The Real Generation War

…Is the one proposed by Ryan and Romney. Not, as David Brooks’ pop psychology analysis would have us believe, one between folksy emotionalism and new wave wonks.

I would normally try not to waste time pointing out how silly a David Brooks column is. His bizarre brand of conservative romanticism goes one farther than even someone like Andrew Sullivan. He focuses on the seemingly insignificant; decries bad manners and mean attitudes rather than bad policies and political lies.

But today’s column serves to elucidate a point that some might have missed while watching last night’s Vice Presidential debate. I can recall the moment at which Ryan sought to cement his defense of entitlement reform. It’s not about vouchers or private accounts—it’s about making Social Security and Medicare solvent for the next generation, while not burdening current seniors.

It sounds so balanced, until you consider it for more than an instant and realize that actually, what Romney and Ryan are proposing isn’t really balanced at all. Unlike their tax plan, which is beginning to look more and more like a conservative mirror image of Obama’s (cut taxes across the board, but pay for it by getting rid of deductions for the rich), their plan for reforming entitlements is to make younger people shoulder all of the burden. Of that there can be no uncertainty.

Now whether it’s just young people is less clear. It definitely looks like anyone around fifty five and under will be asked to do the same, although for them the cuts to benefits might not feel as harsh since the changes will only just be going into effect. And many have argued that, no, Medicare will not stay as it is for seniors, as changes to reimbursement start to limit what’s available.

What Ryan and Romney are proposing is ONE way to deal with entitlements. Unfortunately it happens to be the only way that guts the programs at the expense of younger voters (a group that has notoriously low turnout AND for the most part already doesn’t think these programs will be there for them no matter who does what).

IF I wanted to solve the problem by shrinking both programs—that is by cutting back the guarantee (which I don’t), I would still argue that it should be implemented gradually and with everyone sharing in the sacrifice. After all, young people have gotten a raw deal when it comes to economic opportunity unlike many of the generations before them. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be asked to contribute to a solution; it’s to say that any solution should not be based only on their indifference to losing future benefits while still paying for current retirees.

Brooks’ column, which I know you’ve been waiting patiently for me to get to, doesn’t bother to remark on any of last night’s proposed generational warfare. Instead, his column, titled “The Generation War,” trudges knee deep through a bog of eternal sentimentality. Biden, he writes, comes from a time,

 “when there were still regional manners, regional accents and greater distance from the homogenizing influence of mass culture. That was a culture in which emotion was put out there on display — screaming matches between family members who could erupt in chest-poking fury one second and then loyalty until death affection the next.”

Ryan, on the other hand,

“hails from a different era, not the era of the 1950s diner, but the era of the workout gym. By Ryan’s time, the national media culture was pervasive. The tone was cool, not hot. The meritocracy had kicked in and ambitious young people had learned to adopt a low friction manner. Ryan emerges from this culture in the same way Barack Obama does.”

What results from the meeting of these two incongruous generations?

“substantively, it is the Romney-Ryan proposals that were the center of attention. Some of those proposals are unpopular (Medicare, which was woefully undercovered). Some are popular (taxes). But most of the discussion was on Romney plans because the other side just doesn’t have many.

This was a battle of generations. The age difference was the undercurrent of every exchange. The older man had the virility, but, in a way, that will seem antique to many.”

How that last paragraph follows from the penultimate one is a mystery requiring someone well versed in Brooksisms to properly decipher it. The logic seems to go something like: Ryan is the younger guy, so his ideas are newer. Or maybe not, I can’t be certain.

But in stark contrast to Brooks’ rendition, last night’s debate, and nearly every other discussion of economic growth, deficit reduction, and entitlement reform, to take place in this election and prior, has made it clear that the real question confronting the country is one of who’s going to pay what.

I’m not someone who subscribes to the debt apocalypse theory of the federal budget, i.e. the cuts must be soon, swift, and dramatic. In other words I’m not on the austerity bandwagon, nor anywhere at all close by.

But I do think that stabilizing the economy will require more welfare, and setting on a path for long term growth will require reforming both entitlements and the tax code, coupled with reductions to defense and much more in the way of public investment. Those suggestions are in lieu of other more dramatic changes to American capitalism of course.

The big thing then is how the check gets divvied up. Do we increase or decrease progressivity? Broaden the base, simplify the tax code, and lower overall rates? Maybe a VAT or carbon tax? Increase the cap on payroll taxable income?

Whatever we end up doing, the idea that one generation should be appeased while another one pays for it, needs to be put out in plain sight for all to see and weigh in on. The fact Brooks completely misses the real dynamic, and waxes poetic about old TV show characters instead, is very disheartening, even for him.

But I guess this is just my second lesson this week in why I should have abandoned the New York Times editorial page a long time ago.

Please do be so kind as to share this post.

