The Pronoun Wars: The Coming of a New Generational Conflict?

How should you react when you're introduced to someone, such as a potential job candidate, as "Zie", "They", "Hir" or similar salutary title? Are you taken back or perhaps try to suppress an amused smile or smirk? 

What about when you're at a social gathering and refer to someone as a male or female and you're informed that your "gender assumption" is disrespectful. They go on to say that there are 72 genders, not two. You should first inquire to how they identify before assuming they're male or female. How do you react?

In today's labor market, employers are going to find more and more examples like these walking through their doors. Federal and state labor laws have clearly defined your limitations. In today's "politically correct" social environment, you risk the possibility of a lawsuit or social censure ("cancelled")  if you don't handle the situation correctly.

There have been several instances where companies have risked serious damage to their customer base by being labeled "chauvinistic" or "patronizing" over something as innocuous as holding the door or pulling out a chair for a female.  Repairing one's public image can also be highly expense, often involving the services of a specialty PR team equipped with lawyers and social media experts, and a long term endeavor. But in the short term, protests and online campaigns to discredit you or your company can take a significant toll on your bottom line.  

Some groups chalk up the issue of gender identity, along with the so-called "body art" as nothing more than generational rebellion, something which has been going on since the beginning of time. Therefore it will pass and there's no need to really need to take it too seriously. In the 1950's social rebellion often nothing more than "bobby socks", 'ducktales", and customized fast cars.  By the 1960's, it was "make love not war" and "flower power" and "sex, drugs, and rock n roll" in the 1970's.

The message of the rebellion was often transmitted through magazines, newspapers, social interaction, and, of course, word of mouth contact (which typically involved a change of vocabulary to set them apart from the previous generation and create a new sense of identity). Movies and especially music helped with the transformation. Both were essentially, for instance, with the growth of the anti-Vietnam War movement.

It's never changed and likely will never change, and yet employers found ways to adapt, but this seems to be different because of the extreme nature of the "rebellion". Previously, it was mostly just music, cloths, long hair and beards, and a pseudo-primitivism in the form of communes. As they matured, many decided to "clean up" and conform rather than "tune in, turn on, and drop out" of society. Albeit late to adapt, much of their lifestyle went mainstream thanks to the marketing industry looking to cash in.  

Today, technology has evolved to the point where the message can bypass societal buffers or gatekeepers such as newspaper or magazine editors, radio program directors, or music executives. Smart phones, the internet, and so forth can almost instantaneously send images around the world. They can call together protests or "rushes" in minutes. No more need for leaflets and waiting days.      

Tattoos were once the domain of bikers, sailors, construction workers and the seeders aspect of society. Proper society avoided not just tattoos, but even those with tattoos! Today we commonly see not just tattoos on biceps and forearms, but nearly full body tattoos which encompasses hands, legs, feet, neck, the face, plus the ever popular and nearly ubiquitous "tramp stamp"!   

Body piercings aren't just two or three earrings, but giant ear inserts which look more like the hose washers than a piece of jewelry.  Eyebrows, nostrils, lips, and even tongues! A few even go to extremes by trying to change their entire appearance into something akin to a mythical creature.

But unlike simply getting a haircut and a change of clothes, some of these "personal statement" ornamentations aren't going away. Nevertheless, time is not going to be kind to many of these individuals as the body graphics fade and warp thanks to ageing and gravity.  Meanwhile, how are  your client and customer base going to react  to these representatives of your company, be it a cashier, a salesperson, a onsite tech advisor, or a manager?    

Babyboomers (1946-1964) were once most largest customer base out there. They were the ones with the deepest pockets, ran the most businesses or held the most senior positions in companies. They also had the most disposable cash of any generation before or since. However, with the youngest Boomer now age 59, many are quickly closing in on retirement. While Boomers were once the most vocal and rebellious of generations (think Woodstock), the majority have mellowed and become fairly conservative.

