Flipping the Line: What the real problem is for the Gen-X generation
Gen X and older Millennials not only ended up ignoring politics, they lost the ability to effectively engage in politics. Those muscles atrophied.
The Line welcomes angry rebuttals and responses to our work. The best will be featured in our ongoing series, Flipping the Line. Today, Hamish Macaulay tells Rahim Mohamed why he’s wrong about what’s happening with Gen X.
By: Hamish Macaulay
Talking 'bout my generation: January 6, the Ottawa convoy, the Coutts blockade, les gilets jaune, Trumpism, Poilievre, the People's Party, Take Back Alberta, whatever that thing with Ron DeSantis and Elon Musk was. Gen-Xers filling the boomers’ shoes is showing us the future of politics.
Okay. But … why that particular future? What’s up with us Gen Xers?
Rahim Mohamed sees a generational shift as Gen X lurches to the right to suit its contrarian nature. I see a mid-life crisis, with my generation embarrassing itself by incoherently protesting about personal affronts and resisting deep changes to a society it never wanted to call home. We are flailing and grasping as we catch our breath before the Millennials suck the air out of the space left by our dear, departing Boomers. Gen X's contrary nature can tear down, but it struggles to create.
Rahim Mohamed: What the Gen Xers are doing to U.S. politics
By: Rahim Mohamed It was the campaign launch that launched a thousand memes. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, the 44-year-old “anti-woke” crusader viewed as Donald Trump’s most dangerous rival heading into next year’s Republican presidential primaries, recently took to Twitter Spaces to make his long-awaited campaign announcement. DeSantis was joined at th…
For Mohamed, the "weakening of homogenizing cultural institutions" is the source of Gen X's counterculture. A contrariness that has moved on from skater boys and grunge to owning the libs. This shift, Mohamed points out, is happening harder and faster than the Boomers' own middle-age conversion to conservatism.
Perhaps. But there is more going on here than a contrarian nature unleashed on a political vacuum. Gen X is coming to terms with the fact that the dream is over. History has not ended. The struggles of the 20th century have changed form, not vanished, and liberal democracy still requires hard work.
Historian Anton Jager, in How the World Went from Post-Politics to Hyper-Politics, argues that by coming of age during the era of post-politics, 1989-2008, Gen X and older Millennials not only ended up ignoring politics, they lost the ability to effectively engage in politics. The muscles needed to build political movements that had driven Western society through the 19th and 20th century atrophied. The technocrats and commissionaires of the neoliberal economic regimes and social-progressive movements happily filled the void.
When the Cold War ended, the work of fighting authoritarianism felt like it was over, the social tensions of the previous century banished into history. A life of progress, unfettered capitalism and effortless democracy beckoned. And so we danced, bought the latest gadgets, posted our dances and gadgets on social media, posted about social media, and eventually posted laments about social media. Then in 2008, while still doing all of the above, we suddenly realized things were getting a lot worse.
For the prior two decades, a citizen’s duty was to embrace the individualism required to sustain the consumer culture and tech industry that kept the economy pumping. Progress on social issues was best left to an ecosystem of lobbyists, NGOs and benevolent governments run by that older generation and its mentees.
Then the technocrats we left in charge failed dramatically, and predictably, to tame the vagaries of our world. The series of crises that started with the 2008 financial meltdown made life uncomfortable and confusing. The crises demanded a response, but Gen X lacked any experience in seeking and accepting the compromises needed to build a cohesive group and demand political action. They could only respond as individuals focused on identity and the rules of personal relationships.
Jager describes this change as a shift from post-politics, where politics did not seem to matter, to hyper-politics, where everything is political. This is a shift that applies to movements across the spectrum, from the right-wing politics of the Freedom Convoy and anti-woke crusaders to the progressive politics of Black Lives Matter and police de-funders. Jager describes them as swarms stimulated to act by influencers and agitators rather than mass movements following leaders. Their power is sudden and loud but lacks the bonds of group organization needed to advocate for mindful, durable demands. The kind of organization that cultural institutions used to provide.
The "star performer," another attribute of hyper-politics, now drives politics in the United States and Canada. Parties using ideas and policy to attract like-minded people are unappealing in the era of self-identity and individualism. Instead, politicians succeed with classic image-making and by stimulating enough anger or likes to bring in votes with moralizing and simple visions. They are policy or program averse because the effort offers little reward.
As Mohamed mentioned in his own essay, Ron DeSantis' anti-LGBT+ efforts are not based on any foundation or ideology. They give the Florida governor a clear anti-what-you-fear brand, but they do not serve as a policy or program like George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind. In Canada, we are blessed with our own star performers. Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre produce reams of shallow announcements dressed up as policy to prod their supporters and haters. In Alberta, we just dumped an overachieving policy-wonk in favour of our own star performer. Danielle Smith could not get elected in 2012. In the world of hyper-politics, nothing, not even demonstrated breaches of Alberta’s conflict of interest rules, could stop her.
In the late 19th century, immigration, both between countries and from rural to city, coupled with industrialization, knocked the Western world’s social structures sideways. Elites tried to manage the social upheaval by promoting neo-traditionalism, a human desire for the past in times of turmoil, and nationalism. They succeeded. Liberal-democracy grew in many countries, but the same forces also drove the growth of fascism.
