From Post & Riposte: "The influence and pervasiveness of the media and its opinion polls has apparently been internalized to such an extent that we believe that public policy can be changed by such diffuse methods as 'public dialogue' or 'engag[ing] in the political discussion.' There is no public dialogue; no political discussion. Special interest issues such as the recent coverage of generational concerns by The Atlantic Monthly are interesting informational sources, but otherwise moot. Do you believe that the Association for Advancement of Retired Persons operates by influencing public opinion rather than direct political involvement? It goes without saying that we owe it to ourselves to become well-informed on the issues affecting us, both as a perceived generation as well as a nation. After that, there are 3 direct courses of action available: 1. Vote.... 2. Grass roots organization.... 3. Run for office yourself on the issues you hold dear.... We can debate the relative merits and failures of the current political system to the ends of time, but without political action within that system our view will never be heard." --Brian Cull, "Gen X Politics?" (08/08) What do you think? Join the conversation.

Now along comes Ted Halstead who, to his great credit, aims to change that. And let me say right here that I think much (though not all) of the political program he spells out in "A Politics for Generation X" makes eminent good sense, both in terms of public policy and political strategy. Looking into the medium-term future, it is not hard to see some version of his political gestalt (social investment, campaign-finance reform, environmentalism, technological innovation, and what he calls "balanced-budget populism") forming the basis of a burgeoning coalition and even (just conceivably) a new political party.

That said, however, I think Halstead is wrong if he believes that significant generational political solidarity will prove any less elusive than Marx's international working-class solidarity. In fact, my sense is that Halstead's notions of political common ground make more sense divorced from generational politics than wedded to them. Because, despite what I have just written about the vaguely shared experiences we hold in common, the differences (sometimes invidious) that separate us are greater and more powerful. That is what the scrapping and biting of politics is about. Yes, there will always be some common narratives that resonate within a generational cohort, and perhaps some shared cultural affinities (we're much more likely than our grandparents to be able to follow the logic of an MTV video or think South Park is funny). But history has shown that the particularities of social class, wealth, geography, race, religion, gender, family structure, upbringing, temperament, individual life experiences -- even the traditional political parties (which, as Halstead correctly points out, have been weakening and blending for some time) -- each have as much or more bearing on our politics than the generation we happen to be a part of.

What's more, Halstead's statements about Generation X have about them the platitudinous whiff of overgeneralization. And while I surmise that these generalizations are postulated not out of thin air but rather have been gleaned from poll data, they nevertheless strike me as contrived to fit a snapshot of the political landscape which is far too neat. Why bother to delimit a politics of Generation X at all, since it will only be artificially constraining? Moreover, even if generational affiliation is really what drives politics, Generation X will have to wait until at least retirement (and maybe longer, given expanding life-spans) to set the agenda -- because we will always have to contend with the agenda of that great demographic bulge in front of us, the Baby Boom.

It strikes me that Halstead makes Generation X out to be different in kind from preceding generations, when in fact the differences are only in degree. Does anyone dispute that the Boomers tend to be selfish and materialistic? That earlier generations are seeking spiritual solace? That eight years of booming economic growth, overlaid on top of a crumbling welfare state and widening income inequality, has simultaneously engendered a fat complacency and a nagging unease among just about everyone? Halstead does himself a disservice by making too much of an exaggerated generational politics. On the other hand, if Halstead's gambit is to smuggle in a new just-left-of-center political program in the guise of a "generational politics," then maybe he's cannier than I thought.

But having criticized Halstead for his generalizations, let me close with a generational generalization of my own. Perhaps, like the Lost Generation of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, we Xers are more existential than political in our concerns. This -- as Weimar Germany most dramatically illustrates -- can be dangerous. If Halstead's program somehow manages to strike a chord with our contemporaries, or spurs them to re-engage in public life, then he will have provided a valuable service. I just don't see it happening.

Go to Round Two

Return to Introduction

Scott Stossel is the executive editor of The American Prospect. His articles have appeared in The Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker, The New Republic, and other publications.