Daily Kos

Lost Generation: no Presidents for you!

Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 04:34:02 PM PDT

As the years roll by, a U.S. demographic bulge is slipping into oblivion with nary a President to show for it.  This generation is sometimes referred to as the Korean War generation, those who were young adults at the time of the Korean War conflict.  Those born between 1928 and 1945.  The U.S. has had many Presidents from the previous World War II generation (1910  to 1927), including: Reagan, Nixon, Ford, Kennedy, Carter and Bush I.

More recently, our last two Presidents, Clinton and Bush II, are both of the Baby Boom generation.

Yup, the entire generation (18 years) in between, has lost out on the Presidential sweepstakes.  And for better or worse, 2008 might be the Lost Generation's final chance at securing the top spot for one of their own.

What about History?

One might wonder whether this happens occasionally throughout American history, but it really hasn't.  Dating back to George Washington, the longest span of years between Presidents is the 22 years between George Herbert Walker Bush and William Jefferson Clinton.  Previous to this occurrence, there was 18 years between Eisenhower and LBJ.  However, Ike was born at the end of FDR's generation while LBJ was born at the end of the next (pre-WWII) generation.  The next greatest span is 13 years, McKinley to Wilson, and then again from Lincoln to Grant.

Can the Lost Generation gain the Presidency in 2008?

Well, not from the Democratic side of the field.  Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson were all born between '47 and '61.  If Gore enters the race he is also a boomer born in '48.

The greatest hope on the Republican side was perhaps John McCain ('36), but he is fading fast.  They have Rudy who was born on May 28, 1944, but he clearly has one foot in the baby boom generation, especially considering that some date the start of this generation in 1945.  We'll call it Rudy on a technicality.

The only other Lost Gen Republican hopeful is Fred Thompson ('42).  So at present, the last great hope of the Lost Generation seems to be actor/faux-politician Fred Thompson.

Bloomberg ('42), as an Independent, would be an outside shot.

The thing is... time is running out for this generation.  It's already been suggested that McCain's advanced age (70) is a factor in his plummet in the polls.  Reagan, the oldest President ever, turned 70 a month after the inauguration of his first term, so 70 years of age might be the outside limit for a first-timer.  Hence, if they lose this opportunity in 2008, the Lost Generation (LG) might not be able to field any viable candidate in 2012 or 2016.

Why does this matter?  

Well for one thing there might be a self-identification bump for LG voters associated with a Thompson or Bloomberg run that might counter any age discrimination effects from voters of other generations.

There also might be a lingering bitterness for the LG-er's, having been excluded from the pinnacle of power.  I already see, anecdotally, a certain cultural bitterness amongst LG-er's who I know.  They weren't part of the Greatest Generation, but they also weren't part of the Cultural Revolution of the 60's and 70's, most of which was fueled by Baby Boomers.

LG-er's have voted more and more in favor of the Republicans as the years have progressed.  I believe they also watch more FOX news than any other demographic group.  I think missing the Presidency might further their anger and bitterness in the years to come and spur on their rightward political drift.

Cross-posted on:
My Left Wing

Tags: 2008 Elections (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 16 comments

  •  I contend... (8+ / 0-)

    Republicans will always dominate this segment of the voting population.  The Republican Party has always appealed to those who have felt victimized by the system.  The Republican Party will always make direct appeals to those in the Lost Generation.  And I have no doubt that if Fred Thompson is nominated that the Republicans will foist some type of message like... Vote for the Grown-up.

  •  This is one reason I might be inclined to Obama (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Marie, bethincary, Mind That

    (Perhaps the only reason.)

    I'm going through 16 years of presidents born within a month of me, and if Hillary is elected it will be 20 or 24 years of Ps within a year or so of me.

