The Saeculum Decoded
A Blog by Neil Howe
Sep 232012
 

Regrettably, I’ve been away from this blog too long—the result of too much travelling and a bit too much work.  I’m hoping for an easier fall and winter.

Seven weeks have passed since I looked at the generational dynamics behind the Obama-Romney contest, when the overall balance seemed fairly even.  Now, it’s tipping clearly if not decisively for Obama.  RCP currently shows a 3.3 percent national margin for Obama, but this probably understates the incumbent’s advantage: RCP records not a single national survey giving Romney even a minimal margin since Gallup’s tracking poll in late August.  Global futures markets like InTrade now tip 70/30 for Obama.  (If you’re confident Romney is going to win, you can at least expect to make some money.) And for true gloom and doom for Romney, take a look at this new Pew survey.  It shows Obama ahead by 8 percentage points overall among likely voters, and leading Romney on almost every issue and every scale of likeability.

The last month has been genuinely and relentlessly awful for Mitt Romney.

First came his selection of Paul Ryan as VP, which reinforced the male-white-accounting-econowonk side of the ticket (not exactly where Romney needed reinforcement—and there were so many great alternative VP picks roughly Ryan’s age) while tying Romney to a very specific plan to cut the cost of Medicare.  Nothing could have pleased Axelrod and Plouffe and others in the Democratic HQ more than to change the topic of conversation from how slowly the economy is recovering under Obama to how much Romney wants to throw seniors over the cliff.  I actually agree with most of the fundamental elements of the Ryan plan (incentives and budgets for health-care providers are surely coming, like them or not).  But hey Romney, wait until you’re President and appoint Ryan as your director of OMB or your head of CMS.  But add him to your ticket?  Probably not the best idea.

Second, there was the GOP’s lukewarm convention.  The Democrats’ wasn’t much either, but then again they didn’t have to prove anything: Everybody already knows who the Obamas and Clintons are.  The GOP had to persuade the public why the presidential mantle of office should be transferred to this relative unknown.  They needed to put the Democrats on trial for keeping America mired in the worst economic mess since the Great Depression.  They needed to excoriate the other party for the suffering of America’s unemployed and underemployed middle- and lower-income citizens (just as the Democrats surely would have done to the GOP had a Republican been the incumbent).  But the Romney campaign did very little of this.  Instead, they talked about budget-balancing, too much regulation, and Obama’s “anti-business” attitudes.  Wow.  And with the growing danger of war or broader war mounting in the Mideast and East Asia, the GOP could have mounted a principled critique, say, of Obama’s track record on his policies of engagement with Iran, Russia, and China.  But no.  Virtually nothing at all on national security issues, which subsequently (and remarkably) allowed the Democrats at their convention to look responsible in an area where their party has been perennially vulnerable.

OK, a missed opportunity with the convention.  But (and here’s number three), Team Romney subsequently failed to follow up with any of the policy strategy and detail he “didn’t have time for” earlier.  Instead, he has been dogged by gaffes and garbled misstatements in poorly staged impromptu interviews—while getting rhetorically outmaneuvered at every turn by Team Obama.  The worst fumble of all was his off-the-record suggestion that the growing share of Americans who pay no federal income taxes (“47 percent”) are essentially lost to the Republican Party.  Mindboggling.  This poor, struggling, laid-off, and dependent 47 percent in fact constitutes a growing constituency for the GOP (a point I will return to shortly).  Rather than express outrage that today’s horrible economy has stripped them of their livelihoods and independence, Romney is throwing them under the bus.

It’s almost as though Romney is channeling Herbert Hoover and can’t recall Ronald Reagan.  When he tries to talk like a conservative, George Will recently commented, Romney sometimes sounds like one of those robotic German spies in vintage WWII movies: He’s memorized lots of facts, but he’ll never know who Stan Musial is.

