The impasse in Washington is difficult to understand. Is it just the tired, old Republican versus Democratic conflict? Is it more of a philosophical conservative versus liberal conflict? I have viewed it as Tea Party versus Reagan Republican conflict. But, one pundit suggested the obvious, i.e., that it is all the above but complicated by a generational conflict.
She speculated that the average age of Reagan Republicans is 60, while the average age of Tea Party members is only 45 (but didn't have the metrics to back that up). She did not speculate why that was important.
Is it because younger people see black & white clearly but not grays? Is it because older people have lost the will to fight or already have a belly-full of conflict? Is it because older people have found confrontation is seldom a winning strategy over the long-term?
Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1788) wrote extensively on how people reflect their social and historical environment. A 45-year-old has no memory of Vietnam. Their only experience with war is the "war on terror" in which a small number of volunteers fought far from home. Their only obligation is to be overly-solicitous of veterans, merely thanking them for their service. They came of age in the aftermath of the Cold War, as the world recognized the U.S. as the only super-power. They came into middle-age as the U.S. stumbled into the realization that we will not remain the only super-power much longer. They witnessed the birth of the internet age, when sources of communication diversified from the mainstream media into outlets for every extreme viewpoint.
Futurist Alvin Toffler (born 1928) wrote extensively about the rate of change increasing ever faster. Does a mere 15 year difference in average age change perspectives that much?
Is there such a difference in generational perspective among Democrats? Why not?
She speculated that the average age of Reagan Republicans is 60, while the average age of Tea Party members is only 45 (but didn't have the metrics to back that up). She did not speculate why that was important.
Is it because younger people see black & white clearly but not grays? Is it because older people have lost the will to fight or already have a belly-full of conflict? Is it because older people have found confrontation is seldom a winning strategy over the long-term?
Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1788) wrote extensively on how people reflect their social and historical environment. A 45-year-old has no memory of Vietnam. Their only experience with war is the "war on terror" in which a small number of volunteers fought far from home. Their only obligation is to be overly-solicitous of veterans, merely thanking them for their service. They came of age in the aftermath of the Cold War, as the world recognized the U.S. as the only super-power. They came into middle-age as the U.S. stumbled into the realization that we will not remain the only super-power much longer. They witnessed the birth of the internet age, when sources of communication diversified from the mainstream media into outlets for every extreme viewpoint.
Futurist Alvin Toffler (born 1928) wrote extensively about the rate of change increasing ever faster. Does a mere 15 year difference in average age change perspectives that much?
Is there such a difference in generational perspective among Democrats? Why not?
