Several others have done some short diaries on this, but I just couldn't resist. The timing is unbelievable. Just yesterday, Chris Bowers wrote an article about the effect of population age on politics.
Ironically, a columnist for Newsmax provided a classic example of his thesis.
Bowers:
America, like all other wealthy democracies, is getting older, and fast. In the last two decades alone, the median age of the United States has increased from 32.9 years, to 36.7 years. This has real political ramifications. In 1976, 32% of the electorate was under the age of 30, compared to only 18% in 2008. If the electorate last year had been as young as it was in 1976, Obama would have won by a much larger margin--55.5%--43.7%--than even the 7.27% he actually won by. Democrats in Congress would have won at least a dozen more seats. Approval ratings for the Obama administration and Democratic policies would be higher, too. Simply put, the country would be more open to progressive policy changes.
Even beyond the short-term outlook of American politics, worldwide life expectancy has increased from 31 in 2000, to about 65 now. In the wealthy democracies, it has increased from about 45 to about 80. This has resulted in a far older population pretty much everywhere, which certainly plays an important role in reinforcing the status quo. The older one becomes, the less likely s/he is to pick up new tastes in clothes, food, music, or even slang. The older one becomes, the more intertwined his or her lifestyle and livelihood becomes on established, status quo institutions for employment and / or retirement. All of these trends are undoubtedly connected to political choices as well, resulting in a reinforcement of the status quo within those institutions as well.
It's a pretty well documented fact that the current Republican party is most heavily supported by older, white males, who border from conservative to reactionary to just plain nuts.
Like this guy:
Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention
By: John L. Perry
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
# They can see that the economy -- ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation -- is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.
# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
Who is this guy?
According to his NewsMax biography, Perry holds a master's degree from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism and has worked as an editor or reporter for several daily newspapers, including the Tampa Tribune, the St. Petersburg Times and the Clearwater Sun.
He's also held relatively high positions in the federal government:
Perry ... served President Lyndon B. Johnson as deputy under secretary of commerce and was a White House speech writer and race-relations trouble-shooter for President Johnson.
In the Jimmy Carter administration, he was executive assistant to the under secretary of Housing and Urban Development and was interim director of public information for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
In addition, Perry served as press aide to Florida Gov. LeRoy Collins, who served from 1955 to 1961, and as executive assistant to the speaker of the Florida House of Representatives.
Source: Institute for Southern Studies.
I don't know exactly how old Mr. Perry is, but if he served in LBJ's White House, he's got to be at least 60 to 70 years old. (Depressing to note that he served in two Democratic WH's)
Note that, despite his credentials, Mr. Perry cites no sources for "story," or "column," or whatever you want to call it. The entire column is sheer speculation, a fantasy of what "observant military professionals" think based upon Mr. Perry's own rhetorical questions. There is nothing factual about it.
It instantly reminded me of "Seven Days in May," a 1964 film with a screenplay by Rod Serling, in which, you guessed it, a military coup is staged by a general who believes that the President is "criminally weak" and whose actions (in negotiating an arms control treaty with the Soviets) are "criminal negligence."
It's a great old flick, and Serling does a masterful job with the dialogue.
The synchronicity of Bowers and Perry publishing their missives at almost exactly the same time is striking. Perry's fantasy supports Bowers thesis to a T.
On a side note, if you ever get the chance, watch "Seven Days." It's outdated, yes, and comes across more as a Left-wing paranoid fantasy than a right-wing coup fantasy. The performances are the best thing about it though; Frederick March is a little past his prime, but still does a credible job as President; Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas, however, are at the the height of their powers, and both manage to bring their characters to life, despite the surreal nature of the plot.
One final note: Here's Douglas, emasculating the 1960's version of the "Fighting 101st Keyboarders."
If only Kirk was around to have such a conversation with Max Baucus . . .
well, at least I know that's a fantasy!