I had an interesting discussion the other day ... [View all]

[1StrongBlackMan]

I met up with some friends for drinks. The group was racially diverse (white, Black, Hispanic though primarily Black); highly educated (most have terminal degrees in their field and no one had less than a Masters Degree); economically well off, as most were middle-level managers or worked in high paying fields; all are politically aware, if not, active, and all are decidedly liberal.

After catching up on our families and brainstorming on "how to better negotiate on the job politics", the discussion turned to political politics ... specifically, President Obama's presidency and whether his "accomplishments" are all that we could expect.

Everyone expressed a certain disappointment that his administration had not addressed this issue or that issue, soon enough or forcefully enough; but everyone, as in the whole, was pretty happy with his presidency, considering the current political/partisan environment.

Then, the discussion turned to "whether President Obama is moving us (the U.S.) towards what is 'possible'; or merely, doing what is 'doable'?"

The group was divided on this with some arguing that President Obama has put his efforts towards doing what is doable and surrendering what is possible, without a fight; while others argued that accomplishing what is possible is only accomplished by doing what is doable ... when it is doable.

This topic had been discussed for awhile, when I recognized a pattern ... the positional cohorts broke down (roughly) by age; with those under 50 seeing President Obama goal as doing what is doable, and those over 50 saw President Obama as setting up a foundation for future gains.

When I offered my observation to the group, the conversation took a turn to answering "what caused the apparent generational divide?" Was it the "idealism of youth" and the "urgency of now" versus the "conservatism that comes with age, or what? (This is where the discussion got really interesting for me.)

Then, it was suggested that the divide can be explained (across racial, gender, educational and economic lines) by the members' exposure to "sustained movements." Those that were born or came of age in the '60s, tended to see the political objective to be "the building of firm foundations"; and this could be a result of having seen/experienced the slow advances of the Civil Rights, Chicanos, feminist movements. Whereas, those born or came of age afterwards, tended to see the political objective to be the accomplishing of specific ends.

For example, the older cohort saw the ACA as a success, in that it moved the ball towards a single-payer system, some time down the road; whereas, the younger cohort viewed the ACA as a failure because it is not a single-payer system.

I found this an interesting concept. What think you?