According to the latest Gallup poll on the topic, about 44% of Boomers are socially conservative. Another 27% are moderate, while just 17% remain liberal. Older generations, such "the Greatest Generation" (1901-1927) and the "Silent Generation" (1928-1945) remain a economic factor in the marketplace despite their declining numbers.

Perhaps it was the influence of the Great Depression, WWII, or the Korean War, that's the reason  the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation children are just as socially conservative as ever. 48% identify as conservative while 26% are social moderates. 15% of them still see themselves as liberal (I suspect this the "Dobie Gillis" or Beatnik portion of the Silents).

Currently, the largest demographic are the Millennials (1981-1996), but they aren't the latest. After the Millennials is Generation Z (1997-2012) and the Alpha Generation (2013-2025). Together, these three generations represent not just a future down the road, but the immediate near term. Millennials are already well into the labor market and entering the medical and legal professions.

Many have already started to  run for political office. Alexandra Ocasio - Cortez (D-NY) is perhaps the best known of her Millennial cohort. This is also the generation most responsible for the change in attitude toward socialism,  gender identity, body art, and even race.

While mixed racial relations having been occurring since time immoral, there seems to a growing trend in the U.S.  among these three generations. Mixed races were uncommon in 1940's and 1950's (and in some states, downright illegal), they still happened (the most common was white/European and Native American or Hispanic). Same goes for the '60's, '70's and even into the 1980's, which accounted for just 5% of births,  but then things began to change. As of 2015, 14% of all children born were mixed race. Now, nearly half---48%---of Gen Z is of mixed race.  

The Alpha Generation is still pretty young right now, with the oldest being about 10 years old. In addition, polling has suggested that the majority of mixed race individuals tend to vote Democrats because of perceived bigotry among conservatives and Republicans. Remember too that these three generations are among the largest registered Independent. Ideologically, they're split between their support of democratic socialism and libertarianism.

As an aside, when individuals with Latino and some other race  are factored in, they are projected to be the dominated race by 2050 with their population tripling. Latinos are currently the largest minority in North America, just behind white/Europeans. Blacks, once the largest minority, are currently the second largest minority and expect to fall even further behind. By 2050, they will be only slightly ahead of Asians, although in certain areas, especially on the West Coast, Asians will be the largest. 

These three generations---the Greatest Generation, the Silent Generation, and the Boomers--- are also the least likely to tolerate the gender related changes mentioned at the beginning of this article. So, it appears that we've reached a crossroad, or perhaps impasse among the six generations. The question, therefore, is whether we can cross this divide together or will it fundamentally divide us as we make this generational transition.

Although historically, the first two are the ones most associated with race inequality, they've done remarkably well in adapting, especially given that their great grandparents with the Civil War generation while their great grandchildren are likely to be of mixed race.  They also have had well over half a century of unprecedented social change to get use to.

While the Greatest Generation and the Silents laid the foundation, the Boomers were largely at the forefront in bringing those changes about. Everything from the Civil Rights Movement to the anti-war movement, the women's rights ("women's liberation"), gay rights, and other social movements such as the largely Hispanic led United Farm Worker marches, the environmental movement, Labor activism, the Grey Panther protests, and the Native American "Red Power" movement, did much to bring about not just fundamental social change in this country, but forced us to come to terms with our past and present.  

These movements led to a greater sense of tolerance and cooperation among diverse groups which otherwise would have had little to do with each other. it showed that we could work together to bring about real change. It forced a lethargic Congress to act.  But just how far should change go? Is there a limit to tolerance? As suggested in the beginning, how do you respond to someone insisting there are 72 genders or that they need to be personally address as "em" or some other nearly unintelligible word? 

The use of the term "offended" is often bandied about by Millennials, Gen Z and the Alphas. It seems like anything they disagree with, from a word, an item, an expression to political speech, is labeled as "offensive", requiring an immediate retreat to a "safe space", often free from whites, straights and especially while males,  who all are caustically categorized as "the oppressor class" with the same degree of distain that the Nazis had for the Jews in the 1930's, before the boxcars, the camps, and the ovens. Talk about being "cancelled". Even a glance can be labeled as a "micro-aggression".