The deep economic changes being forced on us by technology and climate change, as well as the mass movements of people fleeing violence and poverty, remind me of the world 130 years ago. History does not repeat, but it can sure smell familiar. Neo-traditionalism and our individualistic hyper-politics are a volatile mix. Here’s hoping my generation can finally get its shit together and avoid the worst possible future.
Hamish MacAulay is a Calgary-based home economist who also works part-time managing his partner's professional corporation. In his spare time he writes a column for Calgary's arts and entertainment guide, The Scene.
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Follow us on Twitter @the_lineca. Fight with us on Facebook. Pitch us something: lineeditor@protonmail.com
I am Gen-X. I didn't agree 100% with the initial article, but I disagree even more with this one.
GenX is the product of a school system that was already moving away from academics. Many of us were taught simplistic frames and structures about politics that involved labeling a line and placing parties on the line and noting how proximate different parties were to the extremes. Fellow gen-x'ers may remember how close the NDP used to land towards the left extremes - I won't comment on whether the NDP still does fall close to the left extreme on an internal level and have just made their message more palatable or not. But my point is - GenX was told "vote", "this is what a democracy is", and then set free on our merry way. Yes there were some small debate clubs - but actually engaging with political ideas, and developing our own personal beliefs around politics, was not something that was taught.
What were the movements of the GenX youth? What types of activism did we engage in? I legitimately don't remember - I do remember bomb threats in my schools. (Yes, plural!) I remember DARE presentations. I remember MADD presentations. I remember much of the academics - but the social studies side? Not so much. Even now, it doesn't really teach kids how to be citizens, how to organize movements, how to recognize individualism versus collectivism and how to try to bring balance to the conversation.
This is ultimately the larger challenge - pure collectivism is a net negative whether someone is oriented left wing or right wing. Sacrificing individuals, because it benefits the majority is disrespectful and harmful to the individual - and at the end of the day we are all individuals and none of us are better than another nor are some more worthy of saving than others. Proponents of collectivism always have a reason why this time it will be different - and I'm not saying that we should ignore collectivism completely and never engage in it. I do support social programs that helps people get back on their feet and re-enter society and have roofs over their heads and food to eat... BUT I don't support sacrificing one person to save another person.
A healthy society is able to balance the rights of the individual with the needs of the community. I would argue that the larger problem we have now, is that we don't know how to have these conversations (I agree with the author on this aspect,) AND that we are having false discussions that are limited to surface ideas of right vs. left and identity politics, rather than looking at the heart of it which is the balance between the extreme collectivism of pure communism/fascism/authoritanism/socialism and the rights of the individual. We can all exist as individuals AND care about our communities. This isn't an either/or proposition and I think this lack of understanding, is why we are where we are. Combined with a heaping helping of people not being very comfortable residing in their own personal discomfort and looking for quick-fixes. Sometimes our discomfort reflects something in our lives or world that needs to be changed and paying attention to that rather than running away from it would be beneficial.
I suppose the time was always going to come where much ink would be spilled about gen-X. As I see it, gen-X and probably all of the millennial generation, grew up overly dependent on "experts". Now, in middle age, we are realizing experts don't know everything and sometimes they're outright wrong in harmful ways. This is a tough proverbial pill to swallow and unfortunately, the reliance on experts means that many gen-X don't have the ability to evaluate the facts of a situation for themselves, so they look to populist leaders to tell them how it is. It's really just a transferring of power from one authority figure to another, but because there is a lack of self-reflection around this, most of them don't realize it. Some of this even applies to the situation with media - I watched the news every day until one day, a story that was being reported on was a situation I had firsthand knowledge in and I realized the news was not being truthful in it's reporting. Once I saw the news as just another program, I turned it off and cancelled cable. (I haven't regularly watched news in over a decade now!)
I guess my point is - the underlying factors with gen-X are very complicated, and I don't think they can be summed up simply when it comes to political beliefs. I started out a conservative voter, then changed to NDP, and now am back to conservative because I have fundamental disagreements in how the NDP wants to run the economy. Unlike many people, I do read multiple party's platforms each election - not just the short summary version, but the actual full PDF version. I vote based on those policies - not based on ads or polls or whatever is going on in the media. I'm really not loyal to one specific party. I've voted for 4 different parties in my years of voting, and won't say how I'll vote in future elections because it will depend on the policies that are being proposed.
I am concerned about what I view as a loss of truth in society because I understand that politicians are in some ways playing a part when they communicate with the public - they're delivering what they want us to know, not necessarily the full story. Likewise, the big media companies mostly have the same stories, with the same approved headlines and content. I will end my comments here as I realize it's probably longer than most will read anyways. But my main point is that we are where we are politically for reasons that are much more complicated, and some of this burden goes back to the school system (it remains an even larger issue now than it was when I was in school,) and to the general societal shift of trying to avoid emotionally uncomfortable conversations. When we lose our ability to challenge ideas in a respectful ways, then citizens lose the ability to engage meaningfully with our democracy and other institutions. Trust is lost. And this is where we are now. I don't know how to fix it because I know many of my peers aren't willing to self-reflect or change their views. I just know that there is a huge amount of complexity as to the "why" of where we are - and it's not going to be any better with the younger generation. Gen Y is actually more conservative in many ways than millennials and gen X. Not all of them - but those who come through the school system now and are more conservative leaning, are much more rigid in their beliefs because they've spent their school years finding ways to either hide their beliefs, or pushing back against beliefs they disagree with. It will be interesting to see what happens as time passes.
