Primary the Primaries from the Center

As a man of the American Left, it's hard to see the Democrats as a party that can win. And if I'm being honest, there is a small part of me that doesn't want them to, assuming the path remains the same. This shouldn't dissuade you from questioning my bona fides. I think trickle-down economics weakens the country and is bad for the overall economy, I think the continuing understaffing of the State Dept. ruins our soft power - by which I believe any nation truely achieves global domination, and I think the Individual-Industrial Complex is code word for "If you aren't rich, you must be stupid." Just the opposite, I think wealth tends to breed stupidity. How many children of the rich and powerful achieve anything great?

But my hesitation with electoral victory, or political posturing from the Left is clear: I'm not against Socialism for areas where a market would fail - highways need better congestion pricing, and the subsidies for oil have suppressed a renewables market - but blanket tax-coverage for any and all medical expenses and higher education will put tremendous strain on a system that doesn't have the surge capacity that would be the first year of this system change. I'll plan to post my disposition on any of these issues in the coming months, but by and large I don't see it as good. I went to College on Loans, and Grad School on less loans but loans none-the-less. I already felt as if people were there because they were supposed to be, but imagine if anyone could just sign-up on-line and take your seat? There were classes I needed to wake up at 7:00 a.m. just to get a placement in.

But for a moment, forget the issues. The major problem with the Democratic field so far in 2018 is that I don't have a place to say that without a mob coming for me, I don't have a candidate that will stand up and say these things, and I don't have another alternative. There's been rumors of a Romney/Bloomberg ticket as a third option in 2020 - I hope there will be. But for right now I'm not holding my breath and hoping they announce.

The Democratic Party, going into the mid-terms had a decentralized platform. You could, largely, say whatever you wanted. This is a party, heretofore, that elected both Connor Lamb and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. That was one of the reasons I liked the party.  It was a big-tent party that went for solutions. But this is our problem as a group (and to be clear, I've never been registered with any political party), when everyone has buy-in, there's far more half-interested advocates than there are hardcore policy folks. And the advocates generally think they're smarter than those of us who dig deep into policy and look at the mechanisms. "I want free shit" (and I hate to sound like a Republican here) is a bigger applause line than "How are we going to pay for that?"

Typically, saying "How are we going to pay for that?" is a Republican line that translates to "I don't want to do that." But for wonks, it's a genuine question. Because payment is required by any laborer either physically or mentally. But the Left needs to wrap it's head around this concept - sometimes the way things are paid for are just as moral a the thing the money is going toward. Socialized highways (as I mentioned above) are an over-congested nightmare. But if congestion pricing is applied that money can go toward better financed public transportation. It's important to understand that aspect because when you don't, you have the sort of hair-brained ideas that Bill deBlasio (Mayor of NYC) comes up with thats says "The middle class would be hurt by Congestion Pricing." He thinks this because he was middle class in the 1960s. Despite two teachers making well over $250k a year in NYC, the middle class is defined by income relative to the regional market. I'm glad teachers are paid that well there, but $250 is not middle class; and those of us who are don't drive to work in major cities, you take the train.

There, in that example, is a microcosm of the problem. The children of the middle class in the 50's and 60's grew up to be the professional class. And while I won't insult their drive or benefit of social mobility, the reason we continue to run into problems is because these top-tier economic members don't know what the day-to-day struggles are. Democrats, since 2016, have been asking some variation of the question "How do we connect with the white working class male?" And that isn't really what they're asking. They're asking "How does a Partner at a Law Firm we've nominated to be our candidate convince poor folks that s/he understands them against all the obvious facts that they don't."

The working class democrats spawned professional democrats, and instead of saying "we made good on the deal, let's get out of the way and let those in the trenches run things" then held on to tower with a death grip. For years it was good enough to say your mother mopped floors so you could go to college. But now - and this should really be obvious - mopping floors won't send anyone to college. That's why the bullshit narrative no longer works. Your talking in terms that don't exist any longer.

