...
i have a question. do you think the children born between 1955 and 1970
have been partner to any kind of revolution? i guess i mean this in the form
of a transformative paradigm shift. not just in the form of protesting, but
constructive effort to advance our country?
now, i know this implies biases on my own part; the ‘radicalism’ of reagan
wasn’t really radical to me but a re-branding of an already in place boomer
agenda. *if (i need to stress my use of the conditional here) *we’re
staring now down the barrel of a paradigm shift, what pre-history do we
truly have for it? have we truly experienced a paradigm shift since the
depression?
the idea of paradigm shifting is a regular one for me and I’ve latched on to
it since before i was politically interested when i learned about the term
in its true context; the change from one set of scientific assumptions to
another, newer science’s assumptions.
an interesting controversy in paradigm shifting is whether trotsky-ite, or
violent revolutionary actions can actually trigger a shift.(Kuhn who framed
the primary debate would say it actually happens when the members of the
older school just die off.) one might say that (as i think i am inclined)
the 60s and 70s were a step forward and backward. though protest served to
open a dialog, they actually did little to actually adjust and
correct institutional problems (the masculinization of feminism is a great
example thereof). the idea of sexual liberation, or liberation as a whole,
follows swiftly behind as the coequal attraction and repulsion to the idea
and practice of ‘liberation’ spawned many wholly unhealthy developments
(from AIDS and prostitution as a “form of power,” to EOE & quotas) that
serve now to split people apart rather than understand and just resolve
issues.
essentially, i ask this question because many liberal bloggers and reporters
(not progressive) are missing the boat and will be on the same side of the
river as hagee and pat robertson (ie, folded into the walking corpse of the
greatest generation and the selfish one). i think the pragmatic progressives
are sick of them as they become more akin to jettison and their political
capital is quickly expended (schism in the wings). when you do the bio they
all seem to fall in the age range of 53-38. it seems like they are trying to
ride a paradigm shift with a 1960s era unicycle and as they are the dominant
voice in the media paradigm (who are not elected), they keep shouting down
viable policy debates with boomer addled injunctives. why does the news
media market depend on baby boomers so much when this is obviously an
election that would wrest the executive power from boomer hands?