Age May be But A Number, But Can Youth and Enthusiasm Win Over Age and Experience?

"Count your age by friends, not years. Count  your life by smiles, not tears" ----John Lennon

So, Joe Biden has been forced to step aside allegedly "for the good of the country and for the good of the Party". Biden is one of the longest serving politicians in Washington, starting in 1970. Now, Biden is one its oldest. Certainly the oldest serving president, having been elected at age 78.

Had Biden remained in the race and won (which was doubtful) he would have been 82 years old when sworn in. But how much does that really matter? Ronald Reagan was just shy of 70 when first elected (and yes, age was an issue then too), making him oldest person ever elected to the presidency at that point, and he went on to serve two terms.

Former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was just 70 when he left office in 1961 (succeed by one of our youngest elected presidents, John F. Kennedy, who was a mere pup at 43. The youngest when elected was Teddy "TR" Roosevelt at age 42). The average age of presidents is 55 at the time of their inauguration.

It's worth noting at this point that the topic of age was intensely discuss by the Founding Fathers when it came to serving in Congress or the Presidency. However, they weren't concerned with placing a age cap on elected officials. In actually, they were more concerned with establishing a minimum age!

During the 1781 Constitutional Convention, Virginia's George Mason lobbied hard for establishing a minimum age. Many of the Conventioneers, lead by James Wilson of New Hampshire,  felt the someone should be at least 25 before seeking high office (remember that the mortality for men back then was about 40), which kind of makes sense actually.

However, Mason was able to convince his fellow delegates that (supposedly) age brought with it a measure of wisdom and maturity thanks to life's experiences. So, after the usual give and take, a compromise age of 35 was finally settled on as the minimum age to be elected as president. To be elected to the House of Representatives, the minimum age would be 25 (apparently wisdom and maturity aren't required as much there). For Senator you had to be 30 years old.  

Speaking of age, do you know why the minimum age to collect Social Security was set at age 65? Because the average life expectancy for men (the main bread winner) in 1935 was 60 years old (65 for women). Men had to beat the average by five years before they could apply!

So, if an "age cap" wasn't of any real consequence for our Founding Fathers beyond setting age floor, what's all the hubbub about Biden's age? I think the answer is a simple as it is obvious. We've all known individuals in their 40's, 50's or 60's who act like their octogenarians. They're sluggish, always tired and don't want to do anything that involves expending much energy (operating the remote doesn't count as expending much energy). Even their memory isn't quite what it used to be mainly because they don't challenge themselves intellectually.  

Then there's those individuals who are in their 70's, 80's and older who are constantly on the go. There are few household projects they won't tackle. They keep their minds sharp, be it actively watching game shows like "Jeopardy" or "The Weakest Link" and "competing" with the contestants to taking academic courses, learning a new skill, staying engaged with others, are proactive with their healthcare ,or so forth. These people boldly defy the age stereotype.

Despite his age going into office, Ronald Reagan developed a reputation for being active (like  riding horses or working on his 688 acre ranch at Rancho del Cielo). How many of us haven't seen photos of Reagan splitting wood? Even though Eisenhower was 70 when he left office in 1961, he continued to golf ("Ike" maintained a 14 handicap) but even while President, he never failed to get in 36 rounds of golf a week. 

Nevertheless, age eventually catches up with all of us no matter how fast we run. For President Reagan the early signs of Alzheimer were already there as early as 1984 according to Reagan's son, Ron. By  the time Reagan was almost completed his second and final term, the symptoms were becoming harder and harder to overlook. However, his official diagnosis didn't come until October 1994, five years after leaving office. 

Well, that brings us to Donald Trump and Joe Biden. We'll start with "the Donald". At the time Trump was 70 years old when he was inaugurated in 2017. That made him the then oldest president ever elected. However, if age is just a number marking our trips around the sun, then what factor should we be most concerned with?  

Being President isn't for the faint of heart or the couch potato. The Presidency is a highly demanding around-the-clock job.  For the next four years you're never "off the clock". As proof, we've all seen the before and after pictures of presidents. Most look like they've aged decades instead of just 4 or 8 years no matter how young they looked going in.