Fourth, and most recently, comes Ben Bernanke’s announcement of QE3 and an “indefinite” guarantee of near-zero interest rates, which was soon followed by a sizeable surge in the Dow.  For the first time—even though the real economy hasn’t done much of anything–Obama is matching or even overtaking Romney in his perceived ability to handle the economy.  A very large and somewhat amusing gap has now appeared in how political partisans now view the economy.  Back in early August, 71 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of Democrats said they were hearing “mostly bad news about the economy.”  Today, 60 percent of Republicans continue to say that—but only 15 percent of Democrats.  That’s a 45-point spread.

Is the economy doing much better?  I say no.  I don’t think it’s doing better at all.  (Indeed, I think it’s likely we have already entered a new recession and just don’t know it yet.)  So I think the GOP—which is now hopping mad at Bernanke for giving the economy a “sugar-water high” just weeks before the election—is quite mistaken about Bernanke’s motives.  Chairman Ben did not go “all in” with QE3 because he wants to be re-chosen as Fed head by Obama.  He did it because he knows the economy is in really deep trouble.  (I will come back to this in another post.)

So what are Mitt’s odds at this point?  Quite honestly, they aren’t great, and if I had to make a wager right now I would certainly bet on a modest Obama victory—a smaller voter margin than 2008, but not a cliffhanger.  As for Congress, the House will certainly remain in GOP hands (Pelosi’s sudden optimism seems delusional) and the Senate will probably be split 50-50 right down the middle.

Of course, a comeback is possible.  It’s a tall order.  For Romney to rally and win, some combination of the following three-and-a-half things will have to happen.

(1) Romney has a great debate performance.  Without it, he’s toast.  With it, he could get back into the running.  The boost could be big precisely because voter expectations at this point are so low.  And because lots of voters still don’t know him very well—aside from the gaffes they hear about in the news.  According the surveys, voters are really looking forward to the debates: Fully two-thirds now say they will be “very” or “somewhat” helpful in deciding which candidate to vote for, the largest share since Clinton-versus-Bush, Sr., in 1992.  Keep in mind as well that Romney got plenty of practice debating in the primaries and often performed very well in them, showing plenty of wit, humor, and grace under fire.

(2) National security goes critical, which will probably hurt Obama.  It’s hard to recall a recent election–maybe Clinton-Dole in 1996?—in which foreign affairs has played such a minor role.  Which is incredible when you think we now have 70,000 troops fighting in Asia (and getting shot at and killed by our own uniformed “allies”) together with thousands more fighting more surreptitiously, with and without deadly predators, in dozens of other far-flung nations.  And the temperature is now getting hotter on most fronts, with Islamist violence clearly rising, Syria gripped in civil war, Egypt and much of North Africa run by new and unstable regimes, Iran and Israel (and inevitably the United States) near the brink of war in the Persian Gulf, and, most recently, a new risk of war in the China Sea.  At some point, geopolitics may well burst into 2012 election like a wild and uninvited guest–to the White House at least, which will likely be put mostly on the defensive.  Romney may or may not be able to leverage the opportunity.  In any case, Obama doesn’t have enough time left for a “wag the dog” response.

(3) Another bad shoe drops on the economy, which will certainly hurt Obama.  Obama “owns” current economic performance in 2012 nearly as much as Hoover “owned” it in 1932.  Most Democratic partisans understand this, explaining their desire to play up positive news and to rejoice at the Fed-triggered revival in the Dow.  Voters mostly think that Obama is trying hard, and so long as GDP and employment are growing ever so slightly (unlike 1932, obviously), they may go along with his argument that he is at least much better than the GOP alternative.  But what if these numbers, which are now merely flatlining, suddenly turn decisively down between now the election, raising new and urgent talk of yet another recession?  Perceptions about Obama’s “slow progress” and “incomplete” grade on the economy would, in this case, quickly shift—on the issue that everyone agrees is most on voters’ minds.

I promised three-and-a-half things, so let me add one more consideration that is related to the condition of today’s economy and is more speculative.  I want to talk for a moment about class and income deprivation, and how these may feed into a new sort of partisanship.

