The Boomers' Echo

modbee ^ | 12-11-05

[LouAvul]

They partied and protested, then grew up to dominate America with their chutzpah and sheer numbers. Yet now, as the oldest of the baby boomers prepare to turn 60, there are glimmers of doubt within this "have it all" generation about how they will be judged by those who come next.

The ferment of the '60s and '70s -- when boomers changed the world, or thought they did -- faded long ago. Nostalgic pride in the achievements of that era now mixes with skepticism: Have the boomers collectively betrayed their youthful idealism? Have they been self-centered to the point of shortchanging their children? Anthony DeCurtis, one of the boomers' pre-eminent rock 'n' roll journalists, hears the occasional barb from his creative writing students at the University of Pennsylvania and it gives him pause.

"There's a fear that there's going to be nothing left -- that they're going to be picking up the pieces for this six-decade party we had, cleaning up the mess," said DeCurtis, 54. "There's some truth to that, I guess."

The boomers -- 78 million of them born from 1946 to 1964 -- are wealthier and more numerous than any generation before or since.

They have controlled political power long enough to stack the financial deck in their favor.

"It's economic and policy imperialism," said University of Oklahoma historian Steve Gillon, 48, author of "Boomer Nation."

"The boomers have set up institutions that will continue to benefit them, at the expense of other groups, as they grow old and live longer than any other generation," Gillon said.

"It's spend what you want, cut your own taxes -- the ultimate baby boom philosophy of 'We want to have it all.' We're not a generation that's had to deal with the reality of sacrifice."

[Jimmy Valentine]

Oh my heavens! Who are you? Jacob Marley's ghost?

[durasell]

Marley was dead, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that

[Question_Assumptions]

All generations have been morally looser than previous generations.

In the short view, that's often true. In the long view, it's not a one-way slide. Things eventually either totally fall apart or there is a backlash. The mechanism that causes the slide is that people never appreciate the role that moral behavior plays in making life pleasant for everyone. The mechanism for the backlash is that when things get unpleasant enough, people start to understand the value of morals and embrace them again. The only real question is how strong the backlash will be and, intuitively, I think the strength of the backlash tends to correspond to the depth of the moral decay that it's responding to. And, yes, a very strong moral backlash can be bad, too.