In many ways, Hillary Clinton was the greatest standard bearer for the Democrats in 2016 because she represented them so completely. Did her homework, put in the time, was a little too stiff from years of climbing the ladder. Hillary Clinton, on the deck of a single-family detached home in the suburbs at a cookout, talking to a neighbor is what the ruling class in the Democratic party has become. Which is to say, Republican. I can't rage against two parties in one post, but Republicans (briefly) are a party of people who were born on 3rd and believe they hit a triple (and tell everyone they hit a home run despite the obvious). We become the inverse of JFK. Born without struggle believing we've made good despite no odds. While JFK was never poor, he was a generation removed from open classism in Boston toward the Irish, and many there saw him as someone who could show the world that the Irish, too, could achieve. Now we've got a pack of achievers showing they could have been shunned once!

Unfortunately for us on the Left, we've now abandoned the achievers outdated story for someone who appears like they'd have a story. The question is no longer who is inevitable (an Establishment question) but which of the pre-approved protected classes can say the right platitudes to be our standard bearer. I was talking to someone in the aftermath of 2016 and said "I'm seeing a lot of good press from Gavin Newsom"

"No," she said "he's too white; too male"

Maybe he is. But are we really going to rule folks out based on that? My soul cringed into a hole at the thought that we were going to sacrifice everything again because we were using the same old formulas. Once, in 2007, I was asked by a State Senator if we had all voted for Hillary Clinton like "good little democrats." (the statement still makes my blood boil).

"No, I'm voting for Obama" I had said at the time because I liked him more then and I still do.

"I like him" she said to me "But it's not his time."

If we listen to these people, there's only one road we can go down. If the "it's not their time" crowd won in 2008, it's likely we'd have McCain which, yes, would have been a better option than Trump, but not as good as Obama. The problem here is clear. The Democrats need to do three things if they want to win 2020:

• Don't hire someone who grew up middle- or upper-class
• Don't draft someone who's job is in the Professional Class (e.g. Doctor's, Lawyers, etc.)
• And for the love of christ, let them battle it out in the primaries.

If the party continues to go hunting for candidates at suburban barbecues or by eliminating candidates with charisma simply because they aren't checking the right boxes demographically then we might as well throw in the towel now. Advocates, Tweeting platitudes on Twitter is not the party and they do not show up to vote. They are occasionally useful idiots, and more often they're ruining it for the rest of us. It isn't hard to see how the self-righteous blew it in September. Anyone who paid attention to politics knew Brett Kavanaugh was getting on the bench. Thanks to our friends on the sanctimonious Left, Fox News was provided with a gritty reboot of the '68 Democratic Convention. We always knew we'd lose the seat; now we've lost the Senate as well. 

If you've read this far, and you think "Ok genius, what would you advise we do?" My answer is pretty simple:

1. Get a car on November 6th and drive your moron friends to the polls.
2.  Find yourself the issue you care about most and reach the trade publications for it (i.e. not the fluff pieces but the graduate research)
3. Grasp the concept that superficial Tweeting on 40 issues isn't as good as burrowing deep into one issue (and neither are as good as actually voting)

In the meantime, I'm going to be a white, patriarchal fascist and support the Beto O'Rourke 2020 campaign now - even if you managed to sabotage him in Texas. 

Orlando, IS, and The Crusade for Mental Illness

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, the Facebook hottakes are too numerous to mention. To preserve my own dignity, I've decided to blog about it so I can get it off my chest with no risk of anyone reading it.

If you're not familiar with the situation, what appears to be a mentally deranged man shot up a gay club in Orlando and left 53 people, including himself, dead. These early reports we're seeing now seems to suggest he was doing it on behalf of the Islamic State.

Since the incident, everyone and their brother has come out with things we should do, things we should say, people we should blame. Most have been vague platitudes and kind words on Facebook. Many have been diatribes against the usual suspects: The NRA, Islam, Homosexuals. And who gets to make proclamations here is even up for grabs. Take for example Owen Jones, who in the clip below just walked out of the study because the other two weren't gay enough to comment on the incident.

I have a "friend" on Facebook who wrote "I swear if anyone comes out with #NotAllStrightPeople I'm going to scream." Which was funny because in my casual review of the news, I haven't seen anyone blame straight people int he first place.  While I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Jones that the shooter probably didn't know the first thing about Islam, he's wrong to suggest that the issue in play here is homosexuality. Just as he claims the massacre will be co-opted in the anti-Terrorism fight, I believe he's co-opted the incident for his own agenda. It's hard to say exactly what that is, but it seems to me that he's making this an issue about homosexuality when it's clear to me the issue at hand is mental illness.

