Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Can't say I agree with you on the music analogy. The reason so many people relate more to the music they grew up with has more to do with the music business than the inability of a person to continue to enjoy new music. Back in the 80's when most of the major lables fired their innovative A&R people, and replaced them with accountants, they stopped "growing" their artists and just pandered to the next youth market. So the mass of the music in general stayed adolescent in orientation. As my generation grew, there was less and less music growing with us. (yes I'm a boomer) Sure there were artists who continued to create excellent, mature music, but you wouldn't be hearing that on the radio, you'd have to seek it out, because we weren't perceived as the demographic to market to. But this phenomenon is already changing, with the advent of YouTube, ITunes, etc. I don't think any generation after us will have these same musical restrictions, and we'll see aging populations that are enjoying all kinds of new music, with the same appreciation and wonder as when they listened as kids.

Obama seems to have chosen Dick Lugar as his mentor: well done. China needs us to be theirs.

"Barack Obama should run for president in 2008 for all the tactical reasons cited by pundits, but primarily because the baby boomers need serious competition from "below" on the vision thing. It's unhealthy to have so much of our political and strategic discourse dominated by the '60s generation."

My limited contact with Obama's office (a few emails) leads me to say that his staff is sharper than most of his Illinois colleagues have been in the past.

Amen on the generational competition. The boomers process everything through the lens of the Vietnam War and to a lesser extent, Watergate. The rest of the world has moved on.

The Democratic candidate needs to win at least one Confederate state.

Get out your Civil War history books and compare the map with the new Governor/Senator/Representative maps.

The South shall rise again. That's what the NASCAR and C&W crowd has always said, but they have awakened the North and the yankees are coming to kick rebel ass.

Vietnam is not the war that will be in play in 2008.

What about his experience? I'd much rather he be Illinois governor and do that for a couple of terms, THEN run for President. He's not that far from the state lege. What about his skill sets? Just because he can deliver in the legislative branch does not mean he will be successful as President.

Isn't this the mistake the Republican's made with Bush? They made him their candidate because they believed he could win. They were so focused on winning, they never asked themselves if he was competent enough to govern. And since he's been in office, what has happened to our foreign policy?

BTW, I buy into your theory about age, but let's get Barack some more experience.

Regards,

The music analogy may out me generationally as an Indochina hand who once took a B-40 rocket hit while sailing up the Mekong to Khmer-Rouge-surrounded Phnom Penh. Besides liking the Beatles and John Lee Hooker, I always process Mozart, Beethoven, Bach and am finally bowing humbly to Frank Sinatra and know a distant disco where I'll hop to the Hip-Hop but much prefer the driving rhythms muy caliente of hot latin meringue, rhumba and samba stuff. As they said in algebra class, go figure.

I agree that Generation X needs to move into positions of power fast for the very reasons you mention. Boomers are too obsessed with Vietnam and Watergate. But Obama is not a good choice simply because he is developing his national reputation and experience in the Senate. The Senate is simply not a good incubator of presidents. The very nature of the institution leads members to become windbags and dither in the face of executive decisions. Truman may have been the only 20th Century exception. A better place to look for GEn X talent may be among the governors. They will have had to govern and decide instead of pontificating as Senators are prone to do. I have no names at the moment but the strongest part of our bench is in the states where things have to get done within the context of a balanced budget. Good foreign policy can be learned from experts but the ability to decide is often innate. No one goes to the US Senate to learn how to make decisions.

for my part, it has seemed like a big piece of Adult Musical Death is just lack of time. you're not with a bunch of peers who listen to music all the time to pollinate. in my wife's case, with all the noise in her life, when she gets by herself she rarely chooses to listen to music (though Harry Potter on tape/CD is another story ;-).

the Hype Machine has been invaluable to me for checking out new music. latest faves: The Postal Service (and Death Cab and Ben), Modest Mouse, Bruce Springsteen Seeger Sessions, and Sufjan Stevens.

Funny I would never think of Obama or Barnett are GenX, though Barnett never says that he is just that he is different from Boomers. I was born in 73 so I know that by almost any definition of the generations I am a GenXer but these things change and are defined in so many different ways. By most accounts GenX is defined as 1965 to 1978. The generation that Barnett and Obama belong to is usually described as either still Boomers or as “Baby Busters” (1958-1968).

It will take a younger generation to finish this war, which will the led by GenXers and acted out by Echo Boomers (formerly known as Gen Y). This is reminiscent of what happened duing WWII. That generation was called the “Greatest Generation” because they fought and won that war and perservered through the great depression. But what most forget is that they were led by an older generation. FDR was in his 50s when he took office as were many of the Generals that planned the war. They were part of what is sometimes called the “Lost Generation” (1883–1900).

Think about the parallels to today. The Lost Generation was born 20+ years after the Civil War and grew up during a period of expansion of the U.S. and lived (sometimes fought) through WWI. GenXers were born 23+ after WWII and grew-up in a time when the U.S expanded it’s place as a superpower and lived (sometimes “fought”) through the Cold War. I think that Barnett’s column may illustrate why this parallel exists the decisions that these generations made/will make are based on the events that happened during their early lives. This means that the GenX leaders are just now entering politics and into command positions in the military. We need to be on the look out for our General MacCarthur, Gen Eisenhower, Gen Vandegrift or on the political side our FDR, Truman, Sam Rayburn etc…I don’t think Obama qualifies he is just a flash in the pan fad. But Barnett’s basic idea holds true a younger generation will force new thinking into the arena.

