Economist story on party affiliation and op-ed from the NYT comparing now to the Gilded Age--a favorite theme of mine.
As I've long argued, the Boomers have been a terrible generation of political leaders. As in the case of most revolutionary generations in history, once the initial stab at change in their youth fell to the wayside, the real talent went into business and technology and changed the world--dramatically--for the better. The dregs went into politics and, in the process, have managed to thoroughly discredit it as a career and force for good in our society.
Last time it was this bad in America was those latter decades of the 19th century. The "revolution" then was the U.S. Civil War, and the crew that came out of that crucible was dramatically altered in character and vision and--most importantly--in personal connections. The bonds forged by war led to a lot of follow-on business development during a great and lengthy boom time. But it was an era much like today: frontier integration thanks to a rapidly expanding continental economy, the knitting together of a sectional economy into world-class "rising China" of its age, huge flows of people and FDI into the country--a miniature version of today's globalization.
And during that age of booms and busts and the early populism that accompanied it, politics became a very dirty profession, so much so that when progressive icon TR decided to step into the fray, his wealthy NYC family begged him not to do so--it was considered such a huge step down from respectable obscurity. Few of us came name any politicians from that era (distant relation Grant being my favorite), but we all remember the industrial-financial titans, whose very names equal wealth: Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, etc.
We live in very much the same age now, poised to move into a progressive era. I know that word is a favorite target of Glen Beck with his whacked-out history lessons, but it's clear to me we need a cleaning-up period much like back then. Politics needs to be re-credentialized, but it can't happen so long as the current cast of small minds (I'm with Michael Bloomberg on this one) are on the stage. The downshifting in talent and vision over the past three decades has been supremely depressing. I grew up with WWII-era giants in politics, and I miss the class and the intelligence and professionalism and--most of all--the ability to forge deals. Now we suffer such unbearable fools.
And so we get "change" after "change" election, a good corollary to the Gilded Age. I think we'll need a few more before the next generation of leadership starts making itself known. Obama was an avatar of this movement; he just turned out to be too much like Jimmy Carter when he got into office.
The Economist piece demonstrates the popular disaffection with politics: we are more and more a one-third, one-third, one-third electorate--as in, one-third Dem, one-third GOP and one-third Independent. I would count myself in the Independent crowd, as I have a hard time imagining myself in either party.
When does the big change come? A peer-to-peer generation is already remaking a good chunk of our society/economy. Eventually the Millennials move into the political realm and have their impact.
Like so much of what I track, then, this is another thing that registers more in the 2020s/2030s, signifying the 2010s as a transition decade to be finessed--and survived.
We navigate an age where we should setting up the big deals that shape our future, like transitioning from old alliances to new.