And more importantly, lets say what this isn't about: Religion; Guns; and Gays. They're all symptoms of the same disease. And whenever a tragedy happens people use their own world view to make sense of things. But the facts remain the same. If we didn't arrest Salinger because of Mark David Chapman, then blaming Islam on this one is ludicrous And frankly, taking guns away from people doesn't seem to me to solve the problem. That the man could buy a weapon while on the no-fly list is ridiculous. That he was on the no-fly list because he was a terrorist sympathizer is even more disappointing. The government doesn't function right now. And at least 53 people are dead because of it.

I fear currently that too many people will think the issue is Islam and homosexuality and won't give this the proper weight it deserves. Because the truth is that those people who are estranged from reality have a position. And the severity of that position isn't something they can control. What justification they use is irrelevant. And all this is to say that tomorrow, someone who shouldn't be allowed to drive can buy a weapon and shoot up your favorite bar, or workplace, or church. The only question we're waiting on now is how many more shootings will take place before we actually do something about mental illness.

Crossing the Rubicon: Brock Turner and the Future of Consequences

A great deal of hay is being made about Brock Turner, the Stanford Swimmer who raped a woman, got a lenient sentence because of the impact a longer sentence would have on him, and whose father penned a letter to the judge asking for a lenient sentence.

You can find a longer version of the letter online, but after reading these choice highlights, I have to tell you that not only do I believe that this father is completely out of touch with reality, but I read into it larger societal implications.

First off, the appeal to a judge in the first place is abhorrent. This is the justice system. You're not buying a house. Appeals to anyone's emotion in a matter of legality is an affront to the nation of laws that America was always meant to be. He was found guilty by a jury of peers. While I'm not fond of the judicial reasoning on this, the system is working as it should, and the judge will be held responsible for the verdict. Secondly, the general emotional well being of a criminal is not anyone's concern. I'm sure everyone feels badly that they are being punished.

But the thing that bothers me most about this letter is the estrangement from the gravity of the situation. Snacks? The word on its own is juvenile. Why bring it into the discussion of justice for a rapist. The thrust of the argument is all too touchy-feely for me to even consider as a serious argument: His smile, the snacks, the phrase happy-go-lucky...is this man an adult or is he the host of a children's television show.

Why the whole thing makes me cringe, aside from the obvious, is the cluelessness with how easy his kid got it. There was a time where rape was met with gelding. And while that might be considered cruel and unusual punishment, 6 months in jail isn't.

Finally, the man strikes me as having absolutely no sense of forethought. Specifically because of the element of time he brought into it. And because he seems to be completely clueless as to what rape is. For one thing, why does time matter? If I'm to stab you in the heart, you'd die a lot more quickly than 20 minutes. Should I get less than 6 months because it took me 3 seconds to commit the act? Situations aside, we can agree that time isn't a factor.

Beyond this, to equate rape with eating steaks is lunacy. No one cares if you can eat steak. If the rape were to be conducted on the father himself, would he feel the same way? The point isn't the questions. Everyone most likely thought the same thing when they read about this case. The point is, why isn't he thinking about this? His child, his grief, the time of the separation - that's all fair game if he spoke his statement. But he wrote it. He had to have thought about it. He got an envelope, and a stamp, and put it in his mailbox. And still he felt like snacks and swimming superseded someone having another person inside of them when they weren't conscious.

The stand we make here is about a lot of things, but beyond them all is boundaries and consequences. And that's what this father doesn't understand. You can't negotiate your way out of things. That's assumed by the upper classes, but the internet isn't letting this one go, and they're aiming to unseat the judged that the father thinks is too harsh. I personally want to see this end with the justice the digital vigilantes seek. Because while I can't align myself with them all the time, this is one area where we seek the same outcome for different reasons. In the end, the main concern is justice. In an America that seems to be comping loose at the frayed ends of sanity, we need hard lines now more than ever. As Caesar can tell you, once you cross the Rubicon, there's no going back.

Jobloss in America

I used to say that the big crisis in the unemployment numbers was the deficit of dignity. Then I got laid off and I knew what it meant first hand.