    That really doesn't seem right.  But there is no appetite to go up; rather, as JFK (who was born within a year of each of my parents) said, let's

    pass the torch to a new generation

    You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

    by Clem Yeobright on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 04:47:02 PM PDT

    •  That's nothing. (3+ / 0-)

      Everyone from JFK through Bush I was the same age cohort.  Bush I was a little young to serve, but generally we got the same WWII vets and could have gotten Dole, taking us to forty years of presidents ranging from the young and dynamic to the old and ED'd

      Last November, HRC was Inevitably the nominee. So clearly she didn't lose because of pre-judgment or sexism. She lost in the campaign.

      by Inland on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 05:22:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Excuse me, but... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        ...George Herbert Walker Bush did serve as a Navy pilot in the Pacific theater during World War II.  On September 2, 1944, Bush's plane was shot down by enemy fire while on a mission over an island north of Iwo Jima.  Thru valiant efforts of American forces, young Bush was rescued, avioding the grisly fate of other American pilots captured by forces on that island (they were eventually beheaded, with their livers eaten by the commander of that island base - an action for which he was hung after the war ended).  

        Had young Bush not been rescued by an American submarine, he would have never married his wife Barbara, and NONE of their children would have ever been born.  (Of course, you already know the rest of that story!)

        •  I didnt' mean to say he didn't serve (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          I meant to say Bush I joined up really young.  That's how come he was younger than Reagan.  Bush I may have lied about his age to get in.

          I'm not going to deny Bush I credit for volunteering for combat duty.

          Last November, HRC was Inevitably the nominee. So clearly she didn't lose because of pre-judgment or sexism. She lost in the campaign.

          by Inland on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:08:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Here's a link (3+ / 0-)

    ...to help with some of the terms used

    more here

    and here

    this isn't some screwball mysticism pseudo-science.  It's good sociology

    Great Diary

    You Sacrifice the Thing You Love the Most. I Love My Guitar - Jimi Hendrix

    by jds1978 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 04:47:48 PM PDT

    •  Well, you've taught me something (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jds1978

      Not anything I will ever use :) , but still ...

      You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

      by Clem Yeobright on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 04:55:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Okay, help me out here (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jds1978

      Where is the predictive power of Generational Dynamics?

      What 3 things can you predict about 2020 that contravene 'uninformed' conventional wisdom?

      I remember when GenX was first 'diagnosed' and predicted, and the internet has blown away the possibility of even evaluating those predictions.

      BUT: without predictive power, this is just religion.

      You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

      by Clem Yeobright on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 05:49:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The effect of the Internet... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        ...wasn't just on Gen X'ers.  It was felt universally even by people who paid no heed to it until it bit them on the ass (like me, for example)

        As in all "soft" sciences (Gawd how I hate that term, but there it is) like anthropology, sociology, political science, there are few absolutes.

        I wouldn't take the these predictives as set in stone.  There does, however, seem to be a cycle and a correlation (sp?).  Since my background is in History I'm a bit loathe to speculate much further w/o risking a misstatement  

        You Sacrifice the Thing You Love the Most. I Love My Guitar - Jimi Hendrix

        by jds1978 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:39:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    denise b

    I don't think it matters at all what generation they're from...

  •  They changed America (5+ / 0-)

    While the 60s are associated in the public mind with the Boomers, members of the Silent Generation included Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky, Ken Kesey, Jane Fonda, Abbie Hoffman, Grace Slick, Bob Dylan...who were the 60s again?

  •  We were the Silent Generation,not the Lost (6+ / 0-)

    Generation. The Lost Generation was born between 1883-1900.However,many of the leaders of the 60's revolution were members of our generation as the above poster pointed out.We also started Rock&roll in the 50's,this was our rebellion. The book "Generations" says that we were born between 1925-1942.Mondale and Dukakis were from our generation.If our only hope for a President is McCain or Thompson,I say lets never have a President.

    At least we control the Supreme Court with Scalia,Kennedy,Souter,Breyer and Ginsburg. We are also the most affluent generation,because of our lower numbers,we had no trouble getting jobs when we were young and getting into college was a snap.We had almost no competition from women and minorities either. To be a white guy born in that era made you a privileged character and don't think we didn't take advantage. No affirmative action held us back.And for those of us who were too young for Korea and too old for Vietnam, like yours truly,we had the benefit of military service,it was our rite of passage without the physical danger.

Permalink | 16 comments