thanks Boomers, your advice is very useful, I can tell that you really understand my situation. Everything was like this, completely screwed up and for the longest time no one even spoke about it. <br />Joe Schmoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15871134614183408024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-9441125751691259652015-10-07T16:23:47.120-04:002015-10-07T16:23:47.120-04:00" The artistic side would be probably be beca..." The artistic side would be probably be because the Greatest Generation were too old to be involved."<br /><br />In terms of movies, I looked at Oscar nominated movies of the 70's and 80's. Many of them were directed by Silents with G.I.s being much less represented. I admit that movie making is less dependent on pure creativity than music, being that movie production is also about collaborating and craftsmanship as much as it is ideas. This actually would suggest that mature age is a plus in movie making so I believe that G.I.'s were simply less interested in advancing art than Silents.<br /><br />Also, G.I.s were highly practical, productive, and civic minded throughout their lives. So they didn't ever have much time to explore their imaginations. Silents spent much time wistfully asking "is this all there is to life?" and in the 60's they finally began to express their desire to explore aspects of life beyond the prosaic day to day tasks and obligations that G.I.s performed with disarming ease. Decades of bland conformity suddenly seemed not so satisfying anymore, as they found that they did not get the same sense of joy and accomplishment as G.I.s did out of life. Why would they, when they after all didn't build the system in the first place?<br /><br />Yet as soon as they spoke up (in art, in politics, in academic/intellectual circles, etc.) they found that the generation most likely to have G.I.s as parents (Boomers) were stealing their thunder. These boisterous kids (who were always encouraged to form a unique identity, speak their minds, and not take no for an answer) wasted no time at all playing by the rules.<br /><br />Still patient and blessed to inherit an economy and culture that took care of all as best it could, the Silents would find no difficulty in getting paid, staying healthy, and gaining esteem as analytical and acutely humble lawyers, critics, artists, and mediators. Ultimately, their lack of ability to just "do something" and constantly wandering hearts, when combined with the Boomers narcissism, would inflict destruction on the effectiveness of institutions. When Gen X came of age, the transfer of power from G.I. to Silent was nearly complete. Gen X would never know a world, a system, hell for some them even a home, where things worked well. Gen X-ers mostly didn't even know that things were supposed to work to begin with. Why would they consider it when their parents, their teachers, etc. seemed like such sanctimonious and pushy hypocrites. Why trust adults who never even seemed to take the time to consider what this sort of world was doing to kids? <br /><br />Silents longed to explore the world. Boomers did explore. Gen X-ers wanted escape from a frenetic, forbidding world that didn't care for them and did not entitle you to the sort of comfort that Silents and Boomers took for granted. Silent movie critics Siskel and Ebert praised the '89 Batman movie simply because "the characters are all played by adults". Such was the esteem that Gen X had at a time when children and teens were often treated as a strange nuisance threatening to intrude on the adult's career and leisure. Not helping was the tendency of Gen X kids to alternate between rowdy chaos and aloof detachment.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-26659767076089108492015-10-07T13:26:26.152-04:002015-10-07T13:26:26.152-04:00Per my post above, I think the lack of Silent poli...Per my post above, I think the lack of Silent political leadership at the highest levels in the US is mainly being a small generation plus luck. They're a smaller than the GI generation because they have a shorter "window" of years and there was just lower fertility at that time. The artistic side would be probably be because the Greatest Generation were too old to be involved.<br /><br />In terms of running the birth years of US Presidents against the Generations described by Strauss and Howe, the only one of their generations skipped over is the Silent Generation, if you go by S&H's years (although yes they put Generation X a little earlier than 1963, so count Obama with them).<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_date_of_birth<br /><br />In terms of total term length, the Generations go Gilded>GI Generation>Compromise>Missionary>Republican>Progressive>Transcendental>Boomer>Lost>Liberty>Generation X if you go by S&H's definitions. Or Gilded>GI Generation>Compromise>Missionary>Republican>Progressive>Boomer>Transcendental>Lost>Liberty, if you count Obama as a Boomer. Trump getting it would make the Boomers among the longest reigning, with the Gilded and GI.<br /><br />The Obama as Boomer graph looks like this - http://i.imgur.com/5FOj9NU.png<br /><br />If you standardise Generations to 20 years, starting back from Millennials ending 2003, then no span of 20 years is skipped over, although the patterns remain similar. <br /><br />The span of Missionary->Progressive->Lost Generations seems like a good span for American Presidents, then going a bit more downhill with the GI Presidents beginning with Kennedy. Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-89372059313396849482015-10-06T23:39:10.922-04:002015-10-06T23:39:10.922-04:00"Strange they produced so many cultural icons..."Strange they produced so many cultural icons but few political leaders."<br /><br />Yes, Strauss and Howe nicknamed them the "Artistic" generation for that reason. Not sure why they produced so many iconic artistic figures. One idea I came up with is that, the conditions were so repressive for that generation, someone had to be really extraodinary to break through. BTW, Martin Luther King Jr. was also Silent Generation.<br /><br />One thing to keep in mind is that, in Britain, the social protests and cultural movements started earlier, in the late 50s. You could argue that the Beatles and Stones were more like Baby Boomers than the Silent Generation.Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-24752445030436020362015-10-06T23:12:02.742-04:002015-10-06T23:12:02.742-04:00It's interesting too that the relatively gentl...It's interesting too that the relatively gentle Silent created culture of the 60's and 70's has become sacred, beyond reproach. As for the pure Boomer stuff (like arena rock, disco/dancier music in general, and prog rock) that made inroads in the 70's then became dominant in the 80's, it's much more divisive. As usual with Boomers, it's direct to the point of being shameless and you love it or hate it.<br /><br />Certainly, it seems as if the more studied and sophisticated approach favored by Silents and very early Boomers made for better movies. But maybe that's just because by the time Boomers were hitting middle age (the 90's for most of them) creativity was fading.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-80877550932312027112015-10-06T22:59:47.167-04:002015-10-06T22:59:47.167-04:00"For example every performer at Woodstock , w..."For example every performer at Woodstock , with the exception of Santana , was born prior to 1945. and other notable 60s performers such as John Lennon, Mick Jagger, James Brown, Jim Morrison, Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin would have lasting impacts on the music of the 70s and 80s were all from the silent Generation." <br /><br />Right, most people (especially the Boomers) often erroneously lump in 60's culture as somehow the near universal product of the Boomers. Partly this is because Silents never made any kind of generational stand, partly it's because Silents were often fascinated by and encouraging of Boomers who seemed to be blessed with a charisma and boldness that Silents were mostly lacking in (1930's and 1940's culture expected youth to be well-mannered, subdued, and cautious). <br /><br />Silents mostly embraced young Boomer audiences, eager to soak up the energetic atmosphere even though they'd always harbor a doubt that they would never quite shake their sense of not being worth the adoration given to industrious G.I.s or vivacious Boomers.<br /><br />Only a small handful of Silents would ever really be that harsh on Boomers (Pat Buchanan is one of them). Silents believe in shades of gray, in being patient and reserving judgement. Meanwhile, any Boomer will always be ready to issue a resounding command whatever the subject or person.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-31549964139093211062015-10-06T22:31:48.240-04:002015-10-06T22:31:48.240-04:00"The movie def. has a more anti-conservative ..."The movie def. has a more anti-conservative bent, as the ones committing the atrocities are portrayed as being conservative rednecks."<br /><br />Judging from the worst real life atrocities, there were more than a few bad apples. I'm sure that under the stress, it wasn't just the Al Bundy types who snapped. At the risk of being presumptuous, I'd say a lot of vets did very regrettable things. And given Boomer hedonism and also the apparent substance use (which both is an effect and cause of reckless and alienated behavior), god knows a lot of terrible things happened. With all due respect to the people who restrained themselves.<br /><br />Vietnam was the beginning of Boomers assuming bad faith, in both institutions and really their fellow man in general. And it wasn't going to be the last thing that exposed their inability to keep their shit together.<br /><br />"Hard to believe, but you could initially get out of the draft if you were a college student. Not sure if that was a sign of rising inequality, or more a sign of egalitarianism"<br /><br />The Boomers were profoundly indulged. They were showered with praise and privilege from day one. Especially the ones born in the 40's and 50's. Their elders couldn't bear the thought of Mark or Steve being blown apart in their youth. So they created all kinds of means to avoiding service. As you say, the more blatant exemptions were eventually tossed out (in keeping with the egalitarian mood) but there simply was no way that so many Boomers were going to be thrown against their will into the war machine ala the previous several wars. <br /><br />Losts faced WW1 as another obstacle to be cleared (some even looked forward to the danger, as they had come to view life with weary and cynical eyes). G.I.s saw fighting as a matter of social obligation. Silents simply did what they were told, ever cautious about going against the grain too hard.