First Gen X President? First Millennial President?

[tallguy23]

We've had Baby Boomers serve as President since 1993. This dominance may continue for awhile since the Baby Boomers are such a large group.

When do you think the first Gen Xer will be elected? Also, when will the first Millennial be elected?

[old timey villain]

Obama was born in 1961.  I'm not an expert on this, but does that count as a late baby boomer or a very early gen x'er? His half sister was born in 1970 which I believe it definitely generation x.

[tallguy23]

According to most experts the generations are as follows:

- Boomers: 1946 to 1964
- Gen X: 1965-1982
- Millennials: 1982 to 2000

So let's just go off that. Obama is borderline Gen X but he's mainly a late Boomer.

[Indy Prez]

2020 for Gen X President Ladda T Duckworth!

[You kip if you want to...]

Rubio was born in '71. Castro in '74. Haley '72. Jindal '71. Paul Ryan '70.

Going off wikipedia.

[Blue3]

I was born in 1989, and I would technically be qualified to run for President in 2024

I don't think that there are any Millenials in top elected offices at the state/national level, aside from a few in the House, but I'd guess we'll probably see a "Generation Y" President in the 2020's or 2030's... 2040's the latest.

[Mr. Morden]

According to most experts the generations are as follows:

- Boomers: 1946 to 1964
- Gen X: 1965-1982
- Millennials: 1982 to 2000

So let's just go off that. Obama is borderline Gen X but he's mainly a late Boomer.

By that definition, Rubio is the most likely Republican to be the first Gen X president, and Gillibrand is the most likely Democrat.  And both of them have a chance of doing so as early as Jan. 20, 2017 (more likely in Rubio's case, since he's a lot more likely to run), though it could also come later.

The prospective 2016 Dem. candidates are actually quite a bit older than their Republican counterparts, on average.  The only realistic candidate on the Dem. side who counts as Gen X by your definition is Gillibrand (I don't consider Booker or Castro to be realistic 2016 candidates; they're not running until 2020 or later), and she probably won't run, since she'll probably defer to Clinton and/or Cuomo.

On the Republican side, you've got a lot more Gen X folks who could run in 2016: Rubio, Jindal, Ryan, Walker.  But Rubio seems like the most likely to win the nomination, and ultimately the presidency.

If a Gen Xer isn't elected in 2016, then you can also look at who is likely to run in 2020, and who is likely to be elected VP in 2016, who could ultimately ascend to the presidency.  On the Dem side, again, Gillibrand might be the best bet.  She could run in 2020 against an incumbent Republican president, and she also might be elected VP in 2016 and eventually become president.  Booker is likely to in that Senate seat in New Jersey in 2014, and could also run in 2020, but he's probably less likely than Gillibrand to be VP in 2016.  There are others who could be ready to run in 2020, but their candidacy would first depend on them winning some intermediate office which is still uncertain (e.g., Lisa Madigan, should she be elected Gov. or Senator in 2014 or 2016).

On the Republican side, again, the potential field of Gen Xers is larger, though I'd still put Rubio out front.  He could, for example, potentially lose the nomination in 2016, but come in 2nd place.  He'd then be in a decent position to win the nomination next time around, following in the footsteps of Romney, McCain, Dole, etc.  In addition to Rubio, Jindal, etc., there are other Republican Gen Xers who could be elected VP in 2016 and eventually become president, including some of the female options who were talked about last time, Kelly Ayotte and Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

[old timey villain]

One weird thing is that we have never had a president born in the 1950s. That's odd to me since the birthrate peaked right in the middle of that decade and the cohort has been at the height of their influence for the past 10-15 years. We've never even had a major party Prez or VP nominee born in the 1950s (besides Edwards). I just find it to be an interesting quirk in the nation's political history.

The 1940s is where it's at apparently

Joe Biden (1942)
Mitt Romney (1947)
John Kerry (1943)
George Bush (1946)
Dick Cheney (1942)
Al Gore (1948)
Joe Lieberman (1942)
Bill Clinton (1946)
Dan Quayle (1947)

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

And that's why I bumped that thread that discusses that.

[sg0508]

At the rate this nation is going, we may not have to worry about that.

[Asian Nazi]

At the rate this nation is going, we may not have to worry about that.

and edgiest post of the day goes to....

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

According to most experts the generations are as follows:

- Boomers: 1946 to 1964
- Gen X: 1965-1982
- Millennials: 1982 to 2000

So let's just go off that. Obama is borderline Gen X but he's mainly a late Boomer.

I have it as Boomers being 1945-60
Gen X as 1961-1980
Millennials as 1981-2000

Obama is a Boomer. A late one but a Boomer none the less.

[pbrower2a]

Howe and Strauss have the generations living in the twentieth century and now so pegged:

Transcendental 1792-1821
Gilded  1822-1842
Progressive 1843-1859
Missionary 1860-1882
Lost  1883-1900
GI 1901-1924
Silent 1925-1942
Boom 1943-1960
Thirteenth/X  1961-1981
Millennial 1982-? 