Individuals attending Christian oriented schools now demand Christian symbolism be removed as being "offensive" as they cruise through school of a scholarship provided by the same school. They've even employed "Diversity Officers" to enforce compliance. I have to wonder if "papers" will soon be required from all of us.

Today, anyone who self-identifies as a female is supposed to be granted unfettered access to a biological woman's locker room or restroom. They are permitted to play in women's sports, despite inherent and unalterable biological differences. Is that fair (or safe) for natural women? Do we need to make provisions for those who self-identify as trees or cats?  How far are we to go in validating the fantasies of others? Aren't we doing more harm by reaffirming these delusions?

Their "revolutionary" predecessors of the '60's and 70's promoted free speech and expression. The current generations seek to silence those they disagree with "by any means necessary". They block traffic, loot, arson, shoplift enmasse, vandalize, loot, rudely interrupt people  attempting to peaceful dine out or blocking access to restrooms, and then claim their acts are peaceful. They claim to oppose fascism while adopting fascist behavior. They decry "cultural appropriation" instead of understanding it as cultural appreciation while committing the same imaginary crime. 

These same groups speak of diversity while rejecting it (hint: diversity is not ordering a taco at Taco Bell). They freely accuse others of prejudice while not seeing it in themselves. Racism isn't a one way street. It goes both ways. A few claim to demand "justice" for an injustice not done to them and which has long since been paid with interest. The real reason for their failures can usually found in the mirror.

One can be proud of their ancestry and culture while respecting, or even admiring the same of others. Their youthful eyes are yet willfully blind to the brutal truth that all Mankind is equally guilty of the same crimes. The only salvation of our species is our universal acceptance and forgiveness of our collective past transgressions. Such is inheritance of the noble ape.  

Today's would be revolutionaries lack the focus of Chavez's UFW or dedication of Drs. King and Abernathy's "Freedom Marches" which made their point without breaking a single pane of glass (though the same can't be said of their opponents). They certainly lack the bravery of the "Freedom Riders" who didn't commit one act of arson or vandalism although they endured it. The greatest acts of defiance were sitting in a bus seat and lunch counter or boycotting public transportation without impeding anyone else. They know tactics but lack organization. They have passion but not the compassion.

Of these wannabe anarchists, self-imposed outcasts, and social media rebels, I don't doubt they're totally committed to the shock value of their actions, be it outrageously dyed hair, body piercings that look like they were done by an "Iron Lady", being inked from head to toe while accusing others of crimes that belong to the past, opposing fascism with fascism, or self-identifying as a cat, have somehow missed the point.

They've failed to understand that there's nothing new under the sun, nor does the child inherit the sins of the parent. Change comes slowly, and only through planning and dedication. It happens by bringing people together, not driving them apart.  But perhaps it's merely the pride and arrogance of youth which they've mistaken for wisdom as has every generation before them and all those yet to come. 

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!

 

The Surge of Young Americans from Minority - White Mixed Families & Its Significance for the Future

 Earth Day 1970 was than a protest. It built a movement

United Farm Workers History

 

  

 

 

Gimme Some Truth: America's Loss of Trust In The Media

Do you trust the news? If you're like most Americans, the answer is an emphatic "no". Would it surprise you to know that according to a poll released in January of this year, 60% of those surveyed believe the media is all about pushing a political ideology rather than reporting facts? Well, it's true. The majority of Americans no longer trust mainstream media, and it's getting worse.

There was a time, not all that long ago, where we would regularly tune in to watch Walter Cronkite, Edward R Murrow, Howard K Smith, Frank Reynolds, John Chancellor, and of course, Huntley and Brinkley for our news.  Max Robinson, Roger Mudd, Peter Jennings, Eric Sevareid, or Paul Harvey told us what was happening in the world without coloring it with their personal political opinions.

