Halstead - Round Three: Concluding Remarks

Ted Halstead
Round Three: Concluding Remarks - August 25, 1999

To attend briefly to my friendly duel with Tucker Carlson, let me concede that I would love to live in his imaginary world: a world in which there are no vast and growing disparities between the haves and the have-nots; a world in which the influence of money in politics is so slim

From Post & Riposte:

"I am encouraged to add some perspectives from someone who was a Generation X'er forty years ago (we were labeled the Uncommitted Generation). Politics were just as boring then as they are now.... One vote cast then (out of millions) had just as much impact as one vote does now. More people voted more than once back then, but that's another story. To a large degree, presidential candidates were selected by the state party chairmen, who controlled the state delegations at the party conventions. Back in the fifties, there were few state primaries as we now know them. Nevertheless, a substantially higher percentage of eligible voters voted then than do now. The generational difference, I believe, is that far more people saw voting as a civic responsibility than is now the case. In this regard my parents raised me better than I did my children.... I agree with Andrew Shapiro that the defining event of this age is globalization and the information revolution. But I would place more emphasis on the economic aspects of globalization -- the substantial increase in the size of the market for those with the skills to exploit it and the much larger and more competitive labor pool with which those with lower skills have to contend. The consumer wins out, but many workers don't. When looking at trends in living standards, one should not overlook the improvements in the environment, particularly air quality. Forty years ago you could not keep coal dust from accumulating on your windowsills, no matter how tightly you sealed the windows. And one should not overlook the greatly increased time people now spend living in retirement. Which brings me to the point Ted Halstead raises in his discussion of taxes: 'For instance, the government could gradually lower regressive payroll taxes and replace them with more progressive taxes on capital gains or inheritances.' Who should pay for the expenses of the retirees of the future? The retirees themselves, or the Bill Gates's of the world."
--Nick Tingley, "Round Two of 'My So-Called Generation'" (08/24)

What do you think? Join the conversation.

that everyone's vote really does matter; and a world in which today's political decisions somehow do not limit the freedoms and rights of future generations. Carlson believes we are already there, and hence defends politics as usual. I believe otherwise, and hence offer a concrete new political program. Let the reader be the judge.

One of the curious aspects of this Roundtable is that three of the four respondents (Chideya, Shapiro, and Stossel) claim to support the overall political agenda I put forth, but are nevertheless skeptical of the generational analysis from which it is derived. Stossel, for instance, writes that my proposed program, "makes eminent good sense, both in terms of public policy and political strategy," but that it would be better "divorced from generational politics than wedded to them." Although I would have thought that their own personal identification with the policy program I ascribe to our generation would only strengthen my argument, I am glad to discuss the agenda's broader potential. For the only way in which the mix of policies I set forth could see the light of day is if young adults muster the leadership to inspire a truly cross-generational coalition.

Historians often explain the chain of events in our nation's short life as a series of cyclical oscillations between periods of popular political engagement and disengagement. Over the past two decades the pendulum has clearly swung in the latter direction. One of the reasons for this (as Shapiro alludes to) is that prevailing ideologies have failed to keep pace with the tectonic shifts remaking our society -- the sweeping economic, technological, demographic and cultural changes now underway. America, in other words, is in the throes of a fundamental transformation to a post-industrial society, but lacks a coherent public philosophy to make sense of the new challenges and opportunities ahead. The group most capable of offering such a new public philosophy holds the key to America's political future and to reversing the pendulum of political engagement.

By virtue of being the generation caught between the industrial age and the information age, Xers have a unique opportunity to be the new synthesizers at this particular juncture in history (in contrast, Boomers came of age prior to the dawn of the information age and are just now trying to catch up, and post-Xers have never known anything other than the digital age). Xers have been the first to enjoy the bounty of the information age (e.g. the young Internet millionaires) but also, and more commonly, the first to suffer the downward wage pressures of the new service economy. They have been the first to fully harness the power of technologies like the World Wide Web, but also the first to experience its dislocating and dehumanizing effects. Xers are the generation most attuned to where the nation is and ought to be headed, and thus the least likely to want to maintain the political status quo.

So how could all this translate into broad-based political change? As Stossel and Chideya point out, it won't "just happen." Rather, America's next major political cycle is likely to begin with an unexpected galvanic event of some sort -- whether a significant economic recession, a widespread social disruption, or a major foreign-policy crisis -- that will shake up the political status quo and awaken the citizenry, thus opening the door to a bold new set of priorities and perspectives. This, in turn, will give rise to a new burst of political activism and engagement, including, perhaps, a more viable third-party effort (ultimately, however, a third party is more likely to influence the agenda of one of the two major parties than to actually replace it).

At stake will be America's next political consensus and majoritarian coalition. It is at such a time of national soul searching that the radical centrist agenda that I outlined -- based on fiscal prudence, economic populism, social investment, technological innovation, political reform, and environmental conservation -- could really take hold. But for this to happen, those at the vanguard of the new digital age -- Xers -- would need to lead, in hope that others would follow. This, of course, is where the broader appeal of an Xer-inspired agenda could come in. Ultimately, however, a lasting coalition would require not only a popular plurality, but also support from the leading industries of the day. And here too, as the architects of the new high-tech industries, Xers are ideally situated to lead the way.

Next page: Andrew Shapiro

What do you think?

Join the debate in Post & Riposte. We'll highlight selected readers' remarks as the Roundtable progresses.

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.