Presidential "Skipping" of Silents/Gen X

[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.