To mention class, of course, is to raise perceptions that nearly everyone figures work against the GOP.  And a recent Pew report (“Yes, the Rich are Different”) makes it clear just how tough it is, once the words “rich” and “poor” are mentioned, for most voters to say much that’s flattering about the GOP.

The report, which is well worth reading for its own sake, tries to analyze how Americans think about class.  When most Americans are simply asked what they think about “the rich,” the responses reflect an revealing mix of praise and damnation.  On the other hand, most Americans agree that rich people are more “intelligent” and more “hardworking” than the average American.  (More “hardworking” is, I think, a new development: Fifty years ago I’m quite sure most Americans would not have said that.)  On the other hand, most Americans also believe that the rich are much more likely to be more “greedy” and “dishonest” than the average American.

Yet it’s when the report assesses changes over time, especially from 2008 to 2012, that its findings really tip hard against the GOP.  Point (1): Americans across-the-board, in both parties, feel that since 2008 the gap between the rich and poor has been widening.  Point (2): Most Americans, again in both parties, feel this widening is a bad thing for our country.  Point (3): Most think that the Republicans will help mostly the rich and that the Democrats will help mostly the poor and middle class.  Point (4): Most think point (3) is especially true for Mitt Romney (at least, those who knew enough about Romney to have an opinion).  This is a veritable syllogism of bad news for the Romney camp.

So now let me bring your attention to another Pew survey, which appeared at nearly the same time: “A Closer Look at the Parties in 2012: GOP Makes Big Gains among White Working-Class Voters.” It comes to conclusions which, while not contradicting the other report, point in a totally different direction.  It’s fascinating to contemplate these two reports side by side.

The report starts with the unsurprising finding that total voter identification by party has faded somewhat for the Democrats since 2008 (from 51 to 48 percent) and has gained somewhat for the GOP (from 39 to 43 percent). Not including “leaners,” the GOP has a net gain of 3 percentage points. Yet here’s the surprise: More than all of this total gain for the GOP has occurred in the lowest income brackets.  Among the highest income brackets, the Democrats have actually gained share.

The report shows, in addition, that minorities at all ages are just about as Democrat-favoring in 2012 as in 2008 (and more than in 2004), while nearly all the Democrat identification losses are among whites–and virtually all of these losses are among lower-income whites.  (High-income whites are just as pro-Obama today as in 2008.)  In 2008, whites were strong pro-GOP in every income bracket above $50,000.  In 2012, they are strong pro-GOP in every bracket above $30,000.

The same holds true if you substitute education for income.  College-plus America (with a four-year degree or more) is more pro-Democratic in 2012 than it was in 2008; college-minus America (everybody else) is more pro-GOP.

You’re welcome to view the crosstab data yourself, graciously provided by Pew.  Let me summarize the main findings in the following graphic.

So how do we make sense of these very different perspectives?  My own view is that, yes, a sense of class awareness—and class division—has grown since 2008 in ways that tarnish the image of the GOP in eyes of America’s have-nots and have-lesses.  But these are also the Americans who have been hurt the worst over the last four years in unemployment, lost income, lost wealth, and foreclosed homes.  (See the new annual CBO report on income and poverty for the gory details.)  Their sense of class grievance is overweighed by their sense of performance failure on the party now in the White House: This is Obama’s economy, he failed, it really hurts, and I don’t want four more years of this.  Wealthy Americans just aren’t feeling the “really hurts” part.

Overall, from 2008 to 2012, the share of all Americans who call themselves “lower” or “lower-middle” class has grown from 25 to 32 percent.  (This itself is a disturbing finding, again brought to us by Pew Research.)  More than all of that 7 percentage point increase has gone to the GOP.  The share of GOP supporters who call themselves “lower class” has jumped from 13 to 23 percent while the “lower class” share of Democratic supporters has risen much less (from 29 to 33 percent).