So, perhaps the most critical factors are their overall health, physical stamina, and mental acuity.  There's no question that Trump is a physically fit individual. He does things that would exhaust someone half his age, and his physicals bear that out.  At 6'3" and roughly 244 pounds, Trump has been proclaimed by independent doctors to be healthy (though he could stand to lose a few pounds). His blood pressure runs around  121/79 with a heart rate of 63.

In addition, in preparation for this race, Trump clams to have completed five cognitive skills tests (as he mentioned in his debate with Biden) and successfully passed all of them. What's not disputed is that the former president aced the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, which is one of the most accurate cognitive tests available. When voters were polled  47% generally tended to agree that Trump was mentally pretty sharp (compared to only 28% for Biden), which brings us to Biden and his health.

Long before the June 27th debate between Trump and Biden there's been a lot of discussion about Biden's mental  and physical health. Countless videos showed him confused or forgetting words or names, a blank stare, getting angry over nothing, getting lost, or talking to empty space. Physically, he often walks stiff like he had trouble with his movement or balance, stumbling, or simply fumbling with stuff. This happens to all of us at some point, but it's become almost expected for the president, which is not normal.

Foreign leaders have said that Biden isn't the man they had known in the past. Many have commented that he seemed dazed, having difficulty concentrating, making decisions, getting lost, and so forth. Our enemies, and even some of our friends, have come to see Biden as feeble and weak. That  in turn makes America seem vulnerable. To our friends, it gives them pause as to whether we are still dependable. 

President Biden underwent his annual physical  in February 2024 and was pronounced as "fit to serve" and "no new concerns" by his doctors  According to a White House press release, Biden has never officially been diagnosed with Alzheimer, dementia, stroke, or Parkinson's Disease and that Biden had met with three neurologists on three separate occasions.

Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that Biden has repeatedly declined to take any cognitive tests, which understandably has failed to reassure party leadership or corporate donors, especially based on what they've been seeing and hearing.  If, in fact, Biden had taken some sort of acuity test, the White House isn't telling anyone, including Democratic leadership.

Perhaps too this is all a game of semantics. Biden hasn't been "diagnosed" with any neurological disorders, but he also hasn't taken any tests to confirm it, which appears to imply the "diagnosis" was based solely on observation and not on empirical evidence.   Therefore, the statement "fit to serve" was more likely intended to simply ease public and party concerns  and reinforce confidence in Biden's bid for reelection than an actual statement of fact.

But any speculation is now all moot. Biden succumbed to mounting pressure and withdrew from the race on July 21th. The last poll conducted 48 hours before his announcement showed that he was trailing in six key swing states and that support for his continued campaign had all but collapsed in Virginia and Minnesota.    

According to a Pew Report released just before Biden's announcement, almost 75% of the respondents felt that Biden wasn't mentally fit compared to Trump's positive 58%.  Only 24% said they would describe Biden as "energetic".  Just slightly under one third approved of his job performance (which has never been on the plus side),  This makes his job approval the lowest of any president seeking reelection.  

As a side note, on  issues such as honesty and compassion, Biden outperformed "the Donald". 48% of those polled said Biden was more honest than Trump who polled just 36%. When it came to compassion for the masses, Biden squeaked by with 49% compared to Trump's 44%.

However, the number which stands out the most was that 71% of Biden supporters no longer supported his reelection bid.  Only 23% wanted him to remain on the ballot. For a reelection campaign, that's catastrophic. On the other side of the aisle, an April poll showed that 35% of Republicans and conservatives wanted to see Trump replaced on the ballot. That number dropped to 26% as of July with 72% happy the way things are.

With Biden out, Trump will face off against the 59 year old Vice President Kamala Harris (the same age as Trump's running mate, J.D. Vance). Ms. Harris has the dubious designation of having the lowest consecutive approval rating of any Vice President of any party at any time in U.S. history. As of July 23rd, Harris has a 51.4% disapproval rate among Americans in general.

Key to her election bid is her approval rating among the nation's largest voting bloc---Independent voters--- and especially among Independent women where she is currently polling just 29% (and about the same among men).  Mainstream news outlets have been on full court press to try and make Harris more appealing to voters which, at this time, appears the equivalent of using a bucket to bail out the Titanic.

Age may very well be "just a number", but whether is bestows wisdom and maturity is entirely a different matter. However, with four months to go until the November election, it appears that experience along with some guile and cunning are beating out youth and lukewarm enthusiasm.