Unlike most people looking for work, I survived the 2008 layoffs. I worked for a small non-profit (a YMCA) and we had minimal layoffs. I considered myself lucky. In 2010, I found a new job with a $10k pay bump and thought everything was going in my favor. I had planned to change careers and teach, I took an administrative job at a Catholic School just as I had finished my MTELs. I planned to work there for a few years, work on getting my Masters Degree and eventually work my way into the classroom. 30 days shy of my year anniversary I was told my position was eliminated.
It seemed to make good financial sense. I was making, in some cases, about $12k more than the teachers. I handled it with grace –these things do happen – and went to meet with Human Resources. This is where my nightmare began. In short heres what I discovered:

• I was ineligible for unemployment. They weren’t required to pay into the State plan being a religious organization. They had their own unemployment insurance but I didn’t qualify – you had to work there for 1 full year. I was 30 days off.
• I was told that I would receive the full amount of what I worked plus whatever I was owed in vacation time. The real benefit here was medical insurance through the end of July.

June 30th was a Thursday. Having called about vacation time when the decision came down and still without an answer, the day before I was laid off I still hadn’t heard anything so I called again. That Friday, the first day I was unemployed, I received an email from the Human Resources saying that she was mistaken and my last day of work was the 25th, not the 30th, so I wouldn’t be paid for the final 4 days I worked. Again, the problem was the denial of healthcare. I had received this email on my phone, so I didn’t respond from the subway station. In the time between then and when I had returned home, I had another email from HR – I apparently was on the Teachers Vacation schedule and would not receive any vacation time.

Furious, I wrote to the President of the two schools I worked for and requested a meeting. She graciously agreed to meet with me but wasn’t back from vacation until Wednesday. In the meantime, I’d received the official termination paperwork, and to add insult to injury it claimed the my final day was the 30th, as was originally told to me, and it was addressed to Mary.

The President agreed that this was incorrect and she said it would be addressed. I received and apology from the HR Director and my check came 2 weeks later. Except it was for $0. I found this out after receiving an email saying my Checking Account was low. I thought that was odd since the day before $1000 should have gone into the account and minimum. I called home and asked my girlfriend to open the letter and she told me it was for $0.

I eventually sorted all of this out for a second time. I was officially unemployed. I had canceled all of my medical appointments (optometrist, dentist) because I wasn’t sure if I’d have medical coverage, and now, I’m hoping to get it sooner than later before my cracked tooth becomes a real problem. I’m avoiding anything especially hard or chewy in the mean time.

Since then I’ve been on the job hunt, and this is by far the worst part. The problem is that those hiring aren’t jobless, and there is no crisis for them. Applications are met with calls 3 to 4 weeks later. Meanwhile I do what I can to spend the least amount of money as humanly possible. I’ve gone on a few job interviews and had a few phone screenings. I even had one from a company whose products I used and really enjoyed their philosophy. After 2 rounds of interviews in which I had to make a sales pitch to them of their product, I received and email from their recruiter saying “they weren’t hiring any of the applicants.” This should encapsulate the real issue for the unemployed. Our crisis is our own, and the sense of urgency that keeps you up at night is something that the working world doesn’t see as anything serious.
I’m currently waiting to hear back from a job interview this week. I’ve met with them three times. I’ve invested plenty of my time making sure everything was just right, I’ve interviewed for about a month, and this week I might find out I’ve wasted and entire month. This is how people who can’t find work go from hunting to quitting. A protracted process met with apathetic rejection.

I’ve been so heavily invested in this latest job, being told I have the career experience to fit the job well, getting references from internal employees, and being invited back that I’ve actually lost sight of the end goal and stopped applying for jobs. This week, as I sit waiting by the phone I’m again firing off applications that I might hear from by the end of September.

But Americans are often defined by their jobs, and so much is tied in with them. I’m often asked about what I do for a living and I lie. I can’t bike or do anything mildly risky because I don’t have the medical coverage to fix it should anything go wrong. Friends have stopped inviting me places because they either think I can’t afford it or don’t want to insult me. Soul-crushing isn’t the hyphenated word. When someone loses a job, they lose a whole lot more. I’m told to remind people I’m looking, but no one wants to be a charity case, and we don’t want to harass the friends that will still call.

So I’m not sure where to go from here. An application requires immense attention to detail and if you really want the job, a tailored cover letter for each posting. Hours of work, anger at every missed typo you know equates to an immediate rejection. How do you continue to meet rejection with more passion and energy needed to give you half a shot at the next open position? I just hope someone out there is listening. Oh and by the way, Hug an unemployed person today, will ya? We could use it.