Moreover, areas that do not traditionally vote Democratic, but swung blue for Obama, appear to be swinging back the most in this election. The Midwest, South, and Mountain regions show large declines of 6 to 9 points in net support for Democrats over Republicans, while traditionally bluer regions like New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and the West Coast show little or no decline.  (This is reflected in the rural/urban split in my table.) In other words, traditionally Republican voters who “took a chance” on Obama and are hurting in today’s economy may be feeling buyers’ remorse.

Whether all this affects the outcome of the election is uncertain. Clearly, the aftermath of the Great Recession provides the GOP with some real opportunities for a full-throated populist message.  Just as clearly, Mitt Romney is probably the candidate least equipped to deliver such a message.  The “47 percent” miscue says it all.  And for this reason, the GOP is now likely to lose the election.  (You notice that I called this merely “half a point” for Romney.)

Yet there are other implications likely to follow from this growing two-way rip tide of class tension in America.  Ominously, it may portend a further widening of the blue-red polarization of America once the 2012 exit polls are counted, with a growing regional and urban-rural split in voter preferences.  We may see the disappearance of the “purple” states that appeared in 2008, and the reappearance of more bright-blue and bright-red states.  By 2016, assuming Obama wins, a crowded and all-Gen-X field of GOP primary contestants may choose to tack far more in the populist direction than did McCain in 2008 or Romney in 2012.

And what about voting by generation?  The huge generational gap remains: The Silent will swing way to the GOP this year, and the Millennials will swing way to the Democrats.  But on top of this preference, there is certain to be a distinct class twist.  You can expect the huge anti-Obama margin among seniors to acquire an extra passion among the hard-beaten, Tea-Party, “heartland” edge. Likewise, you can expect the huge pro-Obama margin among young adults to pick up its greatest energy among collegians and among affluent and urban young professionals.  According to the New York Times’ recent feature story on non-college Millennials, many of them are struggling but few of them plan on voting for Obama.  More to the point, however, few of them plan to vote for Romney either—or even feel they are in any way on his radar screen.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • neil ridley

    We here in the less loved Isles are much interested in US of A and follow with great disquiet the lash to the right and loss of community and leadership that the benign US of A formally provided. An interesting post on our nationalised communicator puts a perspective http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19667384.
    The thing I find troubling is the demolition of the rising generation and class warfare that is happening in the States. Why has it come to this?
    Romney came over here before the Olympic games telling us we could not organise a party, he united the British people in a way that has not happened since Suez in ’56.
    Even Obama was moved to support the British, which was a big surprise because we know he hates us. The US of A has bought the idea of British bad guys as shown in ‘Holy’wood and so while it does not matter what we’think’ as we are just a little Isle, at least we can still think, which aoppears to be a thing that the Republic(an) party does not want or encourage.
    So when it comes to leadership of the free world we find neither Obama or Romney is up to the task.
    Final laugh out load momment is there is to be a British lead in a film about Kerouac – now there is a thing.

  • http://twitter.com/tomliberti Tom Liberti

    I’m curious if you have come across in your research the expectations of the 1932 election leading up to the vote. Was it clear that Roosevelt would be such an overwhelming winner leading into the election?

    • http://www.lifecourse.com NeilHowe

      Yes, it gradually became clear as the economy ground to a halt and the Dow plunged in 1931 and 1932. Keep in mind Hoover’s great initial popularity (his electoral margin in 1928 was actually slightly larger than FDR’s in 1932). But by the time of his electoral defeat he was a broken man. And in the months between the election and inauguration (early March) the country just about fell to pieces with widespread panic about collapsing banks, an overvalued dollar, gold outflows, and an assassination attempt against FDR–with seemingly no one in charge. The mood of vertiginous uncertainty resembled the hiatus between entering Lincoln and exiting Buchanan in 1860-61. One result was the quick ratification of the 20th Amendment, which, by the election of 1936, pushed the inauguration date to January, where it remains today.

