Generation upon Generation

"Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
From their sould dwell in the house of tomorrow,
Which you cannot visit, even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
But seek not to make them like you,
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
As living arrows are sent forth.
Let you bending in the archer's hand be for gladness."
-- Kahlil Gibran


Last night, I watched Aaron Sorkin's 2020 film, "The Trial of the Chicago Seven." My daughter living in Europe and her husband had recommended it to me over the weekend. She had either forgotten that I was acquainted with three of the film's characters -- two defendents and one lawyer -- or else I hadn't mentioned it to her. (Seems like I would have at some point over the years, when we discussed Angela Davis. But that's another story.)

I'd recommend the film for everyone ..... especially those on this forum that continue to post about their anger with today's younger generations. It is a reminder that a dynamic known as the "generation gap" divided society at that time. The gap was wider than the Grand Canyon in the era the movie covers.

Although the term "generation gap" was coined by John Poppy in a 1967 LOOK magazine article, sociologists had recognized it for decades. It is just that it was far more extreme in the late 1960s to early '70s. White teenagers in particular were rejecting their parents' values. While this created a large sub-group, it was composed of several smaller groups. Thus, as the film shows, even amongst those protesting the Vietnam war at the Democratic National Convention, there were distinct differences among them.

It wasn't, of course, not just the war and the threat of being drafted. It was differences in language, in sexual values, in the choice of intoxicants, in growing concerns about the environment, about Civil Rights and Women's Rights, music, and dress. In other words, the meaning of life. Thousands had been active in the primary campaigns of Senators Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. By the time of the Convention, it was known that Vice President Hubert Humphrey would be the nominee, despite not having entered a single primary contest.

There is no doubt that the riots outside the Convention -- and the assault on Dan Rather on the Convention floor -- being televised played a role in Nixon beating Humphrey. Now, other than in Georgia, those 18 to 20 did not have the right to vote until 1971, when Nixon signed the 26th Amendment into law. In 1972, young voters showed up at an all-time high of 50%. However, their parents re-elected Nixon.

There have been other divides among sub-groups of the Democratic Party, without a single one increasing our chances of victory in presidential elections. I suspect that there is a lesson here. Senator Ted Kennedy's primary challenge of President Carter certainly played a role in Reagan's 1980 victory. In 2000, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. was not fond of Al Gore, and had contempt for the VP pick. In his journals, he noted that he and his sub-group thought there would be "no harm" in W. Bush winning what would surely be a single term in office.

Every sub-group views society -- including politics -- in the same general context. Members tend to communicate primarily with other members of the sub-group about issues important to them. They view non-members as less insightful, and in many cases, as "the problem" if not "the enemy." And this can only result in difficulties in potential communication between the different sub-groups in American politics .... because when members of one sub-group are fully convinced that they, and they alone, know The Answer, they see "enemies" everywhere.

This might work -- for a time -- when you are in the majority. It is less efficacious when one is in a non-majority group. And it is far, far less effective in getting a desired result when other groups are viewed with contempt. It used to be that the Democratic Party was the majority. But there are more independent voters today. The republicans come in third place, yet they now control the House, Senate, and White House.

It requires no more insight or intellectual ability to blame young adults for our party's loss in November than for your republican brother-in-law to blame immigrants for the horrible state our country is in. We understand the republican language of hatred and fear, and can thus identify who our opposition is. But if we are to win future elections, we have to increase the numbers of people who will vote for our candidates.

In 2016 and 2024, the campaigns assumed that no sane republican would vote for the felon. Without question, trying to attract republicans was a losing strategy. Bringing the pre-corpse of Dick Cheney on stage is evidence of how poor a strategy that was. Any time that you count upon the inner goodness of your opposition in an election, you have a problem. And every time you blame young adults for the mess we are in, you are the problem.