T-Paw gets in the mix.

I’d love to talk about the debate Monday night because I love debates, politics, and battle. Unfortunately I can’t for two major reasons:

1. It was the first debate, and there are only losers and non-losers there. Despite what you’ve heard, you can’t win them.

2. Pawlenty, supposedly, was a big loser.

Since Spin Alley Monday night, the murmur on the street has been that Pawlenty went soft, didn’t differentiate himself enough from Romney to get big donors on board, and should have stuck to his position he held on Fox News Sunday referring to the Massachusetts Healthcare Plan as “Ob-omney-Care.” Because this seems to be the prevailing opinion, let me explain why its wrong.

First off, almost everyone brought up the 1960’s debate between Kennedy and Nixon where in Nixon was beaten because he “erased the assassin image.” This was advice given to him by then VP candidate Henry Cabot Lodge. For historical disclosure, Lodge was the man ousted from the Senate by the Kennedy Machine and later a diplomat in Vietnam. As Old Yankee Money often does, he holds a wide resume.

But there are several ways in which this comparison is highly flawed. For one thing, neither man in the incumbent. Nixon, in that situation, had everything to lose. Kennedy was, at that point most famous Nationally for coming in second for the VP slot the election cycle previous. Pawlenty conversely made his non-pundit debut to the national stage last night. To come out of the gate as a complete jackass would mean you were, at best, a complete foil candidate – someone there to ruin another candidate (Like Jon huntsman will be). Also, in American politics, jerks can only get away with being jerks (and by that I mean not completely hated) if they’ve got some juice/charisma to them. Not to disparage, but this is not Pawlenty’s strong suit. A few notable jerks to parse the data would be Dick Cheney and a pre-scandal Anthony Weiner. One was universally hated, one was partisan hated but at least he was a media darling. Pawlenty is more of a Cheney when it comes to swagger.

Secondly, the GOP has a pecking order and generally follows it. You get the nomination when its your turn to get the nomination. Its why I think so many Obama-voting Democrats last time around recoiled at Clinton supporters saying “Its Hillary’s turn.” You could almost see them ask “Aren’t those GOP marching orders?” Romney has not only technically earned the Establishments hallpass to run, but he’s made sure no one else will usurp it from him. Going back to Nixon, in 1968 Reagan may have stolen that election from him, but Nixon’s southern strategy had paid dividends and Nixon walked off with the Nomination handily. Romney hasn’t exactly buddied up to Senators and Governors in early primary states (Palin’s been following Nixons plan far more closely), but Romney’s network is a Juggernaught. He’s driving towards record breaking fundraising donations and he’s coming off more like a Kennedy than a Nixon, choosing to forego states that cater to an alternative brand of Republicanism. If Iowa elected Huckabee over McCain last time around, you can bet your ass a Billionaire Mormon from the East Coast has a better chance of being elected Beauty Queen than Republican nominee. Pawlenty knows that if he can be the second Establishment candidate this time around, he’s got a far better shot of becoming President than he will if he manages to beat Romney out this time around. Here’s why:

1. Even if Romney grabs the Establishment position, theres no saying the Tea Party will let him get away with taking th nomination. Bachmann turned in an impressive performance Monday night, eradicating many of the myths about her as a know-nothing looney toon from the MidWest. Not to mention that idea that Rick Perry might get into the race. He’s a good deal more to the right than Bachmann, but I’ve seen few modern day politicians to match Rick Perry’s charisma.

2. The GOP still faces a highly formidable President who won by a very large margin in 2008 and with new shifting demographics, he’s poised to maintain a good deal of those Electoral Votes. (He will in no way maintain his numbers from 2008, but his chances are good).

3. 2016 is an open field. Biden is and has always been highly beatable. I also think by that time he’ll be too old to reasonably compete (He’ll be roughly 74 by then). Pawlenty saw what happened in 2008 and frankly it allows for anyone to get in there (Did anyone hope Obama would run in 2006 besides the hyperpartisans?)