 If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Pew: Joe Biden,Public Opinion, and His Withdrawal From the 2024 Race

Gallup: Biden's Approval Hit New Low Before Exit From Race

Biden quitrace for reelection after agonizing over poll data, sources say

Fivethirtyeight:Do American approve or disapprove of Kamala Harris

What the White House and the president doctor's say about the president's health

Mental AcuityQuestions Catch Up With Trump

List ofpresidents of the United States by age

Most U.S.presidents have been in their 50s at inauguration

The 8 OldestU.S. Presidents in History

ElectoralHistory of Joe Biden

Can Israel Win The War of Public Opinion?

Israel was born in war. In 1947,  the United Nations tried to broker a deal under Resolution 181 (II) which would created two separate states, one Israeli and the other Palestinian in the area where no formal state previously existed. Up to that point the area was only a geographical region which, until then, had been a protectorate of the British Empire which it had rightfully stolen from the Ottoman Empire after WWI.

Under the terms of the plan Israel would have received 14,500 square kilometers  (which is about 10,000 square miles), the equivalent of about 52% of the land while the Palestinians would have 46% of the land amounting to 11,100 square kilometers which would be about 9890 square miles. The key cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem would become international zones under the administration of the United Nations. The plan also stipulated that British Colonial Troops would undertake a gradual withdrawal to be completed no later than August 28, 1948.

The plan sought to mitigate two competing ideologies, that of Palestinian nationalism and that of Zionism, which had come to the forefront following the end of WWII and the Holocaust. It's noteworthy that while various Zionist organizations agreed to work with the United Nation's Special Committee on Palestine (UNSOP), no one from Palestine's leadership attended. This was essentially at the behest of the Arab League, which strongly opposed any large scale Jewish settlements in the region and wasn't too fond of Jews in general being there.

What was the Arab League? The Arab League was formed in the aftermath of WWII on March 22, 1945. It was to serve as the core structure to a Pan-Arab nationalist movement. It comprised the nations of Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and North Yemen, all of which had previously belonged to the Ottoman Empire until the end of WWI when they were dutifully "acquired" and divided up by France and Great Britain under the Sykes-Picot Plan without regard to religious sects, ethnic groups, or traditional borders. which was signed on May 16, 1916.   

It's worth noting that with the exception of Syria these nations had, until recently, been British colonial protectorates. Syria had fallen under French Administration. It also should be noted that many  supported Nazi Germany during the war. Thousands joined the SS to create eight predominately Muslim SS units, including the famous 13th and 22nd Waffen SS Mountain Divisions and also several high ranking former Nazis served as advisors or security consultants for many of these countries.

Fast forward to 1948, the Arab League rejected the plan for a two state solution nominally on behalf of the Palestinians. The result was an all out war just hours after Israel declared its nationhood. Since then Israel has been a state of almost continuous war and asymmetrical war by groups like the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), Black September, terrorist hijackings and bombings, and near constant missile attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah (both puppets of Iran).

Thus far, Israel has been successful in repelling these attacks, although it's come close to losing, and that would mean total and complete annihilation of Israel (the only democracy in the Middle East) and its people. The attack on October 7, 2023 was just another in a long line of unprovoked attacks, this time it was over 1400 men, women, and children enjoying a concert.

Whether Hamas, a international recognized terrorist organization, had the "right" to attack Israelis as part of their ongoing terrorist agenda to "liberate"  a mythical Palestinian homeland from Israel, it did not have the legal or moral right to murder, rape, burn alive, and kidnap innocent civilians.  If Hams considers itself "at war" as claimed, then it should conduct itself accordingly. However, it doesn't. it hides behind the innocent and vulnerable.

But nevertheless, it seems that Hamas and those behind it have learned a very valuable lesson which others have ignored---that of mixing social media and propaganda. They have launched one of the most successful "PR" campaigns in recent history. They have seriously threatened support for Israel which in the past was seen as unshakeable, especially here in the United States.  Support for Israel outside the U.S. is also drawing heavy fire from governments (many whom have been ardent supporters of Israel) and building pressure from their citizens.

We commonly see large groups of mostly college age individuals protesting on campus, in the streets and on highways, as well as massing anywhere people tend to gather. I guess is this their response to my generations anti-Vietnam war protests. The biggest difference is that these individuals don't seem to know much about the history of the region (especially recent) and they are extremely intolerant of opposing opinions to the point of harassment, shouting them down, destruction of property, and openly assaulting anyone who disagrees with them. Their solution appears to be "accept my opinion only".  