These were journalists with integrity. They reported the facts without distortion. We counted on them to tell us the truth. When they conducted investigative reports, it was to get to the crux of what was happening, not to push a political agenda or conduct character assassinations.  Of course, those days are long gone.

Today, the media divides us instead of bringing us together. The aforementioned poll, conducted by Edelman, a global communications firm, seems to bear that out. According to the poll, in 2020 73% of Democrats trusted the media compared with just 30% of Republicans, because it allegedly leaned Left.

Now, here we are in early 2021, just past one of the most contentious presidential campaigns in recent history, and only 57% of Democrats believe what they are hearing. Interestingly, the "trust" factor rose slightly for Republicans, 18% now believe what they're being told. Meanwhile only 35% of Independents (America's largest political bloc) had zero trust in the media.

Another poll, conducted by Gallup, says that 84% of Americans blame the media for America's deep political and social divide. To make matters worse, the same polls said that 86% of Americans believed that mainstream media was politically biased. Nearly half---49%---thought the bias was highly significant while 37% described at as a "fair amount".

The poll went on to say that 80% of those surveyed believed the media distorted the news toward a specific political viewpoint. 54% added that reporters "misrepresented the facts" while 28% thought that the "facts" were made up entirely to justify the political slant of the story! 

In delving into the racial divide, 60% of blacks felt that racial and ethnic diversity should be a priority when presenting the news compared to only 35% of whites. 55% of Hispanics feel the media misunderstood them, as did Asians and Native Americans, by reinforcing stereotypes or presenting topics of little or no interest to them.

When we jump to the age divide, only 19% of those under age 30 were favorable of mainstream  media. Only 44% of those 65 and older were. So, with so much distrust of mainstream media, where are people turning to for their news?

According to the Pew Research Center, 55% of adults get their news from social media sites; 28% of them admitted that social media provided them with the majority of their news.  But does that mean they trust social media?

88% thought that social media platforms deliberately influenced the slant of the news. 62% of those surveyed saw that as a problem. How much of a problem? Well, 53% of Democrats and Left leaning Independents saw it as issue affecting the validity of the story. So did 75% of Republicans and conservative Independents.

I would say those are some pretty significant numbers, which means while over half of all adults are getting at least some of their news from social media on a regular basis, although their trust of that source isn't any necessarily better than mainstream media.

What's particularly disconcerting is that while 85% of Millennials (those born between 1981 and 1995) expect to vote, the information they're receiving from social media is often considered to be incomplete, misleading, or outright false, and the same is trending true for Gen Z, the generational demographic just behind the Millennials. 

Why is that? Probably because the same major communications companies which own mainstream media also own the social media networks, which means they're peddling the same song and dance, just in a different format. Remember that only six corporations own 96%+ of all media outlets. That includes television and radio stations, newspapers, movie and entertainment companies, video game development, music companies, and social media platforms.

So, which social platforms are getting the most "me time"? Facebook receives about 52% of all hits while YouTube and Twitter ranked second and third with 28% and 17% respectively. LinkedIn (which is more of business oriented site), Reddit, and Snapchat rounded out the top five with under 10% each.

However, due to increased claims of censorship, many dissatisfied customers are jumping ship. Most are going to MeWe, Gab, Rumble, QubeTV, and Parler. As an aside, several social media companies joined together and attempted to deplatform Parler for refusing to go along with their "guidelines" aimed at controlling (and restricting) content, particularly conservative content. My understanding is that Parler weathered the storm thanks to its conservative subscribers and is again back up and running. Create a niche, and someone will fill it.

Millennials are the largest demographic since the Babyboomers, so there's no doubt that media corporations are paying attention to them. They want to influence their outlook on the world, and that especially includes politics as well as products.

As a political segment, the majority of Millennials lean Left. About 70% of them want a socialistic America. The few who lean Right, tend to be more of the libertarian variety (small "L"). Over all, neither have any use for either of the two corporate owned party. So, where are they getting their news?

