Presidential "Skipping" of Silents/Gen X

[David Horn]

(03-22-2019, 04:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 08:54 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Obama was the first Gen X president. 

If you go by Strauss and Howe's timeline he is Gen X, and while he is definitely a Gen Joneser, he seems more Gen X-like to me than Boomer-like.  He is too cautious and lacking in narcissism to be a Boomer.

Those seem like valid points. The difference, though, is that he did not go along with the individualist Reaganoid program, like most Gen X politicians have. He has greater vision and awareness of history, a boomer trait. No Gen X politicians have come forward yet of either party who have the ability to win a general election for the USA presidency. Gen Xers are too cynical for civics class. Those who can win have thus stayed apart from politics.

I'll have to go with garbrielle on this one.  From the day he was elected (perhaps even before that) BHO was compared to Eisenhower,  That's about as Nomad as it gets.

Eric Wrote:No, Beto can't win. His score is 11-26. Harris can't win. Her score is 4-16. Gillibrand 8-13, and Booker 6-7. So on with any Gen X contender you look at. The traits that make them losers will soon be obvious. Trump still can beat any known potential Gen X challenger in his party, according to his score.

We have no idea who'll be still standing by this time next year.  Among others, Carter, Clinton and Trump were afterthoughts this early in their first election years.  And let's not forget: most of the people running are in it for the publicity.  I think Beto is probably one of them.   Ditto for Gillibrand.  Let's give this a few months to marinate.  We have more candidates to add, and some to subtract, before things get serious.

[pbrower2a]

(03-22-2019, 10:34 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 04:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 08:54 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Obama was the first Gen X president. 

If you go by Strauss and Howe's timeline he is Gen X, and while he is definitely a Gen Joneser, he seems more Gen X-like to me than Boomer-like.  He is too cautious and lacking in narcissism to be a Boomer.

Those seem like valid points. The difference, though, is that he did not go along with the individualist Reaganoid program, like most Gen X politicians have. He has greater vision and awareness of history, a boomer trait. No Gen X politicians have come forward yet of either party who have the ability to win a general election for the USA presidency. Gen Xers are too cynical for civics class. Those who can win have thus stayed apart from politics.

No, Beto can't win. His score is 11-26. Harris can't win. Her score is 4-16. Gillibrand 8-13, and Booker 6-7. So on with any Gen X contender you look at. The traits that make them losers will soon be obvious. Trump still can beat any known potential Gen X challenger in his party, according to his score.

I can't really see what these politicians' scores according to your astrological system have to do with whether Obama is Gen X or not.

And since Trump is a Boomer does that mean that he has "greater vision and awareness of history?"

I see Donald Trump as so awful that the grudging acceptance that many voters gave him in 2016 has become full-blown contempt. He may have picked up some people who like his plutocratic agenda because it cuts their taxes and lightens regulation, but the opinions of new voters of 2020 (who will be largely Millennial) are as a whole hostile to his Presidency.

"Greater vision and awareness of history" is something that one develops, chooses to neglect in favor of something more practical and enjoyable (let us say engineering or music), or has no desire to develop. Most dangerous is a superficial, biased, and wrong understanding of history that leads one astray into a very flawed vision and awareness of history. Think of Hitler at the extreme, who had the same history teacher that Adolf Eichmann had in the Austrian equivalent of K-12 education. Hitler thought that he knew History as a sort of Providence -- which is terribly wrong.

Almost as bad was Karl Marx, having been fascinated by Roman ruins in his native Trier (Augusta Treverorum in Roman days), and having the Enlightenment-era view of the world as largely progress, believed that the slave system of classical times gave way to the 'progress' of feudalism. A deeper historian Vinogradoff demonstrates that the classical order (and with it its ability to enforce the master-slave relationship and protect the Roman elites from dispossession) simply broke down, and slaves and serfs in rural areas generally became freehold farmers in the Dark Ages, only to become serfs again as they found themselves in danger of ravaging Saracens, Magyars, and Vikings, giving control of what had been their small parcels of land to a defender who created the medieval relationship of lord and serf. Can anyone see the succession of the slave system of the Romans to a community-lacking libertarianism by default to the feudal system as progress? The peasant dream is to own his own land and have little interference from the government even as taxes, which made Peasant parties as reliably conservative as aristocratic parties before World War II in central Europe. To this day, small farmers are a big constituency of the Conservative Party in the UK.