An amusing aside is that along with this, we find large numbers of gays, "trans" individuals and other members of the LGBQT community openly supporting Hamas. Apparently they don't realize that homosexuality in any form is a sin and violates the Koran. The punishment is death by stoning but just as often by being throw off of buildings followed by stoning. No reasoning. No exceptions. Just death.

Here in the U.S., despite or perhaps because of the protests, public opinion on our support for Israel seems to be shaky but intact. According to a recent poll by the Associated Press- NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, President Biden's handling of the situation over Gaza is  potentially in serious trouble.  

The poll indicates that about 50% of Democrats approve of Biden's handling of the situation thus far. However, a substantial 46% do not. 44% of Democrats polled said that Israel was getting too much support from the U.S while 45% thinks it's about right with just 9% wanting to see more from Biden.

The same poll also stated that current support for the Palestinians (which by extrapolation would include Hamas too) was too little by 44% compared to 37% saying it's just right and 15% saying it's already too much.

Of the 46% who disapprove of Biden's handing of the Gaza issue, a whopping 65% think that Israel is getting too much support. 58% also that the Palestinians aren't getting near enough support. Those Democrats who approve of Biden's actions thus far, 68% said that Israel was getting about the right amount of support while 51% say the same thing about the Palestinians.

Independents, the nation's largest voting bloc, overwhelming disapprove of Israel's ongoing war against Hamas by 60%. Only 29% approve and 11% had no opinion. The poll asked Democrats, the second largest voting bloc, the same question, whether they supported Israel's military actions in Gaza and found that 75% do not. Only 18% did with the balance having no comment.

While not surprising, the majority of Democrats under age 45 (65%)  and 58% of non-whites Democrats disapprove of Biden's handling of the war and his support for Israel. The same group blames Israel for the war by 56%.  Democrats over age 45% (65%) and white Democrats (62%) support Biden's efforts in the Middle East. This group thinks that Hamas is responsible for the situation by 76%.

According to a March 27, Gallup Poll, the majority of Americans--55%--disapprove of Israel's response to the Hamas attack. Only 36% approve. When looking at party, Republicans still support Israel's actions by 64% with 30% disapproving. It should be pointed out that while former President Donald Trump has been a keen supporter of Israel and a friend of Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, that may be changing.

The former President stated in an interview with Hugh Hewett, a conservative talk radio host, that Netanyahu has made some serious mistakes in the handling of the war, including the unintentional bombing of a Palestinian refugee camp which was allegedly harboring members of Hamas. The bombing killed or wounded dozens of civilians.

It should be pointed out that since exact figures are unavailable or unreliable, it's currently estimated that over 10,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed thus far and thousands more maimed or injured. The food situation has reached  a humanitarian crisis point bordering on what many governments are calling a potential "genocide".

However, Hamas shares much of the blame due to their routine use of civilians as shields (they commonly use schools, hospitals, mosques, and private homes as staging positions for their missile attacks) and  block or hijack shipments of food, water, medical supplies and other forms of aid. Any Israeli response to these attacks is nearly always a automatic PR coup for Hamas. 

Trump also pointed out the obvious, namely that Israel is "losing the PR war.  They're losing it big". Perhaps this isn't such a big surprise since many of Trump's diehard supporters oppose Israel's ongoing response to the war and in a not too surprising partisan response, have been chanting "Genocide Joe" at pro-Biden rallies.

It appears the one of the key issues which will likely affect the outcome of the November Presidential Election will come down to what Biden does next regarding Israel. A large minority of his party oppose his current level of support for the Israelis as does the largest voting bloc, the Independents.  While a majority of Republicans continue their backing of Israel, it appears that many "MAGA" Republicans don't.

The best outcome for both presidential candidates is for Prime Minister Netanyahu bringing this war to quick end before November, even if that means not" wiping out Hamas" as he promised the Israeli people. At the same time, Netanyahu needs to seriously step up his PR game before not just Americans turn against Israel, but so does the rest of the world.