"Rahim Mohamed sees a generational shift as Gen X lurches to the right to suit its contrarian nature. I see a mid-life crisis, with my generation embarrassing itself by incoherently protesting about personal affronts and resisting deep changes to a society it never wanted to call home. "
I disagree with both. First, I dislike the idea of treating generations like monoliths. But fine, if we must talk about statistical tendencies ...
I don't see anything embarrassing or incoherent, or about "personal affronts". Gen X was the first generation brought up where individual rights and freedoms were already baked in. From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to U.S. Civil Rights Act, to the 60s movements, to even Canada's Charter. It was well settled empirically, morally, philosophically, and legally that you treat people as individuals based on their circumstances -- that they aren't defined by collecting people by common traits and calling it a group, the equivalent of applying a spreadsheet "roll-up" average to every "member" of the collection.
We Gen-Xers learned from the start the well-established evils that occur when you don't do that, from WWII atrocities, Orwell's 1984, tribal psychology (Realistic Conflict Theory), experimentation without consent, and so on. We grew up in the era of the Soviet Union collapse, and the horror stories of what happened/happens in socialist societies. Many GenXers in Canada grew up behind the Iron Curtain.
It is because we understood the reasons for all of these (small-L) liberal principles, and the evils that occur in other systems, that we very coherently see the harms that will, and do, occur when we violate those principles. We also tend to check the source material, and not the political and media stories regularly misrepresent the truth, whether due to agendas or incompetence.
If we must, let's take the Freedom Convoy. If you actually watch the live video streams of people in those protests, there are hundreds of live interviews and a very high proportion of random people are immigrants, particularly from socialist countries, and were very worried about seeing Canada adopting policies similar to those they ran away from.
When you check the media and politicians about their claims of what the science says, it doesn't match. The WHO and many medical organizations were against mandates. Health Canada's risk mitigation plan was based on individual choice in order to mitigate the unknown risks it cited. Approval was not based on safety, but on benefits (during the pandemic) outweighing the risk. Vaccine monographs, still being updated by the manufacturers and Health Canada, list many risks and many unknowns including it not being established if they affect fertility, passed through mother's milk to infants -- and can't rule out harm to the infants. They still say that updated in late 2022.
NACI's Oct 22, 2021, report directly said there was insufficient evidence to make conclusions about vaccine's ability to reduce spread / transmission.
People recognized that Trudeau abided by the WHO recommendations against mandates until Aug 2021 when he saw an opportunity to get a majority government by being divisive, and irrational hatred of unvaccinated people erupted. This "us vs them" divisive hatred was very much predicted and predictable per the post-WWII psychology we grew up with, and why the individual freedoms were paramount.
This wasn't about "personal" affronts. Most protestors were fully vaccinated. Truckers were more highly vaccinated than the general population. It was about treating others in our society as second-class citizens, as so many societies had done before and we see around the world. It was about violating basic human decencies toward each other. Watch the videos at how Quebeckers and Albertans came together, united in the beliefs of treating citizens with human decency and the most basic rights.
The same principles apply with anti-Woke. Wokism is belief system in which it is ok to reduce people's values based on their "group-defining" traits, not their individual situation. Again, the outcome is predictable that this will increase hatred, divisiveness, unconscious bias, and injustice, and do nothing of use. It's premise is backwards, essentially comparing everybody else to white males and saying that everybody should want to do what they do in the same proportions, and then forceably make the numbers come out proportional to make these activists happy. This is, of course, backwards. It says the fact there are few Amish physicists is automatically due to systemic bias against the Amish, and we must force the Amish physicist numbers to rise to be "equitable".
It also isn't "neo-traditionalist". It is Chesterton's Fence. We understand *why* these principles exist at the level of our constitution. They are a defence against the evils of tribal psychology and authoritarian elitism. We understand that progress is made -- not through coercive threats by governments or mobs -- but by normalization and patience. Let people object. The ACLU had it right in Skokie.
There is nothing incoherent or embarrassing about any of this.
Edit:
It also isn't a move to "the right". It used to be that the Liberals fought against authoritarian religious conservatives, fought for individual rights and freedoms, and defended the freedom of speech, freedom to choose ("My body, my choice!"), and signed up to the principle that, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it."
Now, it is the Liberals (and NDP) who are the threat to these principles. It's not that Gen X have aligned with social conservatism, but that the Liberal party has abandoned defending these principles and have taken to pushing a monolithic orthodoxy of belief. The Edmonton teacher attacking a Muslim student for their beliefs is as much a religious conservative as any, and is only slightly more overt than what is the political norm.