The majority of them (about 54%+) are getting their daily dose of news from social media as well. Most of them have turned off and tuned out mainstream media. The top social media sites for the "Gen Y" crowd is Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter. Interestingly (and concerningly), 60% admit they pay attention to celebrities, personalities, and other so-called social media "influencers" to help shape their opinions on events. 

The generation coming up behind the Millennials, known as "Gen Z" (born after 1996), are showing themselves to be every bit as Left leaning as their older brothers and sisters; 64% describe themselves as "socialist". 78%+ say that current events are important to them and they want to be informed. However, they too put no trust in the mainstream media, choosing to rely primarily on social media. Of course, all this has created a potentially serious problem, not just for them, but for our society.

With those on the Left and Right side of the political spectrum increasingly get their news from distinct sources, we're starting to see competing camps develop.  Television and radio used to bring us together as a society, whether we were listening to Jack Benny or watching Bonanza, we were still getting our news from a small handful of sources, and those were politically impartial. The programming on ABC wasn't all that much different than from NBC or CBS, including the news.

While today there are countless sources for the news, they are all mostly owned by one of six companies and each follow a certain political agenda, even if it's not blatant. They may pretend to be "progressive" to attract a younger audience (and revenue), they remain neo-fascist at their political core.

The media and the political establishment have no intentions of letting the Millennials  or Generation Z have their way when it comes to political, but do we really want fascism in any form? At present, it doesn't matter if you pick from "red" unsweetened Kool-Aide or artificially sweetened "blue" Kool-Aid. You still get the Kool-Aide. Some of us, however, have chosen no Kool-Aide at all.

Regardless, those on either side of the political divide are increasingly insulated from each other within a ideological information bubble, thus reducing our ability to communicate and empathize with each other. We're starting to speak a different language.

We hide behind a veneer of artificial politeness called "political correctness" which mutes us rather than permitting us to speak openly to each other. While our words may be similar, the meanings are starting to blur. We must speak freely so long as we speak honestly if this nation is to survive. 

We must demand that the media once again seek out the highest common good as it once did. Divided we're easier to control and manipulate. That's the name of the game in any authoritarian regime.  Ours is no different. Did we really expect it would be? Perhaps our loss of trust in the media is justified, but what about our faith in each other? We must never lose that. 

New Poll: Media Trust at an All-Time Low  

Gallup poll finds 84% of Americans say media is to blame forUS political divide

 

Gallup: People With No Trust in News Media Hits Record

Black, Hispanic, and white adults feel the news mediamisunderstands them, but for very different reasons

Parler has been booted by Apple, Amazon, and Google

 

Changes Ahead: Trump's Presidency and A Possible Obama Third Term

Well, it's been just over six months since the Presidential election, and despite the continual meltdown from the Left, it seems that "The Donald" is still their President whether or not they like it. Traditionally there's what is usually call the "100 Day Honeymoon" with Congress and the media. This is essentially a grace period to allow the new President to get his team together, organize his agenda, and become familiar with the Office of Presidency; all of which is quite important given the magnitude of a new president is undertaking. After all, the U.S. President is one of the most powerful individuals in the world and mistakes carry a steep price tag.

Since "The Donald's" election, and even before he took office to be completely truthful, the media has been all over him like a rash on a baby's butt. They have done everything in their power to belittle, discredit and delegitimize him while both sides of the aisle of Congress (in a rare example of bipartisanship, albeit backroom cooperation), has done everything they could to throw him off track and oppose him. So, while the media starts off with nearly every open broadcast or headline story badmouthing Trump, they also continue to praise Hillary Clinton (despite the fact that if she was like everyone else, she'd be under indictment right now) and harp on everything that Chelsea Clinton and/or the Obama's are up too. Personally, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised to see Barack come back and make a third run for President (can he do that?), except this time he would appoint the new Princess-in-Waiting, Chelsea to some highly visible office in order to set the stage for the coronation denied her mother.

I may be wrong, and frankly, I hope I am. However, former President Obama seems to be following or "shadowing" current President Trump and/or his representatives up to including meeting with some of the same ranking officials. Now why would he do that? Obama wasn't overly popular abroad with either the heads of governments, their liaisons, or with the general population in some cases. In fact, American prestige declined in some cases. Polls routinely showed Russia's Vladimir Putin as the world's most popular head of state, which was often followed by Germany's Angela Merkel (though given Germany's current severe crisis with the "migrants" and crime, I doubt that she would continue with her high standing). Obama usually came in around third or fourth place. At home, Obama was popular with the Left wing in general, and the corporate media in particular. However, among the political center and the Right, Barack Obama was loathed.

Nevertheless, Obama is still quite young relatively speaking (he was born in August 1961). His two daughters are off in school, and his wife, Michelle, seemed to enjoy her role as "First Lady". Given the ruling Oligarchy's efforts to undermine Trump at every turn--through the corporate media, orchestrated and covertly financed "grassroots movements", use of both corporately controlled political parties, and so forth, they might have a pretty good shot at destroying Trump's credibility. Adding the cold shoulder Trump is getting from foreign leaders (with special note to the recent G-20 where Trump was all but ignored), a Obama rerun is not just possible, but seems even probable. Certainly he would have the support of all the Left leaning "talking heads" from across the media spectrum from Oprah to Whoopie, Ellen, and the Hollywood limo-liberals.

The Left is also quite strong on the college and university campuses. Being a Babyboomer, I dare say that the Left hasn't had such a strong presence on campuses nationally since 1970. To this equation, we also need to point out that our recent Presidential election may be the last time Babyboomers have the national impact they did politically or economically. Babyboomers are retiring at an increasing rate, which means that their economic impact will continue to decline, as will their political influence since there will be fewer running for office, donating (limited incomes), and a growth in those dying. On the other hand, Millennials, who, by the way, have replaced the Babyboomers as the largest demographic, are flooding the job market, which naturally means their economic influence is also increasing. However, there are a couple of caveats to consider.

First on the list is that Millennials are marrying later, which means they will be delaying the purchase of homes and having children. They dislike the current political system, which they find as inept and corrupt beyond repair. This goes hand in glove with their dislike of political parties, which they see as one of the dysfunctional aspects of politics, along with real campaign finance reform (and overturning the "Citizens United" debacle, a lack of term limits (which just perpetuates the corruption), a failure to have district boundaries fairly drawn (gerrymandering), failure of referendums or initiatives, barriers to Independents and third parties, and finally, the corporate "ownership" of the two main political parties. On a related note, it needs to be pointed out that Millennials tend to distrust government, but recognized that there are some things that only government has the resources to do (also, Millennials tend to be team oriented and issue driven, which makes ad hoc committees, groups, and so forth their preferred war to resolve issues). Nevertheless, while some of these changes seem far-fetched right now, as their numbers grow, so will their economic and political clout. So, what now seems like "science fiction" now, will soon be "science fact" within the next ten years.

Much as be made of the claim that Millennials prefer "socialism" almost as much as capitalism, which is partially true. Due to misreporting, fear mongering, or simply a failure to understand terms, "socialism" in its truest sense has never been successfully implemented. What is equated to "socialism" most often (albeit erroneously) has been the democratic socialist forms of government that exist in varying degrees in places like Germany, France, Italy, Scandinavia, Iceland, and various countries in Eastern Europe. Others equate "socialism" with Stalinist Communism, which couldn't be further from reality.

Stalinism (which led to Maoism and other common forms of Communism) was state ownership of everything; there was no private ownership of property of wealth. Essentially, everyone worked for the State. True "socialism" is essentially a community owned and operated form of business, housing, and government, while democratic socialism is the public ownership of key industries, co-ops, associations, unions, ESOPS, and so forth, while at the same time allowing private ownership of various businesses, free market capitalism (albeit tightly regulated). It is also anti-authoritarian and anti-collective unlike Stalinism.