  • Joerg Mueller

    Neil: how do you fit in a regeneracy if you propose even more intense partisanship going into the 2016 election?

    • http://www.lifecourse.com NeilHowe

      The regeneracy occurs when the crisis worsens to the point of urgency, a dominant partisan coalition is formed to solve the problem, and all those on the other side simply shut up or are silenced. It’s not that anyone changes their mind (at least, not in the near term). It’s simply that no one feels as much like arguing. The only scenario in which partisanship might intensify on both sides throughout most of the era would be a civil conflict that actually pits one side against the other.

      • Joerg Mueller

        Hopefully the “fiscal cliff” will bring about this coalition and we do not have to wait for an external war or a similar calamity. – Thanks.

      • http://www.thegenxfiles.com/ Dave Sohigian

        We saw this situation after 9/11: both sides of the aisle pretty much agreed on everything having to do with terrorism regardless of their position before 9/11. I am not arguing that was the regeneracy (I sure hope it wasn’t based on the situation over the last 10 years) but I suspect that the regeneracy will look like a more all-encompassing version of that period.

  • Danny

    Glad your back Mr. Howe! Your work is simply fascinating and has inspired me (Millennial, born 1988) to delve into the intricacies of generational history.

  • http://www.thegenxfiles.com/ Dave Sohigian

    “Clearly, the aftermath of the Great Recession provides the GOP with some real opportunities for a full-throated populist message. Just as clearly, Mitt Romney is probably the candidate least equipped to deliver such a message.”

    That is a very telling quote, Neil. I am sure that the GOP is trying to puzzle out how to get their multi-millionaire peg to fit into a populist hole. I see why you said it is only half a point. But the other points could definitely swing in Romney’s favor if they are extreme enough.

    Here is a more theoretical question. What type of leadership do we most need (putting aside left/right politics) as we lead up to the regeneracy? Should it all be about pulling the Millennials together or righting our economy or strengthening our military, or something else? Are there other factors that neither candidate even touches upon that will determine American success in the coming crisis?

    • http://www.lifecourse.com NeilHowe

      Dave, your comment about what the GOP is trying to do assumes that they know what the problem is. I’m not sure they do. Romney and his chief advisers sometimes give the impression that they want to rally “their” 53 percent and thereby win.

      What type of leadership? Good question. Confidence, cool under fire, a pragmatic focus on getting big and tough things done and not caring about short-term popularity hits–and maybe this in turn requires a certain habit of analytical detachment. In this sense, both Obama and Romney are pretty well suited. Pragmatic, personally “cool” (in the McLuhan sense), detached. Not coincidentally, these two were the Millennials’ choices in their respective primaries. Imagine, by contrast, if the upcoming debates were to feature Hillary Clinton v. Newt Gingrich–or John Edwards v. Rick Santorum. When all is said and done, the voters exercise pretty good judgment.

  • JPT

    Like others below, aside from the typical political analysis that’s everywhere these days, I’m interested in your big picture analysis of how you see current events fitting into your theories. If we did not enter a Fourth Turning on 9/11/2001 as many of us who have read your work believe, it’s kind of hard to believe we’re in one now. The aftermath of 9/11 looked a lot more like your description of a “4T” than the last four years have. Considering that one of the three previous American Crisis periods you looked at involved an “anomaly”, I wonder if you think it’s possible anything like that could be happening this time.

    As for the political analysis you’ve given, the only thing I would point out is that the Pew poll has consistently been something of an outlier, showing much more favorable results for Obama than most other polls. I don’t think anyone believes he leads by 8 points, and there is a convention “bounce” to factor in as well.