So I am more likely to examine institutions and how they solve problems at first, become institutions of power, either outlaw or render irrelevant any alternatives, and become increasingly rigid, corrupt, repressive, and deranged. Such is more Toynbee than Marx -- or for that matter, Djilas, who explains how Communist regimes went from revolutionary to reactionary about as Toynbee was in his last years. Power, and not formal ownership, creates the potential for severe exploitation; the nomenklatura of 'socialist' administrators of the economy become as rapacious as the executive elite of capitalist countries and develop aristocratic ways even to the extent of passing down power in a hereditary way. Marx thought that the owners were the inevitable oppressors and that 'socialist' democracy in a society with no private ownership would solve all problems. Professors, Party hacks, administrators, and senior officers have the same potential for exploiting the masses as do plutocrats.

It is safe to recognize that Obama understands his history, and was able to draw upon a broad base of knowledge for political wisdom. He could even draw upon knowledge of some Chicago figures that he surely despised (Obama has always been on the side of law and order) in signing off on an underworld-style resembling what Al Capone did to rival gangster Johnny Torrio -- but the victim was Osama bin Laden. Knowing that bin Laden was nearly as hated in places like Moscow, Teheran, and Beijing as in America, he knew what the diplomatic response would be: silence. Of course, whacking Osama bin Laden required more sophisticated intelligence (CIA) and muscle (Special Forces). After this, an egregious terrorist would not be safe even in Langley, Virginia (CIA headquarters).

For those capable of such, a sophisticated knowledge of history is a choice, whatever generational type one is born into (and stays in). Toynbee and Obama are both members of Reactive generations; Toynbee had no generational solidarity with a man born the same year as he was. Hint: 1889. If we are in a Crisis Era, then we need leaders who can call upon the eternal relevance of someone like Lincoln, FDR, Churchill... maybe Garibaldi, Juarez, Gandhi, Mannerheim, or Adenauer under somewhat different circumstances.

Howe and Strauss recognized the best features of Idealist leadership -- virtues of decisiveness, principle, and culture -- but also the hazards of arrogance, selfishness, and ruthlessness. Trump exemplifies few of the cardinal virtues of Idealists at their best; he flamboyantly exhibits arrogance, selfishness, and ruthlessness. He has more in common with Trotsky (an example of an Idealist at the worst) than with Churchill. The most significant similarity that Churchill and Trump share is that they are both rich landowners.

After the flagrant anti-intellectualism, dishonesty, and cruelty of Donald Trump we will want the antithesis.

[Bill the Piper]

(03-22-2019, 08:54 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Obama was the first Gen X president. 

If you go by Strauss and Howe's timeline he is Gen X, and while he is definitely a Gen Joneser, he seems more Gen X-like to me than Boomer-like.  He is too cautious and lacking in narcissism to be a Boomer.

I think Obama is a cusper, he is too old to be pure Xer, yet too young to be a pure boomer. His behaviour in office was similar to that of Justin Trudeau, who is certainly an Xer. Obama might be the matrix upon which the political persona of left-wing Xers is based.

[Eric the Green]

(03-22-2019, 10:34 PM)gabrielle Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 04:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 08:54 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Obama was the first Gen X president. 

If you go by Strauss and Howe's timeline he is Gen X, and while he is definitely a Gen Joneser, he seems more Gen X-like to me than Boomer-like.  He is too cautious and lacking in narcissism to be a Boomer.