41 thoughts on “The Real Generation War

  1. Brooks is saying we grew up on “cool.” Look at Batman of the ’60s next to Christian Bale’s, who is barely breathing.

    What do independents want most? They want people who will practice a more respectful brand of politics, who will behave the way most Americans try to behave in their dealings: respectfully, maybe even pausing to listen for a second. To them, Biden will seem like an off-putting caricature of the worst of old-style politics.

    This is not just an issue of manners. It is: How are we going to practice the kind of politics that will help us avert the so-called fiscal cliff? How are we going to balance the crosscutting challenges, like increasing growth while reducing long-term debt?

    A lot of people will look at Biden’s performance and see a style of politics that makes complex trade-offs impossible. The people who think this way swing general elections.

    But do they think that way? Most LoOGers made up their minds months or even years ago. I think we’re all guessing what will move the undecideds. Cool competence or hot passion? It did occur to me watch CNN’s running “approval dial” that Biden was scoring very low, which since women lean Dem, could only be explained by his aggressive manner–interrupting 82 times by one count! Womenfolk are more sensitive to interruption, since men tend to talk over them.

    Brooks—author of Bobos in Paradise, a poetic study of ” bourgeois bohemians,” would be an acknowledged authority on the workout gym culture. But is that America? I don’t know. It’s also urban and upscale, which leans Dem. [Not too many workout gyms for the rural poor.]

    So Brooks is writing what he knows, but is what he knows helpful?

    [And in the future, Ethan, I hope you’ll write of David Brooks and especially Andrew Sullivan as “conservatives” advisedly. Or else I’ll start calling Dick Morris and Lanny Davis “liberals.”]

      Quote  Link


    • I saw one comment from a woman who said, “Men like Joe Biden are where militant feminism came from.”

      Regarding the idea of making younger people shoulder all of the burden for Social Security and Medicare, they always have. It’s a transfer payment from younger working people to older people, a social contract we enacted because it frees us of our personal obligation to care for our elderly directly by pawning the job off on the government. It let’s us get rid of our smelly aunt, who would otherwise insist on living with us, except for visits at Thanksgiving where she rails about government cuts during the entire meal, while we laugh silently because we’re the one who just screwed her over.

        Quote  Link


    • I guess I don’t count as a wimmin folk, since I thought ‘Go Joe. Don’t that smarmy kid keep telling bald-face lies.’

      Of course that might be my blue collar roots showing. Then again, those roots come from steel workers and coal miners in eastern Ohio/western PA.

        Quote  Link


      • Yeah, Biden cackled hysterically at the thought of Iranians nuking Israel, insisting that they can’t have a workable bomb for the enriched uranium. I guess he’s never heard of the A.Q. Khan network, or that the fissile material is often the last component that’s ready in a country’s first bomb.

        He was also lying about the top brass regarding Afghanistan, at least according to the New York Times back in the summer of 2011.

        The troop reductions, which were decided after a short but fierce internal debate, will be both deeper and faster than the recommendations made by Mr. Obama’s military commanders, and they will come as the president faces relentless budget pressures, an increasingly restive American public and a re-election campaign next year.

        And of course he was wrong about the Benghazi timeline, contradicting sworn testimony from the State Department. What was more interesting is the ease with which he threw Hillary under the bus, distancing the White House from any blame for the disaster and what followed and dumping it all the State Department and intelligence, when intelligence has already said that they’d been providing the warnings and had correctly said that there was no protest and the attacks weren’t linked to any Youtube video.

          Quote  Link


          • Mickey Kaus has been ignored by everybody to the left of Hugh Hewitt since about 2005. Also, every right-winger has thrown out “Clinton wants Obama to lose” conspiracy theories since the day Hillary ended her primary run.

            Do I think Bill or Hillary Clinton especially like Obama? Probably not. But, they’d rather have a Democrat in the White House for the next four years. Because the last thing Bill or Hillary want to do is be on cleanup duty after a Republican fuck things up….again.

              Quote  Link


        • Well, if she takes any significant portion of the blame for Benghazi she will never win an election to anything, and probably couldn’t even win a primary. As it boils over, Obama is going to keep pushing the blame back to the State Department to keep it away from the White House, and Hillary will just have to take the fall.

          Hope the Hillary fans don’t get to upset.

            Quote  Link


        • How is what happened not on Hillary to a great degree (which is not to say not on the president, obviously it is). The idea is that both primary and ultimate responsibility run up and down the chain (I.e. there are ways in which even minute details are the responsibility of the very top executive, but at the same time, significant responsibility must also lie with more proximate officials, otherwise what’s the point in there being officials rather than just a lot of laterally equal staff running around and then one Big Chief?).

          The upshot of which is that of course HIllary takes a hit for this. It’s just remains unclear how great a hit. But I have been amazed at how little anyone’s talking about it. I guess conservatives still love her for what a hard time she gave Barack Obama.

            Quote  Link


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *