Entries Tagged 'generation gap' ↓

If I were in the Obama camp, I would quit trying to sell the idea that the “change” he’s offering is generational, because, as I recently noted, the Clinton generation (of which I’m nominally a part) is not exactly ready to hand over the reins (and Obama’s tendency to talk like a punk doesn’t help matters).

But generational change is how some Dems are painting the “differences” between the Clinton and Obama camps—differences that are being elided as Obama “Moves to the Center,” claims Thomas Edsall in the HuffPo [e.a.]:

In the international relations policy arena, sources in and out of the Obama camp described a more subtle process taking place, as Obama is forced to decide which Clinton experts to add to the team, and at what level in the hierarchy.

“While there are exceptions on both sides, one of the key differences between the Clinton and Obama foreign policy gurus is generational. And this generational split has significant consequences,” one knowledgeable expert said, speaking on background. “In the main, the senior folks in the Clinton administration (1993-2001) went with Hillary, while many of the less senior people went with Obama.”

Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy advisers came of political age during the Cold War, in many cases during in the Carter administration, and tend to see the world in terms of states and state conflicts, this source said. In addition, many of Hillary Clinton’s top advisers “spent eight years dealing with Saddam [Hussein's] intransigence in the 90s,” making them more receptive to the arguments for invading Iraq.

Conversely, this expert argued, many of the Obama advisers are post-Cold War theorists who tend to see the world in terms of failed states, the influence of technology, food crises, non-state actors like Osama bin Laden, the spread of nuclear weapons, and the uneven distribution of the benefits of globalization.

Another way of seeing this “generational difference,” of course, is this: having experience (aka coming of political age is a form of experience, which the Clintonistas have) versus having smart-(ass) ideas (aka being post-Cold War “theorists”—which the Obamabots think they have).

Meanwhile, one prominent California family lives out a different kind of drama at home, where it’s not a left-sectarian fight but rather a GOP-vs-Dems debating (sorta) society:

Of all the supporters behind the two presumptive nominees for president this year, none are quite as intriguing as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has thrown his support behind Senator John McCain, and the governor’s wife, Maria Shriver, a Democrat and vocal backer of Senator Barack Obama.

The lawn of their Brentwood home has dueling campaign signs. The breakfast table has become a casual debating society. Ms. Shriver is even threatening to bring a life-size cutout of her preferred candidate into the house, something the governor has seen her do in other elections. “When one of the candidates screws up,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said of the cutouts, “the kids carry them outside.”

And to my great relief, the Dem side in this battle is represented by a fair-minded person—a “little-d democrat” [e.a.]:

“I think there are great benefits to having kids grow up understanding that we do not live in a one-party system,” Ms. Shriver said. “That there are two ways at looking at an issue. To be patient, and to compromise, those are good lessons not just in politics but for life. I grew up believing there was only one way to think. There isn’t.”

All hail the friendly enmity between people with different politics!

Who isn’t advising Barack Obama?

On foreign policy alone, some 200 experts are providing the Obama campaign with assistance of some sort, arranged into 20 subgroups. On the domestic front, more than 500 policy experts are contributing ideas, campaign aides said. Veterans of previous election campaigns say the scale of the policy operation resembles the full-blown effort candidates typically undertake for a general election campaign rather than the more stripped-down versions common for the primary season.

You don’t need to be a politico to see that none of this is about Obama-love per se. Rather, it’s about the nausea brought on by the thought of a Clinton restoration.

She may not be your cuppa,

focusing as she does on family, faith, respect for the elderly, and the gentle suggestion that as human beings we should all look for the things we have in common rather than the things that tear us apart:

“The pressures of modern life sometimes seem to be weakening the links which have traditionally kept us together as families and communities. As children grow up and develop their own sense of confidence and independence in the ever-changing technological environment, there is always the danger of a real divide opening up between young and old, based on unfamiliarity, ignorance or misunderstanding. It is worth bearing in mind that all of our faith communities encourage the bridging of that divide.”

That’s why Britain’s Channel 4 offers an alternative each year to the queen’s annual Christmas message, which is broadcast on BBC and ITV. Yesterday, it was presented by this woman,

a British convert to Islam, who pleaded for understanding for herself and those like her.

I want to be part of this society - this is where I choose to live. I hope that the society is more accepting of my personal choice. It’s not about separation. … [A]s a society we need to be more tolerant of people’s personal choices.

Funny, but I thought it’s exactly because we in the West are tolerant of people’s personal choices that “news organizations” like Britain’s Channel 4 showcase the in-your-face antics of “spokespersons” like Ms. Feels So Liberated While Hiding Behind a Mask, pictured above.

Actually, we love your “personal choices.” We—via the media, the globalized news-entertainment complex, and the blogosphere—feed off them. They’re political porn: cheap entertainment. The weirder you are, the higher the infotainment quotient. Just ask Fox News.

(edited and updated with a link )

I wouldn’t know where to begin to describe my feelings about this Foleygate and I’m afraid this particular scandal will get “-gate” status even without all that extra pushing from the Democrats. It’s looking uglier by the hour. John Podhoretz gets right to the point that I want to emphasize: “outing” is McCarthyite. And vile.

But maybe my age is showing, because Matthew Yglesias detects a generational bias at work here:

I’ve always found there to be something of a generation gap among liberals in this town on “outings” with younger people saying go for it, and our elders being more hesitant. Certainly, I’m all for disclosre.

I’m troubled by his equating outing and disclosure. Outing is the involuntary exposure of a person’s sexual orientation, which, last time I checked, was a private matter in which we don’t want the state, or our neighbors, or our employers, or our family, or our colleagues, or—God forbid—our political enemies to interfere.

I don’t really understand how endorsing outing can be considered in any way liberal.