<br /><br />But everybody (most of all, Boomers themselves) thought the Boomers were wonderful, were "special". So they were amply supplied with freedom, with resources (shelter, clothes, food, money, etc.), with love by affable G.I. parents and very early Silent parents who followed the G.I. example until the later 60's.<br /><br />Yet what effect did this have on Boomers? They quickly went on a tear (of drugs, of sex, of loud music, of bizarre spirituality, of raging activism) while the culture mostly spun this "experimentation" as idealistic (at best) or naively silly (at worst). Those who disapproved (mostly grumpy old Losts or conscientious G.I.s) were dismissed as out of touch.<br /><br />When America began to wake from this whimsy and disorder in the early 80's, it would be none other than Gen X-ers who would face the wrath of an increasingly moralistic and vindictive set of adults. Just as Gen X-ers began entering their later teens in the early 80's, young criminals were no longer given excuses or light sentences. After being neglected in the 70's, these already calloused youth did not protest the bum deal they were getting, though their attitudes and tastes reflected a curiously detached and cynical disgust at the smugness and hypocrisy of the "flower children" who were now proudly embracing the authority that they had sworn to reject.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-44462722567489931572015-10-06T19:30:48.317-04:002015-10-06T19:30:48.317-04:00it is interesting that the Silent Generation produ...it is interesting that the Silent Generation produced no Presidents...while the Silent Generation were the cultural icons of the 60s..For example every performer at Woodstock , with the exception of Santana , was born prior to 1945. and other notable 60s performers such as John Lennon, Mick Jagger, James Brown, Jim Morrison, Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin would have lasting impacts on the music of the 70s and 80s were all from the silent Generation. <br /><br />Similarly the noted actors from the 70s were mostlyl silent gen , Jack Nicholson , Warren Beatty , Clint Eastwood, Al Pacino, Robert Redford, Jane Fonda, Barbra Streisand, Harrison Ford, Richard Pryor. Strange they produced so many cultural icons but few political leaders.jovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17255734827055994617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-85359569932486348632015-10-06T13:13:25.282-04:002015-10-06T13:13:25.282-04:00to clarify what I meant, the college deferment may...to clarify what I meant, the college deferment may have been a holdover from the 50s when there was higher trust in institutions and people took college seriously. if you went to college, it meant you were going to make an important contribution to society by becoming a doctor, engineer, teacher, etc. as the war dragged on, they got rid of the college deferment because it became clear that the youth were using to purely to avoid the war(not that I blame them, since I agree with what Agnostic said about Vietnam being unjust and pointless).Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-21900624040378621582015-10-06T12:30:49.716-04:002015-10-06T12:30:49.716-04:00Hard to believe, but you could initially get out o...Hard to believe, but you could initially get out of the draft if you were a college student. Not sure if that was a sign of rising inequality, or more a sign of egalitarianism(rationale being that if you were learning to do something important, you shouldn't have to go fight the war). Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-51278158349413863332015-10-06T12:20:04.905-04:002015-10-06T12:20:04.905-04:00"Platoon" shows the gung-ho soldiers as ..."Platoon" shows the gung-ho soldiers as being more conservative, and the draftees as being more liberal blacks and working-class hippees and surfers. The movie def. has a more anti-conservative bent, as the ones committing the atrocities are portrayed as being conservative rednecks.Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-24100583075852515762015-10-05T19:59:48.640-04:002015-10-05T19:59:48.640-04:00"- US strategy to fight the VCs supposedly es..."- US strategy to fight the VCs supposedly essentially to send squads out to get ambushed by the VC who actually knew the terrain and could see them miles off (from the obviousness of their approach by plane etc) and then the rely on calling in bombings. This was not great for morale."<br /><br />"Platoon" (from '86) captures this well, though I've heard that some vets find the movie to be too melodramatic and unflattering to the troops. Off the top of my head, one of the characters is borderline psychotic (Sar. Barnes), another is a macho idiot, and another is a coward. I think Stone had to caricature some of the soldiers so that the drama was higher and also to get the movie green lit. Still a good movie.