William Strauss and Neil Howe have formulated a theory in which generations go in predictable cultural cycles, four archetypes to a “Saeculum.” Whether that theory is valid or not, their analysis provides a starting point for discussion. It is true, certainly, that each generation is in some ways culturally different from those that precede and follow it. Everyone learns values and culture from their parents and their immediate social environment; but every generation grows up under different conditions and internalizes somewhat different assumptions and attitudes.
The G.I. Generation, born between 1901 and 1924
The Silent Generation, 1925-1942
The Boom Generation, 1943-1960
The 13th Generation, 1961-1981
The Millennial Generation, 1982-2003?
Of course, as time passes, generations pass from the scene. Most of the “GI Generation” who fought WWII (or were workers on the Home Front during it) are dead or in nursing homes. So are most of the “Silent Generation” that followed them. The Baby Boomers are in the ascendant now – and will start passing into retirement in the next couple of decades.
So – in the contemporary American “Culture War,” which Pat Buchanan identified or, more accurately, declared in 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war), which side has time on its side? Are the younger generations likelier to be red or blue? Pro-choice or pro-life? Pro- or anti-SSM? Pro- or anti-war? Pro- or anti-globalization?
Religious and conservative people have, and have had for many years, on average a larger number of children than non-religious and liberal. Some speculate that that is the real explanation behind the success (in the polls) of the Republican Party.
You assume the children will be religious and conservative. Also, religious and conservative countries tend to be disasters; if America turns into a conservative theocracy I would expect it to collapse, and probably break up ( eventually, I’m not talking in the next decade ). Most likely IMHO, we’d end us with a real version of those “Jesusland” maps we saw after the election; a backwards, theocratic collection of red states and more advanced and prosperous coalitions of blue states.
Either that, or most of us die in a nuclear civil war.
I’m from a conservative family and a conservative religion. Yet I’m liberal.
Don’t discount the impact of the social environment (as mentioned in the OP).
I think the trend in the American society overall is toward liberalism.
Think about it. The hardline used to be homosexuality is unacceptable. Now it’s you can live together and we might even let you have civil unions, but not gay marriage.
Think about the intolerance there used to be toward different Christian religions. Being a Jew was barely tolerated and anything else Islam, Buddhist, etc was just plain heathen.
I could go on citing case after case, but you get my point.
Maybe the Millennial Generation will think of themselves as conservative, but those conservative attitudes will be set in a more liberal culture and will themselves be far more liberal than the conservative values of a Baby Boomer.
I actually think the culture war will begin to die down a bit. I’m thinking for the next twenty years a couple of issues will emerge which will divide the country among slightly different lines.
#1. Immigration will be a huge issue. As more states become majority-minority, and Hispanics replace Blacks as the leading minority in this country, issues relating to illegal immigration, citizenship, and English/Spanish language will be prominent. Conisdering that Florida/California/Texas/New York/Arizona can almost elect the President of the United States, I’m thinking that we will see a lot more discussion and dissension relating to immigration. Many of the children of today’s immigrants could have very different views than the majority of today’s red state/blue state divide.
#2. The Elderly. The medical costs and costs of caring for the elderly are going to rise drastically. Someone, such as younger workers, are going to have to pay for this. I can easily a younger/older divide in the United States as a smaller pool of younger workers has to pay a larger tax burden to support a graying population.
Socialism and collectivism tend to thrive as life becomes easier and more comfortable for a society. So with modern technology, barring any sort of catastrophe, that side certainly has time on their side.
Both have time on their side … pendulums always swing both ways.
That said, the culture war is much more than an American War. We are more and more part of global communities and being able to thrive in such an environment requires tolerating a broad base of differing views, hence a certain liberalism will be the long-term bias, as we swing wildly back and forth over several-decades long cycles.
Socialism and collectivism also tend to fail over time too so it doesn’t look too bright for their future. Many European countries have an unsustainable economic model as birthrates fall and older people expect more and more benefits, fewer working hours, guaranteed employment etc. Like the laws of physics, it isn’t a good idea to give the finger to the laws of economics.
I see Europe have big problems over the next few decades. Some people think of it as a model but it is really a region in search of stability and has been for some time. We don’t have it as badly in the U.S. but I think the trend will be away from socialism except in a few areas like health care.
Radical liberal ideas will also wain and have have been doing so since the 1980’s. Hopefully we will just end up with the sound ideas from several approaches. I believe conservatives are closer to correct on economic issues (as long as they do what has been preached) and liberal ideas are closer to correct when it comes to plain vanilla acceptance and tolerance.
Those Texans. If they just got to know a Hispanic person, then they would understand. Likewise, the racial problems in the South stem from the fact that few people have ever seen a black person. If they just knew black culture like they do in New Hampshire then everything would be OK.
Sorry, but that doesn’t work. Its a trite idea and it doesn’t hold up. The South is booming as has been for some time. It has major cities with every ethnic group imaginable. The rural areas are filled with minorities as well.
People don’t vote red simply because they haven’t been “enlightened” by exposure to other cultures. That is an ignorant and offensive way to look at things. It is also a good way to lose national elections if the blue states take that attitude.