 

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

PBS News: Nearly half of Democrats disapprove of Biden's response to the Israel-Hamas War poll says

Majority in U.S. Now Disapprove of Israeli Action in Gaza

A century on: Why the Arabs resent Sykes-Picot

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

Trump used to brag about his support for Israel. Now his criticisms are growing sharper

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing: Two New Polls and Name Calling

"Democrats Want Socialism!" Agh!! Run for the hills everyone! Well, perhaps not so much. While, that was the headline of the first story I saw this morning, I think it was more about shock value and provoking people to respond without exploring further. Yes, there has been a recent interest in socialism here in the US, most among Millennials thanks in large part to failed presidential candidate and self-proclaimed social democrat, Bernie Sanders.

Vermont Senator Sanders, an Independent who switched to Democrat, ran an unsuccessful campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2016 for the Democrat Party Nomination. Hillary Clinton and the key players in the DNC, were concerned enough to rig the Primary elections against and then worked to silence Sanders supporters at the Democrat Convention. Ultimately, Hillary won the nomination as planned while DNC Chairwomen Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was fired for her role in rigging the Primary (she was hired the next day by Hillary's campaign to be a "coordinator"), As a aside, the DNC later acknowledged the Primary had been fixed and simply blew it off.

Meanwhile, Hillary was never able to win over many of Bernie's supporters, and eventually lost to Donald Trump. Interestingly, many of those who bought into Bernie's message of democratic socialism never went away. Instead, they've been spreading the message among other Millennials. So is there any danger that the Millennials will eventually turn America into a "Socialist Paradise"? The short answer is "no". While the Millennials are the largest voting demographic, they aren't the sole demographic and their political clout, while powerful, is likely to be temporary. So, let's take a look at the numbers.

According to the CBS Poll, 57% of Democrats and those who lean Democrat have a favorable opinion of democratic socialism. Two years ago, in 2016, it was 58% and in 2010 and 2012 it was 53%, so obviously Trump obviously can't be blamed! However, when we break those numbers down, we find that 51% of those with a positive opinion of democratic socialism were between 18 and 29 years of age (ie: the Millennials). Only 28% of those 65 and older had a favorable opinion (60's era Babyboomers).

On the other side, those who identified a Republicans or leaned Conservative only 16% favored democratic socialism (I question why anyone who was Republican or leaned Conservative would favor socialism but it's not my poll). 71% favored Capitalism (or apparently some form of it). In 2016, it was 68%. Oddly, in 2012 while 72% of those who leaned Right supported Capitalism, 23% didn't. In 2010, the favorable percentage was the same while those who supported democratic socialism was 17%, which makes me wonder if Capitalism may have a "soft underbelly". I wouldn't expect those favoring democratic socialism from the Right to be that high, but so it is.

Before we go any further, I need to point out that "Socialism" is not the same as "democratic socialism", and neither are the same or even kissing cousins to Communism. While differences between socialism and democratic socialism are subtle, they are different. First off, "Socialism" remains a theory. Despite claims by various leaders and governments to be "socialist", the fact is that socialism have never actually been successfully applied. Socialism is rule by the people; committees or unions. Businesses are independent and run by employees. Each employee has an equal voice in how things are run (employees are the managers/owners). The employees elected someone as "management". They also elected a representative to work with other employee elected representatives on larger projects such as the state, which is committee based. However, everything works off of ad hoc committee.

On the other hand, democratic socialism has been tired, and rather successfully too. The governments of Scandinavia have been using it for decades. Historically, these nations are consistently ranked highest in terms of quality of education, happiness and quality of life, lowest in crime, healthcare (which is primarily preventative rather than reactive care). The biggest criticisms comes from Capitalist nations like the US over the high taxes, which are indeed high. However, it is the citizens who approve taxes (or not) based on what they get for their money. In America, representatives make that decision for the citizens. Even countries which haven't adopted democratic socialism, like the UK, France, and Germany, they still have aspects of it in place.

The biggest flaw with democratic socialism is that it requires everyone to participate equally in order for everyone to benefit equally. Recently these nations have been accepting immigrants from third world countries who lack the education , work skills, and most importantly, the work ethic which are essential for democratic socialism to properly work. They tend to simply set back and draw on the system without contributing anything to it. In addition, their moral values have proven to be entirely different, which has resulted in a dramatic increase in crime like rapes, murders, and robbery. They also lack the same respect for the environment that the Scandinavians and other Europeans have. The results is trash everywhere and public defecation and urination. Lastly, they have failed to integrate into the society's where they've settled; in many cases creating "no go zones" for the locals and police.

