Some essay writers for the Wall Street Journal have noted an ace in the hole for the Republican party: the “flower power” generation of the 1960s is increasingly right wing. The article is behind a pay wall, but let me summarize. This generation was left wing in the 1960s and early 1970s, because they objected to the Vietnam War and Watergate. But once they became older and started families, they became increasingly Republican and Conservative. The trend has continued into old age, an asset for the GOP since older voters vote in large numbers, younger Americans don’t bother, so both parties have to compete to meet the preferences of the old.
I agree with the trends, but not with the reasons for the trends. The party loyalists who wrote the WSJ article see changes in ideology, but I just see the continued pursuit of unenlightened self interest. At every point, but particularly back in the 1960 and early 1970s, it is a mistake to judge the intentions of this generation by what certain high profile members said, rather than what the vast majority did. Peace, love and understanding? Anti-materialism? There were some who pursued those ideals, and continue to do so. But getting laid and getting high, and avoiding personal responsibilities, were the real goals of the “Silent Majority” in the 1960s. They later moved on to avoiding social responsibilities, and thus became more likely to vote Republican.
So back in the 1960s, in my view, the 1960s generation – those in the latter half of Generation Greed – were “liberal” because they wanted to get high, wanted to get laid, and didn’t want to get drafted. Sure there were some who opposed the war on moral grounds and went to jail, and others who felt an obligation to serve. They ended up the victims. Those who found a way to weasel out became our leaders. At the time, even those in the middle class could pretty much go to college for very little, and staying there meant enjoying themselves and avoiding Vietnam. They got grants, my generation (the back end of the Baby Boom) got subsidized loans on favorable terms. This was followed by unsubsidized loans and then predatory loans for inflated higher education costs as state support for higher education was withdrawn.
The New York Times used to provide a “portrait of the electorate” based on exit polls. And that portrait, for the 1994 election with its Republican revolution, was clear – the age group most likely to vote Republican that year was the Flower Power generation of the 1960s. Not the seniors of the time. My view back then – sure they were “liberal” when they didn’t want to go to Vietnam and were living off the fat of the land, but now that they were working their rear ends off in their peak earning years, paying taxes to benefit others – the young and the old – didn’t seem so appealing. And that is the way they voted.
At the time, I cynically believed that they’d all be “liberals” once again right about now, facing old age and wanting all those senior benefits (and more) that they weren’t willing to pay for in middle age (they borrowed instead). But my cynicism was insufficient. Hence the perfection of the Ryan Plan. Those over 55 would not only keep all their senior benefits, they would get even more benefits, funded by debt because the personal income tax affluent seniors pay on retirement income would be kept low — while the payroll tax middle and working class Americans pay on their wages would be kept high. And to assure foreigners would keep lending, it would be promised that Social Security and Medicare would be taken away from those 54 and under and replaced by subsidies, subject to a cap on total federal spending at 18 percent of GDP. With perhaps 10 percent of that going to service Generation Greed’s debts, and virtually none to the impoverished old age of those 54 and under.
But even the Ryan plan was not everything the Flower Power generation believes it deserves. Why? It is too obvious. Generation Greed likes its advantages, but it also likes them rationalized, so they don’t have to feel bad about anything. Anything less, and they get very angry. No one knows that better than I do, since I’m one of the few to point out the reality of what they have done, whether with regard to Social Security and Medicare or MTA debts or the “screw the newbie, flee to Florida” public employee pension cycle.
So the Democrats might be able too woo back the Flower Power generation with their preferred alternative. Claim there is no problem, until the 1960s generation is already collecting Social Security and Medicare. Then quietly slash benefits for those coming after “due to circumstances beyond our control” with no announcement, no justification, and – most critically – no speaking or thinking of what Generation Greed as taken and what those coming after have lost at the same time.
Hey Democrats, be sure to offer medical marijuana followed by legal assisted suicide not only for the sick, but also for those facing severe deprivation in old age. Those my age and younger who were paying attention never expected anything more.