Those seem like valid points. The difference, though, is that he did not go along with the individualist Reaganoid program, like most Gen X politicians have. He has greater vision and awareness of history, a boomer trait. No Gen X politicians have come forward yet of either party who have the ability to win a general election for the USA presidency. Gen Xers are too cynical for civics class. Those who can win have thus stayed apart from politics.

No, Beto can't win. His score is 11-26. Harris can't win. Her score is 4-16. Gillibrand 8-13, and Booker 6-7. So on with any Gen X contender you look at. The traits that make them losers will soon be obvious. Trump still can beat any known potential Gen X challenger in his party, according to his score.

I can't really see what these politicians' scores according to your astrological system have to do with whether Obama is Gen X or not.

And since Trump is a Boomer does that mean that he has "greater vision and awareness of history?"

The question is whether presidential leadership will skip the Xers and Silents. Your answer is that Obama is an Xer, so X wasn't skipped. I would say he's a cusper, and the Xer candidates so far aren't going to be elected; so it seems Gen X will be skipped. But, we don't really know who might come onto the scene from Gen X in the future. So there might be a core Xer president; it just doesn't look that way now.

No, Trump does not have "greater vision and awareness of history." Of course it's obvious we can't expect every person to reflect the traits of their generation. Generations are generalities.

[Eric the Green]

(03-23-2019, 07:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 04:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 08:54 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Obama was the first Gen X president. 

If you go by Strauss and Howe's timeline he is Gen X, and while he is definitely a Gen Joneser, he seems more Gen X-like to me than Boomer-like.  He is too cautious and lacking in narcissism to be a Boomer.

Those seem like valid points. The difference, though, is that he did not go along with the individualist Reaganoid program, like most Gen X politicians have. He has greater vision and awareness of history, a boomer trait. No Gen X politicians have come forward yet of either party who have the ability to win a general election for the USA presidency. Gen Xers are too cynical for civics class. Those who can win have thus stayed apart from politics.

I'll have to go with garbrielle on this one.  From the day he was elected (perhaps even before that) BHO was compared to Eisenhower,  That's about as Nomad as it gets.

Eric Wrote:No, Beto can't win. His score is 11-26. Harris can't win. Her score is 4-16. Gillibrand 8-13, and Booker 6-7. So on with any Gen X contender you look at. The traits that make them losers will soon be obvious. Trump still can beat any known potential Gen X challenger in his party, according to his score.

We have no idea who'll be still standing by this time next year.  Among others, Carter, Clinton and Trump were afterthoughts this early in their first election years.  And let's not forget: most of the people running are in it for the publicity.  I think Beto is probably one of them.   Ditto for Gillibrand.  Let's give this a few months to marinate.  We have more candidates to add, and some to subtract, before things get serious.

I know Mr. Brower compares Obama to Ike. They both seem to be moderate and easy going and didn't rock the boat all that much. But they are not really all that similar. Obama sought to transform the politics, institutions and economy of the country. He faced a national division that no president could have overcome, other than by civil war. Obama made initiatives, whereas Eisenhower appointed car dealers as cabinet secretaries. Eisenhower personally, despite his engaging wide grin and victory signal, was really kind of a typical old nomad curmudgeon. Obama is a young, idealistic cool dude, and he broke ground by being the first black president. Ike was just following in the footsteps of Washington and Grant. So, I wouldn't carry the similarity too far. Being a 4T president is different from being a 1T one; Nomads have a better chance to reign in the latter turning.

It's very early indeed in the presidential race; publicity is right. I'm hoping one of the few candidates who can beat Trump jump in. Bernie and Biden are crap shoots at best; the rest so far have no chance.

[gabrielle]

(03-23-2019, 08:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-23-2019, 07:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 04:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 08:54 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Obama was the first Gen X president. 

If you go by Strauss and Howe's timeline he is Gen X, and while he is definitely a Gen Joneser, he seems more Gen X-like to me than Boomer-like.  He is too cautious and lacking in narcissism to be a Boomer.