1882 links FDR to Churchill instead of to a bunch of gangsters, fascist and Nazi war criminals, and Stalinist functionaries or satraps -- and puts FDR in a generation more known for principle than for pragmatism. Maybe if Obama rates as one of the greatest Presidents ever he gets his birth-year reclassified as a "Boomer" year. Howe and Strauss recognize the early wave of Generation X as one of the most troubled waves of kids ever -- drug use, alcoholism, criminal arrests, and low achievements in education -- and for rejecting Boomer mass culture.   

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Martn O'Malley

[Vosem]

1882 links FDR to Churchill instead of to a bunch of gangsters, fascist and Nazi war criminals, and Stalinist functionaries or satraps -- and puts FDR in a generation more known for principle than for pragmatism. Maybe if Obama rates as one of the greatest Presidents ever he gets his birth-year reclassified as a "Boomer" year. Howe and Strauss recognize the early wave of Generation X as one of the most troubled waves of kids ever -- drug use, alcoholism, criminal arrests, and low achievements in education -- and for rejecting Boomer mass culture.   

That's rather absurd. Just because Stalin and Hitler were born during those years doesn't mean you can just write off artists and poets and activists and philanthropists and inventors also born during the same time.

[Mechaman]

1882 links FDR to Churchill instead of to a bunch of gangsters, fascist and Nazi war criminals, and Stalinist functionaries or satraps -- and puts FDR in a generation more known for principle than for pragmatism. Maybe if Obama rates as one of the greatest Presidents ever he gets his birth-year reclassified as a "Boomer" year. Howe and Strauss recognize the early wave of Generation X as one of the most troubled waves of kids ever -- drug use, alcoholism, criminal arrests, and low achievements in education -- and for rejecting Boomer mass culture.  

That's rather absurd. Just because Stalin and Hitler were born during those years doesn't mean you can just write off artists and poets and activists and philanthropists and inventors also born during the same time.

You know when someone has said something absolutely absurd when I come into a thread agreeing with Vosem over said absurdity.

Also, Stalin was born in 1878.  Also, while I'm at how continously wrong and god-awful your critical thinking skills are, dear hack, Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower was born in 1890 in the middle of the so-called "Lost" generation.

Yes, what a thorough and good sense your analysis about "generations" makes.

[bballrox4717]

I agree that Obama isn't a Boomer but part of Generation X because it seems that generations are always defined by a world altering event: the Baby Boomers began with the ending of World War II, the Millennials began with globalization, and the Homeland Generation began with 9/11. Generation X is tricky, but I would place one domino-falling event: the assassination of Kennedy. After that, you have Johnson, the escalation of Vietnam, Watergate, and all of that. There's a trend that the generation really starts off when the person does not remember a watershed moment: a Baby Boomer doesn't remember WWII, X doesn't remember Kennedy getting shot, Millennials barely remember life before globalization began, and Homelanders don't remember 9/11. This would mean:

Baby Boomers: 1942-1960
Generation X: 1960-1980
Millennials: 1980-1998
Homeland: 1998-present

The beginnings of X is still a little bit wishy-washy of course, but when you talk to people who were born around 1960 and afterwards, Kennedy and Vietnam don't really mean too much to them they way it did to Baby Boomers unless they had siblings serving. They were never activists and don't identify with the tumultuous times of the late 60's and early 70's. My mother was born in 1961: she didn't remember Kennedy and only knew of Vietnam due to her older brother. She'll tell anyone that nobody in her grade in school knew much of Vietnam and they didn't care about Watergate. The vast majority of her year began to be affected by politics around the time of Reagan like the rest of Generation X. Obama, like my mother, has more characteristics of a Generation X'er than a Baby Boomer, which was incredibly apparent when comparing him to the general bunch of candidates who have run in the 2000's.

That's why Congress doesn't respect Obama, because he has a completely different mindset than the Boomer dominated Congress, especially those who were felt they were a part of Nixon's Silent Majority or feel that politics should be dominated by "are you better off than you are 4 years ago. The same divide is felt by Generation X'ers who are baffled by complaints by Millennials about jobs, who were told that they key to life is being rewarded for hard work but are getting rebuffed by the globalized job market. I'm sure I will feel the same divide with my cousin, who was born in 2001 and doesn't remember 9/11 or the Bush presidency, which defined my childhood and teenage years.

To answer the question, the first Generation X president, if you don't believe it's Obama like I do, is due anytime now. I bet that 2028 or 2032 will see the first realistic Millennial presidential candidate appear in a wave election similar to Obama, though conceivably we could see the first Millennial early in 2024 or we'll need to wait until 2036. My apologies for the generation rant.

[pbrower2a]

What convinces me that President Obama is not a Boomer is -- of all things -- the whacking of Osama bin Laden. Even if an elite military team did it at his order and he was fully justified, the style reeks of "gangland hit". Barack Obama knows his history, apparently including the sordid part of Chicago history. Al Capone would have admired it.