<br /><br />If you read up on some of the more harrowing massacres (in which a shockingly small number of U.S. personnel attempt to stop the mayhem) , I'm willing to give Stone the benefit of the doubt. Serial killer Richard Ramirez claimed that his vet. uncle had photos of mutilated corpses. Why the greater sociopathy in this war compared to WW2? Part of it was the enemy being more alien, part of it was venting frustration, part of it was cocky Boomers egging each other on to go bigger (whereas Losts, G.I.s, and Silents were more content to simply follow orders and survive). Supposedly the U.S. military was spurred by reluctant G.I. Gen tendencies in WW2 to develop more techniques to break down the fighting man's resistance to violence and danger. But I'm sure that given their narcissism and striving streak, Boomers were more enthusiastic about dealing violence.<br /><br />"Hamburger Hill" (from '87) is more of an almost documentary style look at the war. The writer (a vet) said that he struggled to get the movie financed because he didn't want the movie to come off as too Hollywood or too messagey. Not surprisingly, the movie didn't do too well (compared to Platoon, a big hit) and critics were indifferent. It probably didn't help that the depressing subject was a bit tough to face given that several of these movies came out in a short burst.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-16179132903273760762015-10-05T18:52:01.461-04:002015-10-05T18:52:01.461-04:00"The Perfect War: Technowar in Vietnam" ..."The Perfect War: Technowar in Vietnam" (on YouTube) is a pretty interesting documentary on the American-Vietnam War, worth watching. A couple things I think I remember in particular<br /><br />- US strategy to fight the VCs supposedly essentially to send squads out to get ambushed by the VC who actually knew the terrain and could see them miles off (from the obviousness of their approach by plane etc) and then the rely on calling in bombings. This was not great for morale.<br /><br />- The other side was bodycount quotas, as a metric of success.<br /><br />The whole thing apparently pretty managerial, oriented towards success as measure by metrics like tons of bombs dropped and numbers of people murdered, not strategic goals achieved. Based on this idea of an overwhelming American military war machine and industry, not tactical and strategic expertise and clear strategic goals. (In theory this was an evolution of the mythology of the WWII production effort, extended to the battlefield.)<br /><br />Though would we really call Vietnam the first symbolic war of no value? It sits in the context of the Korean War and other Cold War standoffs, which had got going earlier than Vietnam. Hard to see that there was much of a material interest in Korea, either, but that happened, because the North Koreans were communists backed by the Soviets.Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-91542181439886976092015-10-04T19:08:07.930-04:002015-10-04T19:08:07.930-04:00I'm not a foreign policy apologist. What I was...I'm not a foreign policy apologist. What I was getting at was a sense of putting aside your ego and your complaints and getting along. A culture of modesty and camaraderie which as you suggest isn't exactly being built up by post Boomer generations after the Boomers wrecked it. <br /><br />And many of the same people who dodged Vietnam are now power tripping all over the place. Clearly, the dodging wasn't motivated by noble morality as much as it was by a selfish desire to put the burden of warfare on others. Now that their graying and they've kept their heirs out of danger, they have no qualms about starting shit with everybody. These post Vietnam conflicts overseen largely by Boomers are no more productive, clear of purpose, or well executed than Vietnam itself.<br /><br />I'm fairly sure that most people born since about 1970 absolutely detest America the swaggering bully. My boss (born in '66) actually has succumbed to neo-con/"modern" Christian propaganda about the U.S. "saving" brown people from themselves. Hell, we can't even save our own asses at this point, let alone any one else.<br /><br />My original point all along is that Boomers inherited much good fortune than did oh so little to use that privilege, that inheritance, for anything particularly effective at preserving pre decadent culture. To be fair, a lot of the nonsense that ramped up in the 60's/70's was perpetrated by Silents and even a few G.I.s. Just the same, it's not like many Boomers did much to reverse those trends. Some Boomers did wise up and aren't as reckless as they once were, but for the most part they'd rather jump on the last life boat and paddle swiftly away than try to keep the ship afloat.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-18921066097920400402015-10-04T18:21:03.691-04:002015-10-04T18:21:03.691-04:00Let's make it more relevant: imagine there was...Let's make it more relevant: imagine there was a draft during the Iraq War. Would Gen X-ers and Millennials who dodged it be a sign of the unwillingness to uphold the culture of our ancestors?<br /><br />No. Our ancestors -- the ones who weren't crazy -- were spinning in their graves watching us hemorrhage trillions of dollars and thousands of lives just to topple the only stable leader that Iraq had had, turning the place into the stone age, leaving a vacuum for jihadi desert nomads to impose sharia and destroy the ruins of ancient Mesopotamia... all so we could lose our easy access to Iraqi oil that we enjoyed during the '80s when our client Saddam Hussein was in power.