Those seem like valid points. The difference, though, is that he did not go along with the individualist Reaganoid program, like most Gen X politicians have. He has greater vision and awareness of history, a boomer trait. No Gen X politicians have come forward yet of either party who have the ability to win a general election for the USA presidency. Gen Xers are too cynical for civics class. Those who can win have thus stayed apart from politics.

I'll have to go with garbrielle on this one.  From the day he was elected (perhaps even before that) BHO was compared to Eisenhower,  That's about as Nomad as it gets.

Eric Wrote:No, Beto can't win. His score is 11-26. Harris can't win. Her score is 4-16. Gillibrand 8-13, and Booker 6-7. So on with any Gen X contender you look at. The traits that make them losers will soon be obvious. Trump still can beat any known potential Gen X challenger in his party, according to his score.

We have no idea who'll be still standing by this time next year.  Among others, Carter, Clinton and Trump were afterthoughts this early in their first election years.  And let's not forget: most of the people running are in it for the publicity.  I think Beto is probably one of them.   Ditto for Gillibrand.  Let's give this a few months to marinate.  We have more candidates to add, and some to subtract, before things get serious.

I know Mr. Brower compares Obama to Ike. They both seem to be moderate and easy going and didn't rock the boat all that much. But they are not really all that similar. Obama sought to transform the politics, institutions and economy of the country. He faced a national division that no president could have overcome, other than by civil war. Obama made initiatives, whereas Eisenhower appointed car dealers as cabinet secretaries. Eisenhower personally, despite his engaging wide grin and victory signal, was really kind of a typical old nomad curmudgeon. Obama is a young, idealistic cool dude, and he broke ground by being the first black president. Ike was just following in the footsteps of Washington and Grant. So, I wouldn't carry the similarity too far. Being a 4T president is different from being a 1T one; Nomads have a better chance to reign in the latter turning.

Of course he was, he is Gen X!   And Gen X was the most American diverse generation up to that point, so it was about time for a black president.  Eisenhower was "old" and Obama "young" because in 2008 we were roughly around the time of the Wall Street Crash of '29 on the previous saeculum's timeline.

Obama was hardly a radical.  It seems to me his policies in reaction to the financial crisis and his health care reforms were attempts at modernizing and remedying problems while maintaining the status quo as much as possible.  He was liberal on social issues, but this is not totally out of character, necessarily, for Nomad leaders in the US.   Truman desegregated the military (later fully implemented by Eisenhower), and Ike ordered military protection for young black students attending white schools for the first time in Little Rock after the Brown vs Board of Education desegregation ruling (presided over by Chief Justice Earl Warren, also Lost generation).  Here's an interesting article about Eisenhower's attempt to pass significant voting rights measures, blocked by Civic Lyndon Johnson and others who at that time feared backlash from his southern constituents.  https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/opini...chols.html

[Bill the Piper]

(03-23-2019, 08:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Obama is a young, idealistic cool dude, and he broke ground by being the first black president.

Is he that idealistic? He is probably less idealistic than Bush (an Apollonian prophet) or Clinton (a Dionysian prophet). I agree with the following diagnosis:

https://www.thegenxfiles.com/2009/03/30/...nt-page-1/

Obama, as a Generation X’er, does not seem to have the same righteousness of our previous two presidents. Although he is certainly has a direction for the country, it seems to be based much more on pragmatic goals (both short and long-term) rather than an ideal state that we should try to achieve. He is willing to compromise ideals to try to attain practical ends.

Though on this photo he does look like a boomer!

[Eric the Green]

(03-25-2019, 09:59 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(03-23-2019, 08:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Obama is a young, idealistic cool dude, and he broke ground by being the first black president.

Is he that idealistic? He is probably less idealistic than Bush (an Apollonian prophet) or Clinton (a Dionysian prophet). I agree with the following diagnosis:

https://www.thegenxfiles.com/2009/03/30/...nt-page-1/

Obama, as a Generation X’er, does not seem to have the same righteousness of our previous two presidents. Although he is certainly has a direction for the country, it seems to be based much more on pragmatic goals (both short and long-term) rather than an ideal state that we should try to achieve. He is willing to compromise ideals to try to attain practical ends.

