David Brooks notes that "if you grew up in a big city in the '70s, then life is better for you now in every respect." But this also means that if you grew up in a big city in the '70s, you came of age in a time of crime, drugs, riots, a lost war, and family collapse. If you grew up near a big city in the '70s, as David Brooks did, as I did, the spectacle of the terrible things happening nearby and Coming For You Next was, if anything, even scarier than if you lived within it and learned how to cope with real dangers.
Your worldview is shaped by what was going on when you first started noticing the world. Even if the actual world gets much better - as it has for young Boomers and old Xers - your adolescent worldview tends to stick with you. The generation that came of age in the 1970s, what Doonesbury rightly called "a kidney stone of a decade," are now coming to power.
I think the fear that drives much of American politics now is not driven by real threats of today. They are driven by the scary conditions that prevailed in the childhood and early adolescence of today's rising ruling cohort.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Really interesting. I'll be watching your generation more closely now. ; )
I kinda sorta like David Brook' sometimes, but you know, he can be pretty sloppy and careless in his thinking. For example, "The crime wave killed off the hippie movement."
The hippie movement was a product of the moment, in other words, a fad. Fads die out. You might as well argue that platform shoes disappeared because people wearing them were afraid that they couldn't outrun muggers.
Politically correct Manhattanites don't want to admit it, but the phenomenal run up in housing costs in Manhattan over the past 30 years has cleared out a large portion of those people most predisposed to commit violent crimes. Many formerly dicey neighborhoods are now yuppie and trust-funder playgrounds. True, the neighborhoods are safer, but the people who used to live in those neighborhoods are no longer there. According to The NY Times, Harlem is no longer a majority black neighborhood, even if you include the substantial influx of black immigrant from other nations who have relocated there. In other words, proportionately fewer of Harlem's residents, including its black residents, are likely to support themselves through crime. This demographic shift, combined with the incarceration of lots of bad actors over the past couple of decades, has played a major role in making New York, or at least, Manhattan, safer.
I would say, on the more general theme of Brooks' piece, that if you grew up working class in a big city in 1971, and you're still in the working class, your life is probably in many ways worse than it was in 1971, and you probably can't afford to live in the neighborhood you grew up in.
Unless, of course, you grew up in Detroit.
Man the culture of fear issue has really come home for me in the past couple of weeks. Not only are we still talking about a failed bomb plot in NYC, but its still one of the main stories in many broadcasts. Not to say it doesn't deserve some attention, but we're thinking about stripping citizenship for people just accused of some crimes. Methinks our overreactive culture is starting to border on self-parody .
Also Black Sea, prove me wrong, but this is one of the more racist things I've heard in a while
"Harlem is no longer a majority black neighborhood...in other words, proportionately fewer of Harlem's residents, including its black residents, are likely to support themselves through crime."
You're wrong, and you stand corrected.
Glad to hear it
We have a president that we fundamentally don't trust that is why the right fear.
The left was full of fear when Bush was president. Funny that now that their choice is in office the left ask "Why the Fear Wave Now".
I ask "Why the Fear Wave Then". Maybe the question is just political
D
Instead of implying that Black Sea is racist why not research you question inorder to prove him wrong. Are you lazy or just trying to taint someone you disagree with?
What a world,
Charlotte, I didn't imply that he was a racist, I asked him to show me that a statement he made that sounded a bit fishy to me wasn't racist (which he actually didn't do). Black Sea however confirmed that the statement wasn't and I took it on good faith that he was telling the truth.
Maybe the same good faith could be assumed by others?
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comics/this_modern_world/2010/04/12/this_modern_world
Just out of curiosity, why do all of you disgruntled non-centerists read and comment on this blog?
"Just out of curiosity, why do all of you disgruntled non-centerists read and comment on this blog?"
What a boring world this would be if we all agreed.
You're right, the world would be boring if we all agreed. But, it makes me chuckle that so many frothing-at-the-mouth folks on both extreme sides of the aisle seems drawn to this blog. I am the only one who finds this ironic?
Probably. Happy to amuse you. I'll wipe my mouth.
Just out of curiosity, why do all of you disgruntled non-centerists read and comment on this blog?"
"This song put me in the middle of the road. Traveling there soon became a bore so I headed for the ditch. A rougher ride but I met more interesting people there."
--Neil Young, on "Heart of Gold"
I am grateful to hear from a wide range of points of view. Keeps me informed, and somewhat more honest.
"Just out of curiosity, why do all of you disgruntled non-centerists read and comment on this blog?""
Gruntled represents something rarer than you might expect: an opinionated centrist who is actually principled in "moderation for it's own sake" (for lack of a better word).
Most people we call moderate/centrist are just wishywashy folks who arent interested in taking a principled stand or even a strong opinion.
Not so Gruntled, who is fearlessly moderate on even the most controversial topics.
A rare bird indeed :)
Post a Comment