Don’t you think its possible that conservatives may be right on a few things? Your thinking probably only leans towards light social issues like many liberals. There is a lot more to running a country than a stance on gay marriage.
Which brings me to an important observation on the OP – which is, that the answer could be both and neither because in the so-called “culture war” , a clear unequivocal “victory” is either unreachable or undefinable in a meaningful sense. Eventually, policies from BOTH sides get put into place and become part of the establishment, and it goes on and on. And there are more than two sides, even – a couple of prior posts refer to “socialism and collectivism” but is that really THE issue of the American “culture war”? You could argue that Nationalism (supposedly a “right” position) is a collectivist POV. That reproductive freedom (“liberal”) is an individualist (“conservative”) position. You could be socialist-collectivist AND anti-gay-rights; or a pro-choice strong-defense free-marketeer; or a free-hemp advocate who believes there’s a War on Christmas; or someone who believes there should be universal health care AND the schools should teach “intelligent design”.
So the sociopolitical culture will, for lack of a better term, “evolve” not necessarily in any deliberately designed direction.
On matters of equality, we’ll continue moving forward, giving equal rights (as envisioned by those on the left) to everyone.
On matters of religion in the public sphere, we’ll continue to move forward, separating church and state as envisioned by the left.
On matters of sex in the media, we’ll wobble back and forth, sometimes having more and sometimes having less. I would not be surprised to see the swing toward no-sex-in-the-media continue for awhile.
On matters of personal religious faith, I expect the status quo will stay more or less where it is, with a few swings in each direction.
On matters of free speech, I would not be surprised to see movement toward less freedom of speech–especially if there’s another terrorist attack.
On abortion, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some abortion rights chipped away, but I would be very surprised to see wholesale illegalization of abortion. New advances in medicine may change the argument fundamentally–e.g., what happens if someone invents an artificial uterus?
Are you certain that most of the people age 63 to 80 are dead or in nursing homes? I’m skeptical (and 62).
As for the future generations, if Strauss and Howe’s forecasts hold together, the Millennial Generation will be a little more liberal like their grandparents, the hipsters.
Generations is the most compelling book on this topic that I have come across. Always glad to see a reference to it.
Well, no, of course not. Many are still working (especially in the professions), and many are in comfortable retirement communities instead of nursing homes. Living in Florida, I see them around all the time. Just didn’t think it was worth including that detail in the OP. The point remains: Leadership in all important positions, political and business, is passing, or has passed, to Boomers. This is their time.
I don’t know how you can define a country as “liberal” or “conservative.” Pretty much every country that has ever existed in which we can apply those labels has, at various times gone through waves in which liberal thought was more popular and waves in which conservative thought was more popular.
I’m going to assume you were using the words liberal/conservative incorrectly.
As for religious counries being a disaster…well, if one were to say that then one would have to say every country up until 1900 (and arguably even later) that ever existed was a disaster.
Of course, again I think you are misusing the term religious and simply equating it with the term theocratic.
I don’t think either side has time on its side. I think on a long enough timeline all the social change and such we see will eventually swing back the other way. Now, some stuff may have changed fundamentally and more permanently, though.
I think that it’s unlikely that women will have their rights devolved backwards significantly anytime in the future.
However, a thousand years from now I wouldn’t be at all surprised if homosexuals are highly persecuted, or if racial persecution goes on to a higher degree than it does now.
I think on a long enough time line it all cycles round and round. Sort of like fashion, but the cycle is much longer with this than with clothes.
Y’know, I also am hesitant to call it a “pendulum”, because it implies there is an equilibrium state where the culture would be “at rest”, even forever absent external forces. The reality is the culture does change.
***If * ** we’re gonna adhere to a directional-line model of social evolution, we may want to think more of a “regression to the curve” type phenomenon – that there are long-term general trendlines, but short-term (in time) and/or local (in geography) and/or sector-specific (in societal segment) phenomena tend to show “motion” to the left or right of that line; so it’s tricky to presume that the trend of a particular time/place/sector is indicative of a permanent, determinative change the overall slope – we can’t predict “time on our side” with too much confidence.
My take on it is that if you froze a current day conservative and a current day liberal and brought them back in 2105, or 2150, both would be pleased that A or B has come to pass – and both bitterly disappointed that X or Y did, too.
Observations. My read of American history is that we tend to ride waves back and forth. Certainly some scholars take a similar point of view, Arthur Schlessinger in “The Cycles of American History”, for example, describes how 20th century America was characterized by such swings. Beginning with The Progressives and WWI, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson wanting Americans to “democratize their political and ecomonmic institutions” followed by a period of American fatigue for action with Harding. Then the liberalism of FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal with the corresponding period of conservatism in Ike’s 50’s peaking with McCarthyism. Swing back, shall we to the 60’s and Kennedy and Johnson’s Great Society, and then back again to a “Me” generation of self-interest. Reagan and his Big Tent. Since then our swings have been tepid on the liberal side with Clinton followed obviously by these last years.
Do you see more of a linear process? A march to some end goal?
The neoconservatives don’t have any end goals as far as the country is concerned, they only care about filling their pockets as much as they can before the whole thing collapes.