The idea that Pawlenty has ruined his chances is only true if we take the short-view, election-cycle tunnel-vision approach that the 24-hour networks operate in. If Pawlenty looks at the landscape and surveys correctly, coming in a slick second, and getting in play for the VP position means 2016 looks like more of a lock for him than ever before stealing Iowa with ease as the local, NH was the no frills Establishment guy, losing to some dingbat down in SC (unless he uses Nixon’s SS) and then running against said individual or looking inevitable after the win. At that point the money’s rolling in, opposition donations are way down and he walks into the Nomination against a non-Administration Democrat who’ll be saddled with any bad thing that’s happened since 2007.

Unless, of course, Rick Perry gets in this time around; Then the horse race is on.

Sluts in the Modern Era

This week Ed Shultz was suspended for calling Laura Ingraham a “slut.” It wasn’t that cut and dry, of course. He called her a “talk slut” in the context of a rant on right-wing hypocrisy. Like most people hearing the comment, I don’t think it made much sense. As best as I can tell, the only connection was that (and I’m guessing here) Shultz felt Ingraham would say anything the GOP put out as a talking point.

So he’s suspended. Snarky comments are made all over the web by partisans. An apology is made. I’ll give Laura credit on this one, she did say (tweet) that she accepted the apology. One savvy blogger noted that Morning Joe (a show on the same network as Shultz) that next morning had a show dedicated to Women feeling empowered.

But in the land of “things that will get you suspended on radio/TV” slut seems to be the odd-man out. Unlike the other bombs that come before suspension N(black folks), F(homosexuals), R(mentally handicapped), or whatever word so corresponds with folks of Jewish and Latin decent, slut seems to me the only one that will both get you suspended, but isn’t an inherent piece of the person. In a world determined to diagnose Sex Addiction, slut still seems like an opinion based thing rather than an inherent attack on a group.

And while I don’t know Laura or Ed, I’m guessing they aren’t familiar with one another. So this cross-town insult, which didn’t make a lot of sense syntactically to begin with, now seems to be missing its stinger by virtue of unfamiliarity.

Historically, the words that will get you fired are not only something an individual can’t run away from, but its also a condemnation of an entire group. No one who’s ever used an N word ever made his complaints moot beyond the individual. Nor do those who decry homosexuality as an abomination think its limited to a few. But slut seems to, at least historically, have a different connotation. First of all, if someone saying “slut” meant all women were actually sluts, there’d be no contrast to make it vulgar. With the above examples the alternative was either Whiteness, or Heterosexuality, Mental Normality (as is defined socially), or Christianity. So by virtue of the insult, it can’t attack all women.

And historically, there has always been some degree of familiarity no matter how scant. As I said above, the relationship between Shultz and Ingraham seems to be no relationship at all. At its root, there is a character judgment made with moral implications when using the word “slut” so ever if we’re talking Shultz to mean “slut” in its most conventional form, our question should be – How does he know?

Now I’m sure most of you probably have said at some point in this scandal “the real question is ‘so what if she is?’” One’s sexual relations are of no business to anyone but those involved. This brings up the other historical point – Slut has generally been used as an attack levied by men against women to suggest by virtue of this one flaw, she is inherently flawed. Not only has this thought-process gone the way of the Puritans, we’ve come to know men to be of the same persuasion if not more so. (TIME this month asks “Why are powerful men such pigs.”)

So all this has lead to the question of where does the word come to today? Is it worthy of suspension? However you feel about the word, free speech, these hosts, or political talk radio – nobody really wants this to become standard fare. If slut were used as freely as “partisan” on a given program, you’d likely see ratings fall for a lack of intelligent coverage. And if we do think that its still as powerful as its been since we determined it to be an unacceptable statement of a woman, how do we reconcile this with Jerry Brown’s response to the issue when he was challenged back in September by Meg Whitmann for Governor of California. If he can nullify it so easily, can it really hold strength?

I’d love to hear what the ladies have to say on this one, but fellas, don’t be afraid to mix it up.

Cultural Progress

I’ve often said to friends who’ve complained about certain social philosophies prevailing “You just have to wait for the old people to die.”

Its crass, but most times its true. My father was 12 before Civil Rights Legislation was passed. For him, living in the North, he never knew separated drinking fountains or anything like that, but that was a reality for plenty of Americans. And for some of those Americans (despite the Civil Rights Legislation) can’t let it go. They may not advocate separate but equal, but may still be off-put by interracial marriage. This isn’t meant to be a discussion on race, but a discussion on how culture can be ingrained.

