Why no Silent Generation presidents?

[David Tenner]

In another thread, we have discussed the "Silent Generation." In OTL,
unlike that thread (with its presidents Hunter S. Thompson and Bobby
Darin...) the Silents have had no president of the United States and it
now looks like they never will. It seems that a key event here was the
American electorate's decision to skip a generation in 1992, going
directly from the GI or "Greatest" Generation (GHW Bush) to the Baby
Boomers (Clinton). In 1996 it again faced a Boomer/GI choice and again
the Boomer won; by 2000 it was facing a choice between two Boomers. (And
2004? By *some* definitions--those which treat people born as late as
1945 as Silents--Kerry was a Silent. But I think that Vietnam and the
antiwar movement make him a Boomer.)

Who were some of the Silents most likely to have become president? If,
with Strauss and Howe in *Generations*, you date the Silents as those born
between 1925 and 1942, the most plausible candidates seem to me:

Howard Baker (R)--b. Nov. 15, 1925--but the fact that he served in the
Navy during World War II makes me think Strauss and Howe perhaps begin the
Silent years too early and that something like 1927 might be a better
starting point.

Walter Mondale (D)--b. Jan. 5, 1928
James Baker (R)--b. April 28, 1930
Edward Kennedy (D)--b. Feb. 22, 1932
Mario Cuomo (D)--b. June 15, 1932
Pete Wilson (R)--b. August 23, 1933
Michael Dukakis (D)--b. Nov. 3, 1933
Jack Kemp (R)--b. July 13, 1935
Bob Graham (D)--b. Nov. 9, 1936
Gary Hart (D)--b. Nov. 28, 1936
Jerry Brown (D)--b. April 7, 1938
Pat Buchanan (R)--b. Nov. 2, 1938 (admittedly a long shot, even if he had
won the GOP nomination in 1996, which was itself unlikely)
Lamar Alexander (R)--b. July 3, 1940
Dick Gephardt (D)--b. Jan. 31, 1941
Paul Tsongas (D)--b. Feb. 14, 1941
Joseph Lieberman (D)--b. Feb. 24, 1942
Phil Gramm (R)--b. July 8, 1942

Obviously, there are individual reasons for each of these candidates not
making it. But perhaps most important here were the vice-presidential
decisions of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1992. By choosing
GHW Bush and Al Gore, they made these men their presumptive successors for
the party nomination eight years later. Had Reagan for example chosen
Jack Kemp in 1980, or Clinton Bob Graham in 1992, there would be a good
chance of a Silent Generation president in 1988 or 2000.

Of course, one problem with a lot of the Silent Generation candidates is
that they were Democrats running in years like 1980 and 1984 and 1988 that
were very likely to be Republican. Conversely, in 1996 it is conceivable
that a Silent like Lamar Alexander (rather than the final Greatest
Generation candidate, Bob Dole) could have won the GOP nomination, but
unlikely that he would have beaten Clinton.

Any thoughts? Any candidates I have missed? (Bill Bradley and Bob
Kerrey, both born in 1943, are, like John Kerry, in the Silent/Boomer
borderline territory.)

[Dale Ratner]

Post by David Tenner
In another thread, we have discussed the "Silent Generation." In OTL,
unlike that thread (with its presidents Hunter S. Thompson and Bobby
Darin...) the Silents have had no president of the United States and it
now looks like they never will. It seems that a key event here was the
American electorate's decision to skip a generation in 1992, going
directly from the GI or "Greatest" Generation (GHW Bush) to the Baby
Boomers (Clinton). In 1996 it again faced a Boomer/GI choice and again
the Boomer won; by 2000 it was facing a choice between two Boomers. (And
2004? By *some* definitions--those which treat people born as late as
1945 as Silents--Kerry was a Silent. But I think that Vietnam and the
antiwar movement make him a Boomer.)
Who were some of the Silents most likely to have become president? If,
with Strauss and Howe in *Generations*, you date the Silents as those born
Howard Baker (R)--b. Nov. 15, 1925--but the fact that he served in the
Navy during World War II makes me think Strauss and Howe perhaps begin the
Silent years too early and that something like 1927 might be a better
starting point.
Walter Mondale (D)--b. Jan. 5, 1928
James Baker (R)--b. April 28, 1930
Edward Kennedy (D)--b. Feb. 22, 1932
Mario Cuomo (D)--b. June 15, 1932
Pete Wilson (R)--b. August 23, 1933
Michael Dukakis (D)--b. Nov. 3, 1933
Jack Kemp (R)--b. July 13, 1935
Bob Graham (D)--b. Nov. 9, 1936
Gary Hart (D)--b. Nov. 28, 1936
Jerry Brown (D)--b. April 7, 1938
Pat Buchanan (R)--b. Nov. 2, 1938 (admittedly a long shot, even if he had
won the GOP nomination in 1996, which was itself unlikely)
Lamar Alexander (R)--b. July 3, 1940
Dick Gephardt (D)--b. Jan. 31, 1941
Paul Tsongas (D)--b. Feb. 14, 1941
Joseph Lieberman (D)--b. Feb. 24, 1942
Phil Gramm (R)--b. July 8, 1942
Obviously, there are individual reasons for each of these candidates not
making it. But perhaps most important here were the vice-presidential
decisions of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1992. By choosing
GHW Bush and Al Gore, they made these men their presumptive successors for
the party nomination eight years later. Had Reagan for example chosen
Jack Kemp in 1980, or Clinton Bob Graham in 1992, there would be a good
chance of a Silent Generation president in 1988 or 2000.
Of course, one problem with a lot of the Silent Generation candidates is
that they were Democrats running in years like 1980 and 1984 and 1988 that
were very likely to be Republican. Conversely, in 1996 it is conceivable
that a Silent like Lamar Alexander (rather than the final Greatest
Generation candidate, Bob Dole) could have won the GOP nomination, but
unlikely that he would have beaten Clinton.
Any thoughts? Any candidates I have missed? (Bill Bradley and Bob
Kerrey, both born in 1943, are, like John Kerry, in the Silent/Boomer
borderline territory.)

