Obama and the Baby Boomers by Matias Bulnes, NYC

In a recent article titled "Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters" Andrew Sullivan argues that US politics has been the battlefield for an ideological war. This war is the product of a clash of cultures that began (or at least popped up to public significance) with the Vietnam War as a youthful rebellion against traditional Christian values (hence Sullivan’s appellative “baby boomers”). According to Sullivan, the conflict has carried along to our days and now it appears as the divide between Republicans and Democrats, between the religious and the secular, the pro-life and the pro-choice, the tax-cutters and the health carers, the design arguers and the evolutionary theorists, the science censors and the stem-cell researches, the global coolers and the global warmers, the infinite justicers and the troop withdrawers. Sullivan’s implicit thesis is that the unbridgeable worldviews of hippies and snobs from the 60s and 70s account for much of the current divide in American society.

And this may well be so. My disagreement with Sullivan isn’t over the present or past but over the future. And even then I believe I disagree more on the tone than on the wording. He sees Obama as a potential conciliator between baby boomers whereas I don’t see much reason to see this. I agree that Obama is an exciting figure who can potentially become a turning point in American history. But not by conciliating between the baby boomers because, to my grief, I think that the baby boomers are really unbridgeable, not metaphorically. Let me explain why.

The disagreements between the two trenches of baby boomers are not superficial but deep, fundamental. As Sullivan himself observes, a quick look at the programs of the various contenders for the looming presidential election will reveal more similarities than contrasts. To recount a few, at this point all the candidates agree that the war in Iraq has got a little out of hands and that the troops should be withdrawn; their divergences arise over when and how. On health care there are disagreements, but as Sullivan himself points out, they are far from overwhelming. Regarding fiscal policies, the agreements are vast and well-known. Let alone civil rights where even some republican candidates propose a quick end for Guantanamo-like abuses.

So where are the disagreements? They are beneath the surface and yet visible. I believe the crux is God, but more importantly the conceptions of society they derive from that. If this is correct, such an amount of superficial agreement should not surprise us because, after all, their moral values coincide in bulk: they all believe in honesty, gentleness, persistence, honor; and they all disbelieve in greed, arrogance, ruthlessness, etc. It’s their justification for such beliefs that sets them apart. The ones think that God and the Bible straightforwardly provide the justification; the others think it’s reason—whatever religious beliefs they might also have.

Baby boomers can find over and over again middle grounds upon which to continue to play the game, but the tensions will not go away. For wherever there’s massive disagreement over the justification there’s conflict looming. It’s just a matter of time for a new issue to pop up that will strike them in opposite ways. And no amount of conciliation will change this. For no matter how the old issues are settled, the fundamental disagreement will remain. Thus despite the abortion issue being seemingly settled and relatively quiet, the discord has found its way back to center stage with stem-cell research.

But we should not be uneasy because there are disagreements, for all countries have their own and this is a mark of healthy politics. What’s worrisome is the nature of the disagreement at the heart of American society. I think that in the end baby boomers disagree over what society they live in or, in any case, what society they should live in. Ultimately, it’s a matter of secularism versus religiosity.

A useful way of looking at the issue is through the lens of Rawls’ conception of the modern democratic society. According to Rawls, such a society would be one in which all members restrict their fundamental conceptions of the good to their private sphere. Everybody can privately worship whatever gods or icons they want, but in the public arena the rules of interaction and argumentation are neutral with regard to those private beliefs: reason alone moderates public debate. Appeals to omnicomprehensive worldviews (such as some religious ones) in debates over how to pursue the public good are illegitimate and unacceptable. People holding various such worldviews cannot coexist in a Rawlsian society.

While the Rawlsian picture of the modern democratic society interprets one trench in the war between baby boomers, the other trench identifies with an omnicomprehensive worldview. This is evident in the debate over stem-cell research where one side of the debate is worried about the earthly consequences of stem-cell research (such as curing terrible diseases) while the other cannot help seeing the project as intruding on God’s plan. Who’s right and who’s wrong is not my concern here. What’s important for the point I want to make is that the conflict between these views of society is not about to subside because 1) they contradict each other (hence no reconciliation is possible); and 2) these views are constitutive of the identities of the parties (hence no chance they’ll give them up).

The irreconcilability of the two trenches of baby boomers can also be brought out by considering what it would take to bridge them. Should Obama be a conciliator between baby boomers he would have to induce dialog between the parties. The conversation would eventually turn on the fundamental disagreement, that is, what is and what is not a legitimate argument in public debate. But then again they would find themselves talking past each other for neither party would accept the reasons provided by the other. To be able to settle disagreements the parties have to at least agree on a basic framework of argumentation. Since baby boomers disagree precisely over what counts as a legitimate argument, no reconciliation is possible.

So Obama will not bridge the gap between baby boomers lying at the heart of American society simply because the gap is unbridgeable. The only hope that the conflict will go away is that the parties will go away. So for those who find the conflict dangerous for American society, let’s hope that the new generations won’t be trooped along the same standards. I think this is Obama’s aura: not so much that he can conciliate between the old foes, but that he could potentially mark the beginning of the new ones.