Though on this photo he does look like a boomer!

Yes, and so he is -- a boomer hybrid right on the cusp. And his Uranus is still in Leo, which as I see it makes him more Boomer than Xer, although overall, 1961 is the cusp year for that position as well, but so is early 1962.

Obama was certainly an idealist. He had a definite vision of where to take the country that was in accord with the needs of the time. He wanted to end the wars and uphold the ideal of a sustainable planet in the face of climate change. That is true idealism, and reflects the idealism of all the blue boomers in office today; and the same was true of Bill Clinton. Both were compromisers, so that seems a trait perfectly compatible with being a prophet idealist. 

Some boomers are self-righteous, arrogant, stubborn extremists (like Trump), but that doesn't mean we prophets all are. He was miles and miles more idealistic than W. Bush, who was a strong extreme reactionary. His "righteous ideal" was to restore American imperialism, which was already long-outdated. He opposed almost all the policies that were needed in his time. Genuine idealists look to the future, not the past. Genuine idealists seek to enact the policies that will solve problems; so-called "realists" merely seek to defend the interests of those who currently have wealth and power. Blue Boomers are genuine prophet-idealists; Red Boomers are fake ones. That's the real division here between Clinton and Obama on one hand, and W. Bush and Trump on the other.

[Eric the Green]

(03-25-2019, 09:19 AM)gabrielle Wrote:

(03-23-2019, 08:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-23-2019, 07:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 04:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-22-2019, 08:54 AM)gabrielle Wrote: Obama was the first Gen X president. 

If you go by Strauss and Howe's timeline he is Gen X, and while he is definitely a Gen Joneser, he seems more Gen X-like to me than Boomer-like.  He is too cautious and lacking in narcissism to be a Boomer.

Those seem like valid points. The difference, though, is that he did not go along with the individualist Reaganoid program, like most Gen X politicians have. He has greater vision and awareness of history, a boomer trait. No Gen X politicians have come forward yet of either party who have the ability to win a general election for the USA presidency. Gen Xers are too cynical for civics class. Those who can win have thus stayed apart from politics.

I'll have to go with garbrielle on this one.  From the day he was elected (perhaps even before that) BHO was compared to Eisenhower,  That's about as Nomad as it gets.

Eric Wrote:No, Beto can't win. His score is 11-26. Harris can't win. Her score is 4-16. Gillibrand 8-13, and Booker 6-7. So on with any Gen X contender you look at. The traits that make them losers will soon be obvious. Trump still can beat any known potential Gen X challenger in his party, according to his score.

We have no idea who'll be still standing by this time next year.  Among others, Carter, Clinton and Trump were afterthoughts this early in their first election years.  And let's not forget: most of the people running are in it for the publicity.  I think Beto is probably one of them.   Ditto for Gillibrand.  Let's give this a few months to marinate.  We have more candidates to add, and some to subtract, before things get serious.

I know Mr. Brower compares Obama to Ike. They both seem to be moderate and easy going and didn't rock the boat all that much. But they are not really all that similar. Obama sought to transform the politics, institutions and economy of the country. He faced a national division that no president could have overcome, other than by civil war. Obama made initiatives, whereas Eisenhower appointed car dealers as cabinet secretaries. Eisenhower personally, despite his engaging wide grin and victory signal, was really kind of a typical old nomad curmudgeon. Obama is a young, idealistic cool dude, and he broke ground by being the first black president. Ike was just following in the footsteps of Washington and Grant. So, I wouldn't carry the similarity too far. Being a 4T president is different from being a 1T one; Nomads have a better chance to reign in the latter turning.

Of course he was, he is Gen X!   And Gen X was the most American diverse generation up to that point, so it was about time for a black president.  Eisenhower was "old" and Obama "young" because in 2008 we were roughly around the time of the Wall Street Crash of '29 on the previous saeculum's timeline.