I couldn't agree more on the 60's generation worldview. It's something I notice often. Believe it or not, not all boomers are shaped by Vietnam and Woodstock. There is a real divide. I am 53 and the men in my age group was the last to have to draw in the lottery for the draft. It was sobering but everyone knew it was just a formality by that time. Essentially the war was over. We were criticized during our college years in the 1970's because we were less radically political than our older siblings. Frankly, I do find it difficult to relate to to those who are now 60 age range because they do have a very different world view than my age peers. I don't think you need to skip to the GenX'ers right yet because there are many late stage boomers who might just be up to the task.

I agree that the Boomers are essentially hostages of Vietnamization, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to see the necessary foreign policy moves needed for shrinking the Gap.

I'm a member of the Silent Generation and am deeply influenced by WWII, Korea, and the Vietnam experience. I can grasp the idea of shrinking the Gap, but indecisive military action that drags on like it has in Afghanistan and Iraq makes me very nervous. I know Thomas decries Powell's theory of massive, overwhelming force. I, on the other hand, understand and like the theory all too well because of Vietnam. It is a blind spot for me.

When I read that things have been screwed up in Iraq, and then see young Marines interviewed who say things are going well, as they explain that we just aren't getting the whole story; it makes me wonder why we aren't getting the whole story. My answer would be that the MSM is Vietnamized.

Those young, optimistic Marines and Generation X big thinkers like Thomas may be what is needed to keep moving forward.

Obama appears thoughtful and statesmanlike but is he decisive? Can he make the really hard decisions of war and peace? If he runs, that is what I'll be looking for.

Jim G: i hate to be so cliche, but my explanation of not getting the whole story is:

1) the market: failure and woe sell better than success

2) the MSM is liberalized to be anti-war

Obama's biggest fault as I see it, and perhaps it's only me, an old guy . . but he come from the Illinois Incubator of Democratic Politics . . and whether that "Reform School" has truly been reformed is yet to be seen . .

My hope is that I'll be pleasantly surprised . . but I remain a cynic . .

And it is also true, the Senate is a lousy finishing school for Presidential Candidates . . successful or not!

Sean,
Your point #2 is my point exactly. The MSM was not anti-war before Vietnam. Many journalists believe their opposition to the Vietnam war was their finest hour. Most are trying to replicate that experience today and, IMO, are succeeding.

Jim: I had a feeling we were on the same wavelength there. if, since we are, we must be right! ;-)

Prime example is Woodward's new book. If that isn't a reach for the glory days.
It also seems that most of the young reporters are in the same vain as the older ones. I think this may be a case of "birds of a feather".

Then there are the conservative media whose suggestions also have echoes of Vietnam learning. Just listen to talk radio or read some of the more conservative columnist. There suggestions usually are right out of Powell doctrine and usually involves massive firepower and attacks.
Appears as if Boomers took one of two roads. One road led to “make love not war” the other to Dr. Stangelove.

Twenty years ago, where I work, we saw the Morris Massey series. I felt his thesis was true because it explained so much of my life's experience up to that point. It still does. I take it to be the case that one is gut-level programmed around age 10, as he says. For example, while growing up, I was truly perplexed why many of the older folks had such a great fear of long hair. This despite the fact that nearly all admired men, political or military, before the 20th century, had long hair. Morris explained it as due to tech innovation in cutting hair ; the fact that our soldiers in WWI found it considerably easier with short hair to function under their battle conditions; and these soldiers upon returning home became role models. Consequently, whenever I feel the need to criticize a new way of doing or thinking, I try and consider whether I have adequate grounds or whether I'm just being an old coot about it. This is easier to say than to do.

I wonder if Massey is now addressing the perceptual differences between us oldsters brought up during the eras of print and broadcast media and the younger crowd who've arrived in the more recent digital media era? I'm thinking McLuhan was right: the medium is the message.

Nothing here the liberal 1/3rd of the baby boomers won't like.

Obama bullets:

Saddam did not own and was not providing WMD to terrorists. (Oct 2004)
Initial military was extraordinarily successful in Iraq. (Oct 2004)
Invading Iraq was a bad strategic blunder. (Oct 2004)
We must make sure that Iraq is stable having gone in there. (Oct 2004)
Advance the training speed and get the reconstruction moving. (Oct 2004)
Democratizing Iraq will be more difficult than Afghanistan. (Oct 2004)
Terrorists are in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. (Oct 2004)
Never fudge numbers or shade the truth about war. (Jul 2004)
Set a new tone to internationalize the Iraqi reconstruction. (Jul 2004)
Iraq war was sincere but misguided, ideologically driven. (Jul 2004)
Would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war. (Jul 2004)
Problems with current Israeli policy. (Jul 2004)
Not opposed to all wars, but opposed to the war in Iraq. (Jul 2004)
Not opposed to all wars, but opposed to the war in Iraq. (Jul 2004)
International voice in Iraq in exchange for debt forgiveness. (Jul 2004)
Engage North Korea in 6-party talks. (Jul 2004)
Use moral authority to work towards Middle East peace. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)

I dont buy most of the above.