From 1933 to 1980, America was on a clear and left-ward trajectory. From 1980 until the present its been dialing some of that back (or trying to), but today we’re at a cross-roads we haven’t seen since (likely) 1887. And that is a culture ingrained is waning in the hearts and mind of Americans. In 1887, everyone born in 1866 was turning 21. Seems like random numbers and blabber, but in 1887, people were voting who were not alive during the Civil war. They may have heard stories and carried prejudices, but it was the downward decline of the Civil Wars great influence in the American populace.

2011 is 16 years removed from 1995; The year when those born in 1974 (the year after ‘Nam ended) tuned 21. Those folks are now starting to move into the political halls of Washington D.C. In fact, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is roughly 41. He was about 3 (and I assume not very worldly) when Vietnam ended. By the time he was 10, Reagan was in the White House and the enemy was the U.S.S.R. To someone not well versed in the trade of American History, Politics, and Culture this probably seems like a big collection of fun facts for a trivia game. But the truth is, both wars (Civil & Vietnam) were enduring milestones for the American people.

Now the generation that was born after the Big 3 (Civil War, Vietnam/Watergate, Civil Rights/Jim Crow) are taking hold of the country. As someone who fits the bill (I’m 1982), I already feel better about the future of the country. As I had said before, you just have to wait for these old people to die.” What I hadn’t accounted for was that they wouldn’t die quietly.

When Pat Buchanan said “we want to take our country back” at the RNC in 1992, many said it was the death knell of George H. W. Bush. What I heard (much later, I wasn’t watching the RNC when I was 9) was “we need to get rid of the Mexicans.” But what I’ve recently come to understand is that its not Mexican’s they ultimately want to get rid of, but the perception that we don’t need to get rid of Mexicans. Not specifically, but when people feel they’re losing the country, it really means their culture. Its hard to imagine the U.S. ever really going down. And for obvious reasons, we have no control over the actual landmass staying or going. But culturally, this is where folks stand. Once upon a time, everyone could get a job on a factory line, support a family, buy a house, and send their kids to college.

Today, there are no factory lines, divorce is rife, people stopped having kids, the house market is up in flames, college sends at least 3 Americans out of 10 to perennial debt. Not to mention less significant changes like Marriage. These days its an end cap to a successful life, not the beginning of one. This and the migration to larger cities has left many men to wait until their mid-30’s for marriage. People go to bed watching the Jersey Shore not Johnny Carson. The internet has blurred most lines, everything’s computerized, and we just stopped sending rockets to the Moon; a move that is so iconic in America’s dominance in the world and over our eternal enemy, the Soviets. Not even the Soviets are around anymore. They’ve been replaced by China who’s nullified our missile defense sheild by simply grinding us down through economics.

The problem starts simply. Once upon a time you could say a cultural norm and have it agreed upon by everyone at the bowling alley, pub, or workplace. Not only are those places disappearing, but you can’t be sure of anything anymore. And this is where the paranoia sets in. America wasn’t any better or worse before cell phones, reality TV, or iPods, we’ve just changed culturally overnight. To the old guard, this is frightening. They’ve woken up in a place that looks like home, but feels like Mars. To too many American’s, you get the impression that they feel as if they’ve landed on planet of the apes. Except instead of primates, you’ve just got racially mixed Americans running around with buds in their ears, staring into a brick in their hand, speaking to kids in India about something called a Processor, but it has nothing to do with food.

The good news is that the end is nigh, and the failure of certain institutions – institutions that were not sustainable – are returning America to some of its post-war norms anyway. Family means something wildly different today than it did in 1946, but more and more the elderly are moving in with one another for financial solvency. Retiring to Florida no longer works. The houses are too expensive, the loans don’t exist, the water has oil in it, and the Hurricane insurance is unaffordable.

But somewhere out there on the horizon is a new American norm. 9/11 was the defining moment of a generation. But children born after it are already 10. And since the killing of Bin Laden, like the defeat of Imperial Japan, its become less of a cultural flash point than it might otherwise have been. I don’t look forward gleefully to the passing of our forbearers. The Baby Boomers got us through some rough patches for sure. But the future for America looks incredibly bright when the sins of our fathers are finally put to rest with them.