Obama was hardly a radical.  It seems to me his policies in reaction to the financial crisis and his health care reforms were attempts at modernizing and remedying problems while maintaining the status quo as much as possible.  He was liberal on social issues, but this is not totally out of character, necessarily, for Nomad leaders in the US.   Truman desegregated the military (later fully implemented by Eisenhower), and Ike ordered military protection for young black students attending white schools for the first time in Little Rock after the Brown vs Board of Education desegregation ruling (presided over by Chief Justice Earl Warren, also Lost generation).  Here's an interesting article about Eisenhower's attempt to pass significant voting rights measures, blocked by Civic Lyndon Johnson and others who at that time feared backlash from his southern constituents.  https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/opini...chols.html

Gen Xers who have become presidential candidates and well-known politicians are a diverse lot, politically. Most of those who came into prominence earlier were conservatives hooked on Reaganomics. Now, there are also others who are more liberal and idealistic. None of them have the leadership ability that is more typical of prophets. The Lost Generation presidents didn't break too much new ground, and they weren't extremists or bold idealists; they adjusted to the times and did what they thought was necessary, such as the things Ike did. Obama, being a cusper, has traits of both boomers and Xers. Neither generation can totally claim him. Obama had ambitious plans, like totally overhauling health care and our energy system. His initiatives were almost as bold as those of LBJ and FDR as president. That is not a pure Xer or nomad approach. We can't fault him that his initiatives only garnered partial success; that is due to the divided society we live in. It would take a civil war, or something nearly like it, to fix the problems we have now. I expect that as we get there sometime in the mid-2020s, there will still be a late boomer or Boomer-Xer who will take up the challenge and be the next Lincoln. And like many, I hope and expect that the scales will weigh somewhat better in the direction of progress as the more diverse and socially-aware millennial generation take up where the GI civics left off and become more numerous in our political society.

And Obama had leadership abilities that people recognized, which is not true of any Xer candidates so far. The cynicism of Generation X, especially about politics, is probably the reason that better candidates have not come forth. I would think there would be someone who would score well on my system, for example (which indicates candidates who can win), but none have come forth, except maybe, maybe, the liar Tulsi, who is a cusper on the other side. As we get into the Millennial candidate region (and as we get into the 1T too), I expect more Xers and Xer-Millennials will come forth as well as Millennials who have the talents that fit the times and needs of a first turning.

[Anthony '58]

Obama cannot possibly have been a Nomad elder, since it certainly wasn't 1T when he was POTUS - and I say that he wasn't even a 4T POTUS, as inequality continues to widen and the Culture Wars rage harder than ever.

Either the Crash of October 2019 that I have been predicting since the days of the original 4T forum, or the 2020 election and the reaction to it, will set off the 4T for real.

[Eric the Green]

(03-25-2019, 09:59 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(03-23-2019, 08:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Obama is a young, idealistic cool dude, and he broke ground by being the first black president.

Is he that idealistic? He is probably less idealistic than Bush (an Apollonian prophet) or Clinton (a Dionysian prophet). I agree with the following diagnosis:

https://www.thegenxfiles.com/2009/03/30/...nt-page-1/

Obama, as a Generation X’er, does not seem to have the same righteousness of our previous two presidents. Although he is certainly has a direction for the country, it seems to be based much more on pragmatic goals (both short and long-term) rather than an ideal state that we should try to achieve. He is willing to compromise ideals to try to attain practical ends.

Though on this photo he does look like a boomer!

I don't see that Bill Clinton was any less pragmatic than Obama. By any measure, Obama's program was more visionary and less compromising than Clinton's, who made deals with the devil of the kind that even Obama did not do. As for Bush, his ideal was to start wars to spread democracy around the world. Was than an "ideal society?" No, he offered no ideals at all; just wars, and the spreading of business-as-usual for his own country around the world.

