I believe one of the most overlooked aspects of human development and aging—at least over a single life span—is the peer, socio-economic, and trivial realities of those within a similar age bracket. I have observed this played out in more than one crash-and-burn marriage, where the two partners are of enough an age difference to not understand each others cultural references. Though this may not be surprising with the cliche of older male younger female marriages, I have observed the very same thing happening where the male is the younger. I would guess the cut off would be a decade in age difference. Though this is hardly a realistic prognostication of how a marriage will work out, for me it plays into a larger thought: political leadership, specifically but leadership in general.
At this point in time, the current sitting President of the United States is 50 and a few months years old. Doing the math, this signifies that his formative years begin in the 1960s, a period of nearly insane optimism, creative development, violent social movements and the beginning of the calcification of the two extreme poles of (so-called) liberal and conservative view points. By contrast, Mitt Romney is 14 years older, Newt Gingrich is 18 years older. Both of these men came of age in the 1950s, a time of nearly insane witch hunts by McCarthy and Company, and when, (according to author Bill Bryson) between 1946 and 1962, the United States of America detonated just over 1000 nuclear warheads (testing, by golly), “including some 300 in the open air, hurling numberless tons of radioactive dust into the atmosphere…” And that was just the U.S. Many more “tests” were conducted by (then) the USSR, China, Britain, and France.
In addition, the good old 1950s cast an evil eye on teenagers, artists, communists, animators, cartoonists, musicians, poets, and generally anything having (even remotely) to do with sex or challenging 1950′s Christian doctrine (which apparently can have a revised, personally expedient interpretation, often quite different from the ancient text statements attributed to Jesus Christ).
These contrasts couldn’t be more apparent when extended to the two houses of Congress, where the same age related disconnect is still in play.
Seemingly all parties are in some sort of vague agreement about the economy, though the fingers of blame point in wildly around the circumference. Older folks (in government) seem to almost unanimously blame liberal thinking, a direct by-product of 1950s indoctrination of their youth. Younger folks blame the establishment, and the rich, a direct by-product of the 1960s indoctrination. Of course, both of these positions have a handful outside the percentage, but if you look closely, I believe it plays out.
The absolute irony, for me, is that the 1950s “ideal”the much vaunted and often worshiped idea of a “Donna Reed’s Kitchen” was largely created by unprecedented liberal government programs from Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the last sitting president to have enjoyed a near monarchy, which is likely why so much was accomplished during his reign. (Another irony!) F.D.R’s programs ultimately created middle class wealth the likes of which the entire world had ever seen. Again, from Bryson: “…by 1955 the typical American teenager had as much disposable income as the average family of four had enjoyed fifteen years earlier. Collectively they were worth $10 billion a year to the national balance sheet.”
These teenagers, now presidential candidates, apparently missed the reality of FDR’s “meddling”. They thought (and think) their good fortune came exclusively from the bristling free market economy of the period, a complete disconnect with the number of factories making hardware for military use (world-wide armament industries), and the reality of massive public works systems (the entire U.S. Interstate system, for example) paid for by tax dollars. (Europe did similar investment, albeit with U.S. coin, a.k.a. the Marshall Plan, but in Europe—they built out public transportation. Who’s laughing now?)
And about those tax dollars. The top bracket in 1954, those making over $200,000 a year, was 91%. That is correct, 91%. The top bracket has been dropping, for the most part, ever since, placing a year over year increased burden on that astonishing middle class, and those offspring hoping to maintain or improve upon it. Before you gasp at that 91% top bracket leaving the rich destitute, know that the average family income in 1954 was $4167. Which left those making $200K or more, after taxes, with many, many times the income of the average family. By way of getting my head around this, after decades of inflation, that 1954 average of $4167 equates to $35K per year in 2011. Additionally, $200K in 1954 would be $1,683,427 in 2011. The top bracket of income over $379,000 per year in the current U.S. Tax code pays 35%. And for final reference, put back in 1954 dollars, that $379K would be $45K, or over ten times more than the average family income.
I believe we, as human beings, make decisions and take positions almost completely from our experience—and our greed. There isn’t anything in our recorded history to suggest otherwise, from cave paintings in France to the eons long parade of financial and political scandals. Again, pure irony that we constantly devolve into such counter productive aspects of human behavior. On an extremely grand scale, Brian Swimme, co author of the public television documentary “Journey of the Universe” is widely quoted for this statement about the culmination of human scientific knowledge within the history of everything:
“This is the greatest discovery of the scientific enterprise: You take hydrogen gas, and you leave it alone, and it turns into rose bushes, giraffes, and humans.”
Of course, you could also look at singer songwriter Joni Mitchell, who nailed it more simply with “…we are star dust, we are golden” in 1969. But I digress.
I believe the common experience of a given age group deeply influences the decision-making of that age group. It is ironic, and a bit disturbing (to me), especially in a national election year that many of the primary players have their reality at a time and place (the 1950s) so completely submerged in justification and rationalization that it took years to recover—and maybe we never did: the armaments industry (total world spending on military expenses in 2009 was $1.531 trillion USD), man-made environmental disasters, world-wide poverty, human rights, freedom of expression, the separation of church and state… the list is endless. (Ever had a really good look at an open pit mine? I cringe every time I pick up my treasured smarty pants phone, laden with metals extracted in this manner.)
As for the 1960s, the decade surely brought its own issues, many of them more easy to define, but I have to believe there was more of a call to action, and an organized dissatisfaction and questioning of the Status Quo. I believe that sometimes the status quo can provide the simplest path, but it is rarely the most providential, or the one that yields the widest benefits for mankind as a whole.
There is nothing wrong with the statement/challenge: “prove it.” In fact, I think most politicians should have a line by line bibliography of each of their statements, supplied to our apparently ignorant, and apparently easily manipulated population. Oh, the joys of apathy.