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-61363662130958324292015-10-04T18:15:08.943-04:002015-10-04T18:15:08.943-04:00"but we shouldn't ever forget how the avo..."but we shouldn't ever forget how the avoidance of service by many of the best and brightest ... was an early sign that the indulged Boomers had no intention of upholding the culture of their ancestors."<br /><br />Yep, nothing upholds the culture of our ancestors better than firebombing some jungle-dwelling Marxist wannabes who don't have anything of value to us and pose no threat to our security. Talk about blind faith.<br /><br />The Indians and Mexicans had lots of valuable, virgin land, and were launching raids against us from right next door. It's the polar opposite of the situation in Vietnam, which lay in a world apart from our ancestors' Monroe Doctrine.<br /><br />Our ancestors were purposeful with their courage, not indiscriminate. Boomer unwillingness to go to Vietnam, regardless of whether they served or not, was the right hunch to have.<br /><br />"My country right or wrong" only works when the goal is right. When the goals shift toward madness, blind loyalty is a recipe for collective suicide.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-16480328154222364852015-10-04T17:22:00.475-04:002015-10-04T17:22:00.475-04:00Don't forget that elite status-striving factor...Don't forget that elite status-striving factors in - the rich made tons of money building airfields, supplying munitions, etc. in Vietnam, which may be one explanation of why we got into the war in the first place - though the war profiteers may not have expected it to become a quagmire, if they cared.<br /><br />George Friedman, of Stratfor, argues Vietnam was a symbolic war to preserve our alliance system - if we didn't at least cause the Russians some pain for beating up on an ally, our other allies would have abandoned us to go over to the Soviets. in this view, the long duration of the war was out of spite - make them pay in money and lives to show our allies that, even if we couldn't always protect them, we could make the enemy pay a price.<br />Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-48403854523882986232015-10-04T17:07:55.974-04:002015-10-04T17:07:55.974-04:00"Plus Gen X and Millennials have grown up in ..."Plus Gen X and Millennials have grown up in an environment where the military has steadily gone downhill in terms of goals -- spreading democracy and human rights to the Third World? LOL -- and in terms of effectiveness (Iraq War). Not to mention any personal stories they've heard from family and friends about how fucked up the military is these days. No way on Earth would they go along with the draft."<br /><br />The lack of a draft is a sign of how divided people are and how opaque America's mission is. <br /><br />In a homogeneous culture with wise leaders, a draft would be much more feasible.<br /><br />"Millennials go the distance just to get out of a final exam -- do you really think they'd go along with being drafted into the army?"<br /><br />Millennials are easy to push around. Maybe they'd do poorly in the service but I don't think most would make much of an effort to disobey a draft call up. They certainly aren't neo Boomers who brashly go all in on whatever their heart desires (whether it's kicking gook ass or dodging war altogether).<br /><br />"And a fair chunk of the Boomers who did get drafted or signed up were all gung-ho to go kick some ass. They were the generation raised on the Davy Crockett craze, and Western mania, during the '50s."<br /><br />I'm sympathetic to those who went, sure, but we shouldn't ever forget how the avoidance of service by many of the best and brightest (who would to a large degree become America's future elite, check out an online list of politician dodgers some time) was an early sign that the indulged Boomers had no intention of upholding the culture of their ancestors. <br /><br />And also, at this stage of the game maybe we ought to finally hold the Boomers accountable for a lot of the shit they did (and still do). Many Boomer veterans pissed and moan about society not being there for them but what do they expect when they've poisoned the culture into a free for all? I don't blame people who did some heavy lifting for resenting "the system" but as usual most Boomers feel entitled, like if they do anything tough or admirable their hometowns should erect statues in their honor. These traits seemed to be worse with later Boomers simply because by the time they hit adulthood in the later 70's earlier cohorts were busy climbing the ladder while leaving grease on the lower rungs.<br /><br />Like you say, G.I.s and Silents stoically dealt with whatever hand they got and moved beyond it. You'd think that people might be sick and tired of the pity party and me 1st get-while-the-gettins-good culture that's solidified on the Boomer's watch over the last 30+ years.Ferylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-57622050262521759332015-10-04T16:55:23.381-04:002015-10-04T16:55:23.381-04:00So in defense of Boomer draft-dodgers, what the he...So in defense of Boomer draft-dodgers, what the hell was the point of going into Vietnam? There was no Hitler, so that ruled out a motive of saving millions of lives and preventing future threats to life in the region.<br /><br />Even from a cynical "what's in it for us?" motive, there was nothing to win control over in Vietnam -- no oil, bananas, sugar cane, tobacco, gold, nothing.