Nowhere GirlMar 3

"When we talk about Baby Boomers not getting off the stage: In 1997, the US president was born in 1946.

In 2007, the US president was born in 1946.

In 2017, the US president was born in 1946.

And next year in 2027? The US president will have been born in 1946."

https://bsky.app/profile/vermontgmg.bsky.social/post/3mg6la6qtas2n

Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg.bsky.social)

When we talk about Baby Boomers not getting off the stage: In 1997, the US president was born in 1946. In 2007, the US president was born in 1946. In 2017, the US president was born in 1946. And next year in 2027? The US president will have been born in 1946. [contains quote post or other embedded content]

Bluesky Social
Show threadTatteredMar 3
@gwynnion So everything will be better under Vance?
Show threadAnnelies Kamran, Ph.D.Mar 3
@Tattered @gwynnion I take this as an explanation for why there's not a field to choose from for Vance's opposite. The Republican party has been very good at maintaining a leadership pipeline, the Democrats have not.
Show threadTatteredMar 3

@akamran @gwynnion Harris?

I really dislike the US generation thing. It seems to have replaced class consciousness in North American minds. There are examples of fascists in every generation. Most of the billionaires driving the destruction of everything are not “Boomers”. They are monsters, though.

I’d rather have Warren or Sanders than Hegseth or Fetterman.

We need to focus on the villainy of rightwing murderers. Age is not a reliable guide to ideology.

Show threadAnnelies Kamran, Ph.D.
@Tattered @gwynnion one politician doesn't make a field of candidates - the minor leagues are in state and local politics, where younger people are under-represented (and GenX tends to be passed over for millenials). It's true that age is not a reliable guide to ideology, but it can tell you a lot about common experiences.
Mar 3 at 10:06pmWeb
Show threadTatteredMar 3

@akamran @gwynnion I will still argue that I have far more in common with workers of any generation than with capitalists of any generation. This holds true across national divides. The anti-colonial struggle, the race struggle, the struggle for queer, trans and women’s rights; all of these converge.

When the children of the wealthy and powerful inherit, they are untouched by the struggle.

Do old people hold on to power? Yes. Which old people? Working class people? Or capitalists?

In the UK, Labour and Conservatives have moved to younger generations of neoliberalism. I don’t think this is what the US needs. The recent rise in support for the Greens shows a younger leader succeeding by circumventing traditional power structures. I think that’s more instructive. Breaking the two-party stranglehold of oligarchic interests is the most important task; appealing to working people of all generations in commonality and solidarity, rather than accepting concepts of division that serve the existing state.

Show threadBradalot “”Mar 3

@Tattered @akamran @gwynnion

yes and yes.

at the top, age correlates with class, because capital lives longer