    • neil ridley

      “how you see current events fitting into your theories.” Is this the way it works?
      Surely this is confirmation bias.
      I have, for a while found this way of looking at generations is an interesting take on things. I am concerned that events have to fit a pattern which is not the way of the world. These generational turnings work with big things like WW2 which had a global impact, but how can you have a turn in America and in this global and digital connected affair we live now. The wake up call is the implosion of financial affairs when boy george was concerned that this sucker could go down that is 2008. Well it has gone down now, but we are still awaiting some sort of response to these events in both America and Europe the leaders are simply absolving their responsibilities and kicking the can down the road. This is somewhat different to the Arab countries, China, and India when the response has been different. After all China and India are over a third of the population on the planet. You don’t have congress in these places saying you can’t do this and doing a Pontius Pilate as they say so. In Europe it is even worse, cajones unavailable.

  • http://www.jenx67.com/ Jennifer

    The GOP gaining in lower income brackets while the Dems gain in higher income brackets reminds me that in Oklahoma, the ODP seems to have more or less set forth some kind of strategic plan to reclaim the conservative Christian vote. And, even if they don’t reclaim it, which would be hard to imagine in a state this red, they’re reminding everyone that nobody owns Jesus. I think Elizabeth Warren, who is from Oklahoma, has provided inspiration for this, but that is just a hunch. It’s like she’s given Dems permission to go get the God vote. As a Christian, this is always bothersome to me, but as a Democrat, you can imagine, I like it very much.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1322573022 Frank Vasquez

    Very interesting analysis. You had also referenced (I believe in a tweet) last week an article about aging Boomers. One of the more interesting side-paragraphs in that article noted that the Silent Generation was the least immigrant-represented generation in a very long time and that it is dying. I see another major factor in that the Silents are probably the last generation where women were frowned upon in the workplace.
    The Millennials replacing them view themselves by-and-large as multicultural and in some respects have polar-opposite views. And certainly women since the Boomer generation have a vastly different perspective on working outside of households, which is now taken as a given. Democrats currently prevail in these demographics by large margins and by anyone’s measures.
    Some Republicans have noted that their party in the present form will die with the Silents and become essentially regional if changes in appeal are not made, particularly to Latino and Asian voters. It seems to me that there are huge conflicts to be worked out (or not) among the four large GOP factions — Social Conservatives, Tea-Partiers, Neo-Cons and the Old Money/Affluent. Do you see a possibility of it breaking apart and/or reforming in a much different way? Or do you think someone like Marco Rubio could rally the party back together and attract more new voters.
    It was interesting watching Paul Ryan watch Rubio’s speech at the convention, which seemed to go very well, but didn’t get much press. Ryan bore an expression like: “That guy is going to be some tough competition for me in the future.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1322573022 Frank Vasquez

      Here’s a more cogently stated article about what I was talking about:
      http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0926/Can-GOP-survive-its-minority-problem
      The comparison with the Whigs of the 1850s was notable.

      I thought there were already some interesting shifts from prior conventions. The Republicans went out of their way to feature minority leaders and did not dwell on or feature social issues like they have in the past. Meanwhile, the Democrats went much bigger on social issues with Sandra Fluke, gay rights platform, etc.

      One of the more interesting things I noticed was that the closing song for the Republicans was “Living in America” by James Brown. The Democrats went with a country tune. That seems reversed from the Lee Greenwood presentations at GOP functions of the past.

    • TPaign

      Ayn Rand gave a speech in 1960 that was turned into an essay titled “Conservativism, an Obituary.” It may be more relevent now than it was back then. Recently in the media and on talk radio, the Dem’s have been attacking the GOP, and particularly Paul Ryan, for their affinity for Ayn Rand. She would likely be attacking the GOP as well, especially the social conservatives, if she were still alive.

  • GBart

    I am very disappointed that you only address generationl issues in your last paragraph and only summarily. I m shocked by the po-Romney bias to the bulk of your “analysis.”

    • http://www.lifecourse.com NeilHowe

      Pro-Romney? I basically said he’s running a misguided and error-ridden campaign and will probably lose. Wow. No one ever won a popularity contest by writing anything politics.

      • Marked174

        That doesn’t mean you should stop. I frequent here all the time.and am glad you came back.