<br /><br />There was a populist uprising, but it didn't threaten American economic interests (there being none in Southeast Asia). What's the point of putting down every little Marxist wannabe rebellion around the world, if they don't threaten anything worth controlling? (Unlike Marxists or nationalists in the Middle East, who threatened to nationalize their oil fields and jack up gas prices for Westerners.)<br /><br />Vietnam was the first real symbolic war of no greater value, pure Our System vs. Their System, meant to show that we'll kick anyone's ass who even disagrees with us, whether or not they have anything of value to take after victory, and whether or not they pose a physical threat to our territory and citizens. But going down that road makes you the policeman of the world, ensuring you'll get bogged down in a quagmire somewhere, your reach exceeding your grasp.<br /><br />The late '60s and early '70s are when the zeitgeist began to shift away from the Great Compression, and toward hyper-competitiveness. That showed up at the elite level, with the drive to lose at all costs in pointless Vietnam, and the young people picked up on it at the grassroots level, and began to become more rightly skeptical of the purpose of going to war, in the here-and-now.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-22056204308253980912015-10-04T16:36:40.837-04:002015-10-04T16:36:40.837-04:00"Had the draft been implemented in the 80'..."Had the draft been implemented in the 80's and beyond, Gen X-ers and Millennials would've been much more conducive to serving than Boomers were in the 60's."<br /><br />No way. The GSS has asked about whether we should return to a draft or not, and support always shows a steep decline with the late Boomer and later cohorts. Support rises / plateaus with the Greatest and early Silents, with late Silents and early Boomers waffling somewhat over the years.<br /><br />Millennials go the distance just to get out of a final exam -- do you really think they'd go along with being drafted into the army? Gen X is hardly more likely to sacrifice personally for the greater good of society.<br /><br />Plus Gen X and Millennials have grown up in an environment where the military has steadily gone downhill in terms of goals -- spreading democracy and human rights to the Third World? LOL -- and in terms of effectiveness (Iraq War). Not to mention any personal stories they've heard from family and friends about how fucked up the military is these days. No way on Earth would they go along with the draft.<br /><br />At least the Boomers had recent memories of a good war (WWII), and pop culture revivals of fighting the Indians, during their sensitive developmental window.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-58380112714417145052015-10-04T16:11:58.774-04:002015-10-04T16:11:58.774-04:00Americans no longer know what WWII was like becaus...Americans no longer know what WWII was like because of all the Boomer propaganda from the last 25 years. It's portrayed as Americans going in with the unbridled enthusiasm of the Boomers going into Vietnam, only this time against a truly evil enemy rather than one of ambiguous moral threat, and this time eradicating the threat rather than getting bogged down in a quagmire and having to leave.<br /><br />It's a clear case of a Boomer coping mechanism to deal with their psychological scars from the Vietnam era, by reliving the good war of WWII. And it's not a vicarious or empathetic experience -- wanting to feel as the Greatest Gen did as soldiers, stoic and wary, fulfilling a duty regardless of personal desire. Boomers want to have their hyper-competitive cake and eat it too, still identifying themselves as gung-ho soldiers champing at the bit to go kick some Nazi ass, and WINNING this time.<br /><br />To understand WWII, we have to return to the original time.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-45021574271379756512015-10-04T15:57:42.815-04:002015-10-04T15:57:42.815-04:00Young people were the most in favor of the Vietnam...Young people were the most in favor of the Vietnam War, according to polls taken throughout the duration. Middle-aged and older folks may not have loudly protested, but they were more wary of sending boys away to some jungle on the other side of the world.<br /><br />And a fair chunk of the Boomers who did get drafted or signed up were all gung-ho to go kick some ass. They were the generation raised on the Davy Crockett craze, and Western mania, during the '50s.<br /><br />I wouldn't say it was Boomer narcissism, but Boomer hyper-competitiveness that led them to be enthusiastic about going to war. Boomers have always been obsessed with WINNING, no matter what it's at. As opposed to the Greatest Gen who felt serving in WWII more as fulfilling a societal duty, whether they liked it or not, than a chance to go for the ultimate glory.<br /><br />The Greatest Gen also did not grow up on romantic / glorified images of war -- their childhood memories would have involved the bleak and senseless losses of WWI, mustard gas, shell shock, the Spanish flu pandemic, the Red Scare, and so on. That tempered any enthusiasm they might have had going into WWII. The portrayal of them at the time was that they were stoic rather than gung-ho in battle (e.g., movie version of The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit).agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.com