From Post & Riposte: "Halstead's vision is eclectic -- he calls for a synthesis, not necessarily a reconciliation -- there is more a sense of a unity-in-tension in his balanced-budget populism, a creative tension, one that might jump-start the civic imagination.... His synthesis implicitly acknowledges that the problems transcend trite reductions to economic individualism or gov't micromanagement. The problems are inter-systemic -- they implicate economic and political structures. The real challenge in his proposal is to see that the seeds of its failure can be sown according to our response -- this Xer agenda is not an excuse to be divided, it's an invitation to cooperate in ways that honor our differences as crucial parts of the puzzle rather than obstacles to be flattened." --Jordan Seidel, "an indifferent unity, or a unity-in-difference" (08/13) What do you think? Join the conversation.

Turning to the specifics of a Gen X political agenda, Shapiro points out -- correctly -- that just because a majority of Xers believe in balanced budgets and a majority also believe in government intervention to help those at the bottom, it does not necessarily follow that there is an overlapping majority in favor of what I call "balanced-budget populism." While this is a reasonable objection, it misses the larger purpose of my article. The piece begins with a description of the collective problems facing Xers and of the political beliefs they hold in common -- all of which are based on reliable data. From there, I then extrapolate a future political agenda that could speak to both the problems and beliefs identified. Thus the latter portion is necessarily more debatable than the former sections, but that is precisely the point: to attempt to derive a new political agenda that could eventually galvanize Xers. Hence the title: "A Politics for Generation X," not "The Politics of Generation X."

I disagree with Shapiro that the notion of "balanced-budget populism" represents an unlikely "clash of positions." There are countless ways in which the government could continue on its course toward a balanced budget while simultaneously making economic incentives more progressive. For instance, the government could gradually lower regressive payroll taxes and replace them with more progressive taxes on capital gains or inheritances. In short, there are lots of options for leveling the economic playing field that do not require new spending, but that do transcend old ideologies.

In their different ways, Farai Chideya, Andrew Shapiro, and Scott Stossel question the value of applying a generational construct to politics. They argue, for instance, that any attempt to summarize the political views of a generation is suspect because the forces of class, race, geography, religion, and gender can be at least as influential in shaping one's political outlook as generational affiliation. While I agree that each of these factors plays a crucial role in forming political views, it would be as foolish to dismiss the impact of collective generational experiences as it would be to ignore all the other influences. And I would argue that the particular importance of generational experiences stems from the fact that they can transcend the more polarizing forces of racial, geographic, religious, gender, and socioeconomic identity.

Who could deny that the economic, cultural, and political world in which today's young adults came of age differs significantly from that of their parents? Economically, whereas Boomers entered adulthood during a time of widespread upward mobility, Xers grew up in a period of rising inequality and falling wages. The cultural contrasts are no less pronounced. Surely such differences leave indelible marks on the collective world view of a generation.

The notion that each generation has a distinct outlook, influence, and agenda -- and therefore exerts a profound impact in the realm of politics -- is hardly new. In 1843, John Stuart Mill claimed that historical and political change should be measured in "intervals of one generation." Tocqueville famously observed that "Among democratic nations, each generation is a new people." More recently, the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote, "in basic respects it is the generational experience that serves as the mainspring of the political cycle." It could also be argued that generational commonalties surface more prominently in the realm of politics than in other spheres of life. Since politics is the realm of collective action, any generation wishing to advance its particular concerns -- and Xers have plenty -- has a built-in incentive to downplay internal differences and rally around areas of common interest. Thus one should not be so quick to write off the latent potential of Gen X as a political cohort.

Next page: Andrew Shapiro

Ted Halstead founded the New America Foundation in 1998 and serves as its president and CEO. His article "A Politics for Generation X" is The Atlantic's August cover story.