[pbrower2a]

1882 links FDR to Churchill instead of to a bunch of gangsters, fascist and Nazi war criminals, and Stalinist functionaries or satraps -- and puts FDR in a generation more known for principle than for pragmatism. Maybe if Obama rates as one of the greatest Presidents ever he gets his birth-year reclassified as a "Boomer" year. Howe and Strauss recognize the early wave of Generation X as one of the most troubled waves of kids ever -- drug use, alcoholism, criminal arrests, and low achievements in education -- and for rejecting Boomer mass culture.  

That's rather absurd. Just because Stalin and Hitler were born during those years doesn't mean you can just write off artists and poets and activists and philanthropists and inventors also born during the same time.

You know when someone has said something absolutely absurd when I come into a thread agreeing with Vosem over said absurdity.

Also, Stalin was born in 1878.  Also, while I'm at how continously wrong and god-awful your critical thinking skills are, dear hack, Allied Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower was born in 1890 in the middle of the so-called "Lost" generation.

Yes, what a thorough and good sense your analysis about "generations" makes.

1. I had nothing to do with the writings of Howe and Strauss. I bring them up for discussing American generations.

2. The generations may not perfectly jibe between countries. The generational divide is fairly close between the US, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and Japan from about the middle of the 19th Century. Their national crises of the 19th Century were close to each other in time -- Britain with the Sepoy Rebellion in India, Italy with its establishment as a unified country, France with the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune as a consequence of defeat, Germany with the Franco-Prussian War and unification after victory, and the Meiji Restoration that transferred power from the shoguns to the Emperor in Japan. Russia's mid-19th Century Crisis was a few years earlier in the 1850s -- the Crimean War.

3. Lenin may be an idealist; Stalin is much more a Reactive. That's not to say that idealists are always good guys. Just think of Rasputin. Neither are Reactive types (examples: Eisenhower, of course, de Gaulle, Atlee, J. Masaryk, L. Erhard, Ben-Gurion). The Reactive types don't pretend to any high moral ideals, and if they do something morally right it is because they find such simply pragmatic. Some don't pretend to high moral purposes for the simple reason that they are pure evil -- like many of the gangsters of the 1920s and 1930s in America.  

As for cultural creativity -- it's easy to see that Igor Stravinsky (born 1882) was much closer to the Lost Generation in his lifestyle and his musical language than to such composers as Sibelius, Debussy, and Rachmaninoff. Without doubt the Lost Generation was quite creative in the arts, literature, and music.  But it often had some confusion, which explains why Gertrude Stein could call people like Ernest Hemingway a "Lost Generation".

The difference between an Idealist generation and a Reactive generation is that an Idealist generation grows up in an intellectually-stable world. Lenin grew up in an intellectually stable world. Stalin grew up with all sorts of mysticism and radicalism (intellectual chaos) already in place.  

4. Reactive generations have their virtues. The Lost Generation in America may have been
materialistic to a ludicrous extent -- but it also formed more than their share of businesses. Reactive generations are entrepreneurial if they get a chance. Maybe they find the decadent bureaucracies with their glass ceilings unattractive. Maybe having been told that they will never amount to anything they try to prove that wrong.

5. Howe and Strauss' theory may say more about economic, political, and cultural elites and what they get away with or try to get away with. Peasants and industrial laborers generally do not influence historical events, but business executives and union officials can. So can writers, generals, entrepreneurs, religious reformers...

6. Barack Obama is a Reactive. If he is a liberal on most issues he is no radical.  Like Reactive politicians at their best (J. Adams, Truman, Eisenhower) he seeks no excuses for bad behavior and offers none.  He is much more a pragmatist than a dreamer. Nothing that he proposes hasn't been tried elsewhere. Sure he is learned; sure he is about as adept a politician as America has had for years. He can learn from anyone. When they are mature (and Obama acts as one would expect of a 60-year-old of the Lost Generation who hasn't made a fool of himself at any time) they make fine leaders. But I am going with this:

What convinces me that President Obama is not a Boomer is -- of all things -- the whacking of Osama bin Laden. Even if an elite military team did it at his order and he was fully justified, the style reeks of "gangland hit". Barack Obama knows his history, apparently including the sordid part of Chicago history. Al Capone would have admired it.

 

He could learn from a villain of American history, yet use the villain's talent for 'rubbing out' rivals to 'rub out' a terrorist who had no reason for being allowed to live.

If you think that calling him a Reactive degrades him as a President -- Truman and Eisenhower are from the Lost Generation, and they are now considered above-average Presidents. That's not to say that either Truman or Eisenhower was seen in so flattering a light in his time. Remember the Republican slur on Truman:

"TO ERR IS TRUMAN"

President Obama is doing enough right that when people look at his record instead of at his melanin twenty to thirty years from now... well, it is still an incomplete record, isn't it?
 
 

[Emperor Charles V]

In my timeline:

The first Generation X President is Marco Rubio (R) first elected in 2020. He was born in 1971.

The first Millennial President is David Henrie (R) elected in 2048. He was born in 1989.

The first Homelander President is Jack Torrey (R) elected in 2064. He was born in 2005.