[pbrower2a]

Any morality in Obama is strictly a reflection of pragmatism -- that certain behaviors succeed and certain ones fail. Evil usually fails of its own rottenness, which is something that many Reactive/Nomads discover the hard way. So Obama learned this early? His schools warned him about Nazis, and that is an unforgettable lesson for anyone. Visionary? Not in the least. Ike's Interstate Highways that make bad roads less of a menace is a fair analogy to his Obamacare. Spreading democracy throughout the world? He was happy to whack Osama bin Laden.

He acted like a mature Lost leader in late midlife or the young-old stage of life, which is not bad leadership. It has little semblance of a grand agenda. It's up to the rest of us to have grand ideas, thinks the mature Reactive. So respect the tried-and-true and eschew extremism? That is Obama -- or Eisenhower.

[Hintergrund]

OTOH, he talked much like a "Prophet". Hope and Change and everything. Sounds good, but at the end of the day empty words. And he certainly wasn't fiscally conservative, on the contrary.

[jleagans]

Nikki Haley still stands out as the only Gen X'er who can win the Presidency.

[David Horn]

(01-23-2020, 07:23 PM)jleagans Wrote: Nikki Haley still stands out as the only Gen X'er who can win the Presidency.

If she can avoid climbing into the Trump tank, you're quite right.

[Tim Randal Walker]

The pattern of a 1T seems a bit more predictable than 4T.

In early 1T we are likely to see at least one Xer (in the Mature Nomad phase), possibly two. A Millenial by late 1T, at the latest.



One bit of ambiguity for 1T-could there possibly be an individual on the Xer/Millie cusp?

[pbrower2a]

Obama seems to have done what Adaptive men often do, melding characteristics of the masculinity of the older generation just before his... and the gender younger than his. To be sure he may be imitating GI masculinity as well as Boom masculinity instead of Millennial masculinity and Boom masculinity. Such is often a mess, but I see GI rationality and decisiveness with Boom judgment, which is the worst thing that Osama bin Laden could have encountered in a nemesis.

Obama did a superb job in appealing to Millennial adults.

[jleagans]

Nah, those boomer dates are totally off.

The generation starts in 1946 as they are DEFINED as the generation born after the war, which ended in 1945.

And sure this is a personal theory of mine but I would argue that Gen X starts the moment the bullet went into JFK. That's THE moment the optimism gave way to cynicism.

Millennials start 1984, as 1983 is when the unemployment from stagflation ended (pessimism giving way to optimism and morning in america).

And Zoomers start 9/11.

These are the turning points in the American zeitgeist that defined our national moods, and for generational theory to work it has to work around these moments.

[linus]

Well, of course, the fact that former Vice President Biden (a Silent) and his running mate, Kamala Harris (an xer - by Strauss and Howe's definition), are currently favored to win the presidential contest. If you look at Stephen Skowronek's book and theory, "the Politics Presidents Make," the first "wild card" presidency was Andrew Johnson (ie a presidency which was in some sense a zombie form of the past majority order, the zombiefication of the Andrew Jackson Democrats, and occurring after a reconstructive/realigning presidency - Mr. Lincoln), but possibly the second was Carter (occurring after a possible 1968 Republican realignment, crystallizing under Reagan) - and I'm not assigning him a moral judgment (being a liberal, and hopefully others will in a basic and objective sense realize that whatever they thought of his presidency he went on to do some virtuous things). But the third I think is Mr. Trump - and here's hoping for his health and well being, and that of his family - who resurrected the Nixon/Reagan ideology after the Obama realignment. If I had to guess I think it was the fact that in both the case of Carter and Trump it's because Americans are living longer, and therefore political coalitions last longer. Also: I'm tired, and going to bed. Have to get up and work on lines for a tv movie about a millennial nanny trying to seduce me (well, okay, she does), and kidnap my son. Peace and kindess.

[David Horn]

linus,

Good to hear from you. Stop by more often.