  • Jill

    My question relates to the violent reactions of Muslims to Western provocations. Do you think some, or possibly many, Islamic nations are influenced by “Prophet” generations that are in prominence, as the “Boomer/Prophet” generation is in America? If so, wouldn’t this conjunction of volatile elders be very, very dangerous?

  • TPaign

    One of the theories for why American farmers have (until recently) been mostly democrats, while northern industrialists were republicans, is based on monetary policy. Democrats traditionally favored weak dollar and inflationary policy. Farmers traditionally carried large amounts of revolving debt (for example, loans for seed paid off after harvest). Inflation was good for the farmer as the loans could be paid with cheaper dollars, and the rise in prices for domestic produced commodities closely matched inflation. For the northern industrialists, weak dollar policies and inflation destroyed the value of his savings, and the industrialists were largely the only class which had any savings and excess capital.
    Are the Silents running to the GOP for similiar reasons? Presently, Silents have the greatest amounts of savings of any generation group, however they are lucky to earn 1% on their CD’s. They are fearful of inflation, which will cause food and imported goods to cost more, while they are trying to survive on their fixed incomes. A little deflation may have been good for the silents, as their houses and cars are paid for.
    I’ve often wondered if the real motivation for the stirring of the tea-party by elements such as the Koch brothers was related to monetary policy. When the financial crisis in 2007 began to implode, Chairman Bernanke dropped the “Money Bomb” (i.e. QE) to provide adequate liquidity to the markets and prevent a severe deflation. The QE also did something else which may have infuriated those with large sums of excess cash (i.e. savings). It prevented the great deflation from occuring, which in turn, stole the opportunity to buy distressed assets at incredibly low costs (think 10 to 30 cents on the dollar!) While I understand that Bernanke was following the advice and wisdom of Friedman, QE may be the biggest of the many boots kicking the can.
    As one who really kicked coffee cans as a kid, funny things may happen to the can. Sometimes you put such a large dent or crease in the can that you just can’t deliver a decent blow to move it very far. The can kicking game usually ended, however, when someone jumped and stomped the can flat. We’d usually all collectively whine to the stomper, “Why did you do that? We were all having fun.” The response was usually a shrug, followed by the stomper saying “I was bored with the game.”

    • http://www.lifecourse.com NeilHowe

      You’re certainly right that the Silent, who enjoy the highest net worth position of all generations (esp when it comes to fixed-income assets), have the most to lose from inflation and the most to gain from a deflationary, stagnant-demand economy–like the one we have now. I guess I’m not sure this would automatically incline them to the GOP. Remember, Fed Chairman “helicopter” Bernanke was a GOP appointee. And in recent years the GOP has favored fiscal policies as least as stimulative (on the tax-cut side) as the Democrats (on the spending-growth side). Now if you equate the GOP strictly with the Tea Party, then you may be right: This new and growing part of the GOP does appear to prioritize budget balance (i.e., fiscal austerity) a lot more.

      Now I suppose you could argue, turning from macro to micro, that the Silent have a lot more to gain from tax cuts than benefit increases–to the extent they have a lot of asset income they would like to protect. Certainly the taxation of dividends, cap gains, and the “death tax” loom a lot larger for them right now. So if you figure that the GOP tax cuts will disproportionately benefit the old–and the Dems spending hikes the young–then you’ve got an additional argument.

      On the other hand, the GOP has been a lot more aggressive talking about the need to trim or limit the growth in senior benefits–and this would obviously impact a huge cross-section of the Silent fairly directly. Yet maybe they have been reassured by promises (such as Ryan’s–silly, imo) that no one under 55 will be impacted. BU economist Larry Kotlikoff has long argued that the easiest way to get today’s seniors to share some of the sacrifice is not to cut their benefits (since this would have to be means-tested, etc., etc.) but simply to impose a universal consumption tax on all households. This would be born disproportionately by seniors. I’m not holding my breath to hear a GOP leader propose that idea!