Monday, February 11, 2008

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at this point all the candidates agree that the war in Iraq has got a little out of hands and that the troops should be withdrawn; their divergences arise over when and how.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.

7 Comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm not convinced. While there are many religious people in the U.S., most of them do not see religion as being in opposition to reason. Thus, they recognize that when talking to people with different religious values they have to convince them with shared religious or non-religious reasons.

That is why abortion is argued for as a matter of the fetus's right to life, or Intelligent Design iniatives are argued for on the basis of freedom of religion. I'm not claiming that these are good arguments, only that it is recognized that such arguments are needed in public discourse.

Sure, people will continue to disagree, but that is not a problem for a healthy democracy. What would be a problem is if those people decided to settle their disagreements in non-democratic ways. And I don't see a major movement on the part of either the religious right or the liberals to try to circumvent the democratic process.

By the way, you are incorrect about the similarities between the presidential candidates. McCain certainly doesn't support a quick withdrawal from Iraq (which both Clinton and Obama do support). Both the Democratic candidates have proposed radical changes to the current health care system, whereas McCain hasn't. McCain supports the Bush tax cuts on the rich, Clinton and Obama don't. So even of the issues you mention there is wide disagreement.

Matias Bulnes said...

I agree that most religious people don't see religion as being opposed to reason. I didn't mean to suggest that they do (though I'm inclined to think that their view is wrong). My point is that whatever they believe, religious arguments (even if combined with non-religious ones) are not acceptable in the public debate within a secular society if only because they block communication with people of different religious backgrounds (including non-believers). That, I think, is enough to get my point through.

Also, I agree that disagreement isn't a problem for a healthy democracy. (In fact, I think I say so somewhere in the article.) Moreover, I didn't say (although I may believe) that the political power of the religious right necessarily makes the US democracy imperfect. All I said, and maintain, is that, however imperfect the US democracy is, the secular and the non-secular won't ever be able to solve their fundamental disagreements (even though they are able to find middle grounds for a lot of issues).

Thirdly, neither do I see a major movement trying to circumvent the democratic process if by that you mean the election of authorities. Now if by "democratic process" you mean, in addition to election of authorities, protection of people's rights and the rule of law, then I think Bush's government, with the support of the religious right, has arguably circumvented the democratic process (wiretapping, Guantanamo, to name a few).

Finally, nowhere did I say that McCain supported a quick withdraw from Irak. In fact, he doesn't. But I interpret his proposal on Irak as non-expansionistic, having as its main goal regularizing the situation in Irak so that the US can withdraw with minimal harm to its international reputation. I see this as a retreat from Bush's policy. Regarding health care, tax policy, etc. I admit that how much agreement there is is largely a matter of perspective. I meant to emphasize the agreements in spirit if not in actual policy. But if my arguments aren't satisfactory (I suspect they may not be) all the best for my general point: the more disagreement the better for what I want to say.

Thanks for the comment.

GStark said...

Can "parochial" be used when speaking of thought from the perspective of a given time rather than region?

I believe so.

Sullivan's framing is a parochial boomer attitude that ignores the entirety of US history.

The conflict of which he and you speak is older than our republic. It is based on the dichotomy of the earliest colonial settlers.

On the one hand there were the religious fundamentalists planting their cross at Plymouth Rock and on the other there were the mercantilists planting tobacco and sailing up the Hudson looking for India.

The world view of the citizens of Salem Massachusetts has much in common with those of today's creationists.

The secularists of the day - generally from colonies south of New England were uninterested in the (sometimes contradictory) religious views of their Christian peers.

Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison can stand for the secularists.

The following several signers of the Constitution will have to stand for the fundamentalists:

Nathaniel Gorham, eighth president of the Congrassional Congress.
He helped write the Massachusett's Constitution, which said that any one taking state office had to sign a statement saying in part: "I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth."

Alexander Hamilton, Fonding Father who tried to form a "Christian Constituional Society" whose purpose he described as "to be first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States."

William Livingston, Yale graduate and Revlolutionary Governor of New Jersey- also a signer of the Constitution whos said "I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, without any foreign comments or human explanations" - the very definition of Fundamentalism.

The list is long and one merely needs to listen to the arguments about religious freedom at the Constitutional Convention to see the breadth and depth of the societal division of the day.

In fact, the deep divisions are in large part, the cause of our religious freedoms.

Matias Bulnes said...

I agree that the dichotomy Sullivan and I refer to traces back further than the baby boom generation. In fact, I think it traces back even further than you say. One could argue that the seed of the divide within the American revolution you refer to is to be found in the English Civil War.

Generally, there are few (if any) new ideas around. Political phenomena have roots in previous political scenarios and one can trace them back almost "ad infinitum" (except that we haven't lived for that long). What I (and Sullivan--I take it) wanted to say wasn't to the exclusion of your analysis.

However, I do belive that the issue has become more stringent over the past few decades. During the American revolution, it wasn't so much of a problem because religious arguments were accepted (whether or not rightfully so). Even though religious freedom has been protected by the Bill of Rights since Jefferson, the American political(/dominant) class has been almost exceptionless Christian. As a result, religious arguments had been routinely acquiesced in up until recently. Perhaps with the baby boomers we saw for the first time a significant political group deliberately attempting to be secular.

Thanks for the comment.

GStark said...

I understand your point and agree that the roots of the dichotomy are to be found in Europe.

I still maintain though, that the schizophrenic duality of the original colonies has been evidenced throughout American history albeit more promeinently from time to time.

For instance, the evangelist revival of the late eighties and nineties (the rise of the Christian Right) echoed that of the late twenties and thirties - another period of deep division as evidenced by the Scopes Trial.

My point really, has to do with the fundamental (pardon the wee joke) importance of the dichotomy referenced to the American psyche.

The fact that New England was founded by religious fanatics (my ancestors if truth be told) goes a long way toward explaining why the US is the most religious of industrialized countries (scoring about the same for religiosity as Iran).

Anonymous said...

Obama's ability to mediate between the Boomers and Xers stems from his real generational identity...as a member of Generation Jones. Sullivan was right about much of this, except he doesn't identify specifically which "Post-Boomer" generation Obama belongs to.

There is a growing consensus in the media, and among experts, that Obama is not a Boomer, nor an Xer, but instead is a member of Generation Jones…the heretofore lost generation between the Boomers and Xers (born 1954-1965)

Just in the last month or so, several top media outlets, including The New York Times, Newsweek Magazine, and NBC, have all made the argument that Obama is specifically part of Generation Jones. I also heard a panel of generations experts recently on a national radio show discussing this specific issue, and four of the five experts conlcuded that Obama is, in fact, a GenerationJoneser…that his bio and political worldview closely match the GenJones archetype (the one dissenting expert argues that Obama is a Boomer).

Matias Bulnes said...

I agree that Obama probably belongs to the Generation Jones. He is definitely not a boomer. And this does make him an exciting candidate. But I hope he doesn't just rephrase the old debate between boomers.

blogger templates