This is a discussion of99% of the people by the 1%. Very few people see beyond single issues and first impressions.

Its not the 60s when group think pressure was strong. Most people today (I work with the "common" people all day long) 60s or other could care less about being part of any solution. Most want to just make it through the day, have no more probems thrust upon them then they already have and feel at peace.

They vote for being left alone and anyone who makes it harder, anyone Dem or Rep that lets problems drag on will be gone.

If MSM means Main Stream Media, then I disagree that it is blindly anti-war. I didn't see any editorial objections in the media to the campaign in Afghanistan, and although I marched against the Iraq war (I didn't trust an administration that would leave Afghanistan with the job less than half done) I know that there was hardly any real coverage of those marches--And I can also tell you that the media under reported the attendence. If anything, I have seen the media be a fair weather friend --one that can be bought and courted given differing circumstances.
Of course, if MSM does not mean Main Stream Media then......never mind!

Michal: MSM = Main Stream Media. right.

and, for my part, i wouldn't (and didn't) say that the MSM is 'blindly anti-war'. i think there is a liberal bias in the MSM and that liberals tend to be anti-war. for whatever that's worth...

The Obama quotes are fairly vanilla moderate democrat statements. Remember John Edwards and Gary Hart were talked about in the same way, didn’t work out for them for one reason or another. It will really depend on the kind of campaign that Obama runs and how much money he can raise.

There are two Democrats that could beat almost anyone in 2008. John Warner the former Governor of VA and the one that most people don’t think about Bill Richardson, Governor of NM. Neither are Northeast liberals, both are/were governors and has been previously mentioned Senators just don’t do well. Not to mention that any Senator will have to find a way to court their base and at the same time distance themselves from Pelosi and Reid. Those two could be a big problem for the Dems. This won’t be an easy dance for Clinton who has tried hard to shed her hardcore extreme liberal image but now will have to stand next to Pelosi who still has that image. Warner has money (lots of it) and Richardson has the foreign policy experience (especially with North Korea).

The biggest winner out of this election- Mitt Romney. Some of his top contenders were bump off and not being on the ballot he walks away unscathed.

Makes a whole lotta sense, gamblers love to get an edge on the future.

Obama: I'll agree that he should run. Whether he can win and be successful remains to be seen; it'll be a while before the primaries start.

Generational boundaries: William Strauss and Neil Howe drew the boundary of Generation X at 1961. The first Baby Boomers would have been hitting 18 and capable of becoming parents, and anyone born at that time (or later) would have been unable to remember the Cuban Missle Crisis or the Kennedy assassination.

Music (and open-mindedness): I know people in their 50's and 60's who listen to Guns and Roses and Metallica. Those are the types of Boomers and Silents who can still make a difference

"for my part, it has seemed like a big piece of Adult Musical Death is just lack of time. you're not with a bunch of peers who listen to music all the time to pollinate."

As a 24 year old, I would like to say that this is no longer a problem. While my friends in college did listen to music quite a lot, their influences ended around my junior year (20 yrs old). For the last 4+ years I've been finding my own music via www.allmusic.com, Amazon, and various... umm... download services that shall remain nameless--as well as other sources.

About 70% of the music I listen to is stuff that none of my friends were into. I've been a bit isolated from my peers for the last two years (since leaving college), but Musical Death hasn't set in. Don't underestimate the changes that the internet, MP3 players, and CD-Rs have introduced to us young 'uns.

Radio is dying--I only listen to it once per week at most. TV will be the next to go--the internet is getting to be much more entertaining and informative than the latest garbage on ABC and CNN.

I like the explaination of the dates of the Boomers and Gen X as Boomers starting 9 months after Victory in Europe Day Feb 7 1946 and Gen X starting 18 years later the day that the Beatles landed at JFK 7 Feb 1964. Makes sense 9 months for the “effects” of the end of the war in Europe to start and 18 years just long enough for those kids to have their own kids.

GenXs musical taste is strange. Most of our stuff was crap, with a few exceptions like U2. So when I was in High School we all listened to older music like the Steve Miller Band etc. Later I changed to country, that’s adults listen to after all. Now I started listening to younger music Disturbed, etc. I think that many GenXers like myself have younger siblings (my brother is 18) and so listening to “younger” music is acceptable. Throw what Bolo mentions about the Internet and MP3 and I think that all the old rules about music may go out the window.

I encourage those interested in generational taxonomy to go to the source: Strauss & Howe's "Generations". Even after 18 years their analysis still holds up. Especially germane to this discussion is their chapter on the Lost Generation and what made that generation so tough and capable of making such decisions as Ike's to give the go ahead for D-Day and Truman's to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. Also especially germane is their discussion on the parallels between the Lost and GenX (they actually coined that term).