As for countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and others who've claimed to be "Socialist", they obviously aren't. What they are is the same ole economic central planning Communist states which have failed worldwide under the veneer of a new and more popular name (by the way, while Venezuela's so-called "socialism" has failed, neighboring Brazil's is a rousing success, but you won't hear about that!). They differ only slightly from the Communism of Stalin and Mao. In no way can they be compared to countries like Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, or Norway by any measure. Now that we've gotten that cleared up, let's move on to another poll which I found to be equally worrisome.

According to a poll conducted by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, 58% of Millennials favored Socialism (the democratic kind), Communism, or Fascism over Capitalism. Yikes! In terms of percentage, 44% favored democratic socialism, while 7% each like Communism and Fascism which represent the Left/Right extremes. Democratic socialism is one thing, but Communism or Fascism are something quite different, but more of a possibility than they think (more on that in shortly). What perhaps is more disconcerting is that excluding Millennials, only 59% of the others polled favored Capitalism compared to 34% who preferred democratic socialism, with 4% wanting Fascism and 3% backing Communism.

With America being the bastion of Capitalism in the world, does this indicate a possible trend away from a Capitalist economic system? I have to wonder if these responses are the result of our failure to adequately teach history (without any political slant one way or the other). It could also be indicative of our failure to incorporate Civics, sociology, and political science in the school curriculum (a lack of resources is often cited as the reason, but there always seems to be enough resources available for non-essential activities likes sports). The same argument could apply to higher education, which offer all sorts of completely useless classes which, if anything, reinforces the political bubble they've become so comfortable with rather than to think critically and explore other Truths.

Proof of this, as revealed by the poll, was that only 33% of Millennials surveyed were able to correctly define democratic socialism, which sadly was about average with the rest of those surveyed. Millennials also had the least "unfavorable" opinion of Communism at just 36%. Meanwhile, only 51% could correctly define Capitalism, which was the lowest demographic surveyed (the average was 67%). Could this be the result of their honest preference for other systems like Communism, or is it the result of ignorance and their "bubble" mentality? Millennials define our present economic system as a "burden" on them (the only group to say so) and added that they felt the Capitalist system "worked against them" (again, the only group to make that claim).

In looking at other groups, 56% of those surveyed had an unfavorable view of Communism, and of those, 63% said they would be "insulted" if anyone associated them with Communism (only 44% of Millennials were). Generation Z, the group coming up behind the Millennials, had a different attitude. 43% of them were able to correctly define democratic socialism and 66% of Generation Z felt that the Capitalist system worked for them, although many were, as of yet, too young to be in the workforce full time.

As an aside (and I can't resist), there's an interesting comparison to be made here. The opinions of the Millennials seems to be a reflection of their grandparents, the Babyboomers. However, there are two distinct cohorts of Babyboomers which most people aren't aware of. The first cohort were born from 1946 to 1955. These were the "Flower Children" of the 1960's. They tended to be very liberal, experimental (like communes and drugs), individualistic, and supported social causes. They were also viewed as "anti-establishment" and supported Far Left politics.

The second cohort (the one I belong to) was born between 1956 and 1964. This group was pessimistic, distrustful of the government, individualistic, and more rebellious. These were the anti-war and Watergate protestors; those who lost faith in the political system. The former group remained Democratic leaning and liberal while the latter leaned Republican, conservative and nowadays, more Independent. It seems we have a parallel between the Millennials and Generation Z based on the influence of their grandparents the way the grandparents of the Boomers, products of the 1920's and 1930's, influenced them.

Amusingly, the poll also revealed that Millennials looked up to individuals like Karl Marx with 32%, Che Guevara getting 31%, Vladimir Lenin at 23%, and 19% for Mao Zedong. "Uncle Joe" Stalin received just 6%. Not so different from their Babyboomer grandparents! Ironically, none of those mentioned were fascist, although 7% favored Fascism as stated earlier. I also mentioned that I would discuss this later. Well, it's later. So let's delve in shall we?

