|
 
Round One - August 11, 1999 The first question pertains to the credibility of the article and of Halstead's attempt to project the "voice of a generation." Most authors try to speak for something larger than themselves, but it was jarring to see an article discussing the mindset of a generation without any quotes from non-talking heads. The nexus of Halstead's argument is economic, and he presents a useful discussion of how many "Gen Xers" are getting the financial shaft. I know some of these Gen Xers, for example my cousin in Baltimore who works for the post office. He's working, essentially, as a freelancer, delivering mail on cobbled-together shifts because a federal job like one in the post office still pays better than many private-sector jobs in the area. A few well-placed case studies and quotes would have energized an article that sometimes lapsed into Beltway-speak.
When I think about ways that Gen X is divided politically, I think about not only issues like income but also race, geography, and religion. The near-demise of the Christian Coalition notwithstanding, there are many parts of America -- especially in the South -- where Christian churches take an active role in politics. In other parts of the country, and other strata, mixing politics and religion is seen as taboo. And when you look at race and politics, you find some unexpected correlations. It's important to remember that even the most well-researched political demographics mask as much as they reveal. For example, as a group, blacks vote less often than whites. But go a level deeper. African Americans are more likely to be poor, and poor Americans vote less often than wealthier citizens. In fact, the black middle class votes at higher rates than the white middle class -- it's just a hell of a lot smaller. I mention these other political indicators because, in the absence of a generational politics issues like race and class and geography come to the fore. There is no doubt in my mind that Gen X would be more cohesive if we had experienced a seminal event on par with the Vietnam War. Lacking that, we are influenced more by the other factors in our lives than by some sort of generational identity. How could a Gen X politics, whether or not it's "balanced-budget populism," emerge? First of all, we have to come to some common understanding. The reality of the matter is that most people don't trust politicians or reporters. Yet the press and the politicians work together to create the political consensus. If there is a covert war, for example, the public reaches no consensus on the war because it has little information. If there is an overt war, the public eventually reaches a consensus about whether it is "popular" (like the Gulf War) or "unpopular" (like Vietnam). I would argue that in America right now we have covert economics. While the media is talking up the flourishing stock market, many Americans are seeing a decline in their real incomes. Until working-class Americans get a sense that they're not struggling alone, they will not seek to hold politicians responsible. The only way "balanced-budget populism" will emerge is if people learn more about the apportionment of wealth in American society. Let's put it this way: Bill Gates's net worth is equal to that of the bottom 43 percent of the U.S. population. It's not that I don't like Bill Gates -- I'm writing this on MS Word, which has always treated me right. It's just that there is something fundamentally screwed up with this picture. Of course, people will not try to hold politicians responsible for anything if they think politicians are untouchable. And many Americans do. Why shouldn't they? With the amount of soft money flowing into political campaigns today, money becomes the meat-and-potatoes of politics. The actual voters are an afterthought. But that's another conversation entirely. Join the debate in Post & Riposte. We'll highlight selected readers' remarks as the Roundtable progresses.
Copyright © 1999 by The Atlantic Monthly Company. All rights reserved. |