This form of government has proven to be quite successful in Europe despite misinformation by some on the political Right, and is more in line with the "socialism" the Millennials approve of. As an added note, the countries with democratic socialist governments have been struggling of late. While some on the Right cite that as proof of its failure, it should be pointed out that these countries have ranked higher socially and economically than the US. In terms of education, children in these countries have scored far higher than the US just as they have when it comes to longevity and overall happiness. They also have a lower crime rate. Where cracks in the system have developed, it is usually the result of "migrants" from mostly third world African nations immigrating to these countries and who expect the government to take care of them. They do not share the same work ethic or social values. They lack a common history, and even differ in terms of religion. Native Europeans, on the other hand, share a unique social bond and understand that they must work together and contribute to the system in order to derive any benefit. The migrants sit back and demand the State...and ultimately the taxpayers...pay their way with free housing, medical care, food, utilities, and even cable! They are also the prime reason for the sudden rise in crime. Therefore, if you factor out the migrants, you will find the democratic socialism has proven to be quite successful which is why Millennials are so interested in it.

While a strong minority of Millennials favor socialism, or to be more specific, they favor democratic socialism by just over 1/3 (36%). Capitalism still reigns supreme with about 39% favoring some form of capitalism (support for capitalism increases with the age) , though the form of capitalism isn't defined. In another survey from 2015, Millennials preferred socialism 49% to 43% who had an unfavorable opinion of it. So it seems that capitalism, especially the free market libertarian variety will survive the transition from a Babyboomer dominated social, economic, and political system to one with Millennials taking the lead, which, I suspect, will include a larger national government and more social programs. It will also likely result in the rise and eventual dominance of a third party (or parties), along with more Indies running for office, combined with a steady decline in the two corporate political parties.

Having discussed Babyboomer and Millennials, I would be amiss if I didn't mention Generation X, which falls between the two (Boomers range between 1945/46 -- 1964, Gen X is between 1965 -- 1982, while Millennials are 1983 -- 2001). Like middle children everywhere, Gen Xers are sandwiched between two larger and more vocal demographics, have found that their way to success has been the old fashion way---by their own bootstraps. As for Babyboomers, they are defined in two waves. The first, from 1945 to 1955 tend to be liberal while the second wave, starting round 1955 are much more conservative. Therefore, Gen Xers tend to lean conservative, but, like their younger Millennials siblings, are tech driven and much more open to change, be it technology or societal. In fact, in almost every category, Gen Xers fall in the middle, which is why they are often seen as the transitional generation. Current examples of Gen Xers include Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mia Love, Nikki Haley, and Bobby Jindal.

So with that, Trump, who was born in 1946, is likely to be one of the last Babyboomer presidents unless Barack Obama decides to take another shot at it, which I suspect he'll do. In the interim, we will increasingly see Millennials and Generation X come to the forefront as Babyboomers leave the scene. If present trends hold true, the country will continue with its Right leaning tilt for the next few decades until Gen Xers closest to their conservative second wave Boomer parents begin to age out of the social arena. At that point, we'll likely see a shift back to the Left. However, much can and will happen within those years which could change everything. A third term by Obama might force a return to the Left sooner than expected, which could result in a blowback from conservative Gen Xers and the Boomers., which in turn could delay or even derail a possible Chelsea Clinton inauguration just as further migration from Hispanics and Asians (legal and illegal) could change the demographic face of America as much as continued immigration of Muslims or the implosion of Europe and Asia could. One thing for certain, there is great change ahead that will be profound and completely alter the course of this country. Ancient Rome faced similar changes in its time and ultimately failed to adapt. I wonder how we will fare?


One third of millennials view socialism favorable



Do Millennials Support Socialism Over Capitalism?



Generation X: America's neglected 'middle child'