As readers of Another Opinion know, I often write about the ruling Oligarchy; the plutocracy which now controls the government (I won't use the word "our" because the government is clearly not the American People's any longer). First, we need to remind ourselves what Fascism is. Modern Fascism, as created by Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, is the merger or partnership of big business and government for the mutual benefit of both. He said that Fascism would have been more aptly named "Corporatism" since that's how it's organized and functions (it's really feudalism brought current).

Unlike Communism, the state didn't own all the businesses and there was no capitalism. Everyone worked for the state, regardless of where they were actually employed. Under Fascism, capitalism was alive and very well. Unlike democratic socialism, the employees and workers had little or no say much of anything---union or not. Under Nazism, a form of Fascism, the state was the senior partner and everyone was answerable to the party, which answered to a supreme leader while capitalism still flourished. Fascism operates more like a corporate board of directors. The leader can be hired and fired like anyone else and the state wasn't always or necessarily the "senior" partner.

The Oligarchy, if it operates similar to any political or economic system, comes the closest to operating like a fascist or even neo-feudal like system. Big business and the government operate hand in glove. It controls the press, business, the military, the police, and national security apparatus. You can't argue that there isn't a revolving door between Big business and the government, or that lobbyists, working on behalf of the corporate elite, influence (to be polite) government, up to and including writing legislation.

Corporations finance campaigns and the politicians themselves. Or that we have a two tier legal system; one set of laws for the elites and another set for the rest of us. You can't argue that the media isn't solely controlled by a small clique (six to be exact) which dictates what we see, hear, how we're entertained, and what we're suppose to think about any given issue. We're also told what to like, what to buy, and even when. We live and die economically by our credit rating. It essentially determines our value to the system. It's our digital leach.

It dictates wars and conflicts. Anytime a country rejects its overtures, be a refusal to adopt the petrodollar, access to resources, assets, or potential consumers, the government and media mount to a saber rattling campaign to whip up the public and manufacture some justification for a bombing campaign or even an invasion. Usually the unfortunate target backs downs and suddenly we're all best buddies again. Then too, sometimes it manufactures enemies. Why? Conflict is good for business. It stimulates the economy, reduces unemployment, and best of all, it's highly profitable.

Fascism is Big Business and Big Government run amuck. Historically, Fascism borrows from the Left and the Right. It tends to advance slowly but not always. It's opportunistic if nothing else. It uses the history and traditions of its host country as its cover like the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. Which is why the Fascism of Italy differed from that of Hungary or Spain, which was different from that of Romania, Bulgaria, or Germany. It's adaptive, but like any beast, it's always hungry and if it's to survive, it must forever be devouring.

So, whether they know it or not, the Millennials, and perhaps even Generation Z, may be getting what they want without understanding it. However, it won't be the Constitutional Republic which we were bequeath by our Founding Fathers and so foolishly lost. In addition to what I've already mentioned, we've witnessed the increased militarization of the police, an ever growing surveillance system with the equally growing cooperation of Big Business, increased censorship, increased restrictions on various rights, and a nefarious attempt to divide us in as many ways as possible, like the article I mentioned at the beginning; the Left calling the Right "Nazis" or "Fascist" and the Right calling the Left "socialist" and "Communist" as well as pits races or other groups against each other on the basis of nothing.

As long as we fight each other, we can't focus our attention and efforts on the real enemy---the Oligarchy itself. Sadly, the public as a whole has the attention span of a two year old. Collectively, we seem to be society with ADHD! The Oligarchy know this and they use it. We have to snap out of it. We have to find ways to come together; to prevent ourselves from being divided. This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing. It isn't a white or black or Native American, Hispanic, or Asian issue. It's not gay or straight, nor is it Atheist, pagan, Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other religious group matter.

It's a American problem, and it's about whether we want our country back or not. The choice is yours. I should point out that while we're facing a consolidation of power by the Oligarchs, it's not limited to the US. Their reach is everywhere, Asia, Africa, Europe, and it's attempting to expand into Russia. That's why Putin is often portrayed as the villain and there's a lot of effort being made to rekindle the Cold War with Russia. So, in truth, it's a Humanity thing. The only question is what are we going to do about it?



Millennials would rather live in a socialist, communist, fascist nation than under capitalism


Millennials aren't satisfied with capitalism--might prefer a socialist country study finds


Millennials prefer socialism to capitalism


What is the difference between Communism and Socialism?