Wasn't Jimmy Carter a silent generation President?

[David Tenner]

Post by Dale Ratner
Wasn't Jimmy Carter a silent generation President?

No, he was born in 1924, a bit too early.

Two names I missed:

John McCain--b. August 29, 1936
Colin Powell--b. April 5, 1937

[poutineq]

Post by David Tenner
John McCain--b. August 29, 1936
Colin Powell--b. April 5, 1937

Here are two more:

Geraldine Ferraro--b. August 26, 1935
Elizabeth Dole--b. July 29, 1936

I don't think there's anything deficient in the generation or
anything like that! In addition to the VP choices of Reagan and
Clinton, another main factor was Reagan and Clinton themselves.
Reagan, as the oldest President, turned 70 a few weeks after becoming
President in 1981. Then, Clinton, who was 46 when he became President
in 1993, was the third-youngest President. Toss in Bush Mark I, and
that's 20 years (a full generation) of the prime years where you'd
expect someone born between 1925 and 1942 to be President.

[r***@domani.net]

As I said, I think it was there lack of numbers relative to the
generations that preceded and succeeded them. Others in the cohort who
considered bids:

Reubin O'Donovan Askew (b. 1928), Gov. of Florida, 1971-1979
Lawton Chiles (b. 1930), U.S. Senator from Florida, 1971-1991, Gov. of
Florida, 1991-1998
Sam Nunn (b. 1938), U.S. Senator from Georgia, 1972-1996

For that matter, let's not forget Jesse Jackson (b. 1941.)

Like I said, I bet we're going to have a lot of great governors and
Senators born 1965-1980, none of whom ever gets elected president. (Not
that I'm likely to stick around long enough to see theory proven!)

In the meantime, how about a little tongue in cheek forecasting?

2008 -- Jeb Bush of Florida (age 55) defeats Hillary Rodham Clinton
(61)

OR John Edwards of North Carolina (55) defeats Condoleeza Rice (54)

2012 -- Barack Obama (age 52) defeats Jeb Bush (age 59)

OR

Arnold Schwarzenegger (65) beats John Edwards (59)

2016 -- Obama or Schwarzenegger coast to re-election

2020 -- Obama's V-P Mary Landrieu (65) beats Sen. John Thune (59)

OR

Schwarzenegger's V-P Ann Coulter (59) beats Minnesota Sen. Al Franken
(69)

2024

The last Boomer ticket (Landrieu, 69, or Coulter, 63) gets creamed by
the first Millenial ticket (ages 44 and 43).

Shuddering at the possibilities...

Richard Jasper
Ann Arbor, MI

[b***@forpresident.com]

While this is really a topic for alt.history.future (which is why I
have
cross-posted it to that NG) it seems like Obama will be the first
so called "Gen X" serious presidential candidate.

Any others?

[1oki]

Post by b***@forpresident.com
While this is really a topic for alt.history.future (which is why I
have
cross-posted it to that NG) it seems like Obama will be the first
so called "Gen X" serious presidential candidate.
Any others?

Can't think of any others off hand.

I'm more curious and consider more interesting who the Reps will offer up
for their first Gen X rising stars. For the Dems it's rather an easier and
expected transition - dare I say it; more natural.

Given their conservative and fundamentalist wing I think the generational
shift will be more wrenching for the Reps. The old fiscal vs. social
conservative issue will come to the fore with he Gen Xer Reps being rather
less socially conservative.

[b***@forpresident.com]

What about Giuliani? Or is he on the Silent/Boomer cusp like his fellow
ex-prosecutor Kerry?

[David Tenner]

Post by b***@forpresident.com
What about Giuliani? Or is he on the Silent/Boomer cusp like his fellow
ex-prosecutor Kerry?

Pretty much so--he was born on May 28, 1944.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani

[Oswald Spengler]

Post by David Tenner

Post by Dale Ratner
Wasn't Jimmy Carter a silent generation President?

No, he was born in 1924, a bit too early.

If I remember it right, he was born in Oktober 1924 . I think it is a
bit strange to think someone who is born at 31.12.24 is automaticly
not a Silent and someone who is born at 01.01.25 is a Silent. If I get
Strauss and Howe right, someone is part of the the G.I.-Generation
when he/she thinks, he/she had a part in ending the great depression
and/or winning WWII. Someone of the Silent Generation remembers the
hard times of depression and war, but he doesn`t have the feeling he
did his part(because he/she was to young). Carter joined the Navy, but
after all I know he stayed during the war at the Navy-Acadamie. So he
probably didn´t see himself as someone who created the golden age but
feeled the need to protect it. This is, as far I understand Strauss
and Howe typical Artist/Silent.

[Richard Gadsden]

Post by David Tenner

Post by Dale Ratner
Wasn't Jimmy Carter a silent generation President?

No, he was born in 1924, a bit too early.

The classic defintion is that the Silent Generation remember WWII but
didn't serve in it. Carter was at Annapolis during the war, but didn't
graduate until 1946.

Boomers are the first generation for whom WWII was history; the Greatest
Generation fought on the front lines.

If you plot presidential dates of birth, is Carter to Clinton the biggest
gap?

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Richard Gadsden
If you plot presidential dates of birth, is Carter to Clinton
the biggest gap?

No. Carter to G W Bush is: 7,946 days.

W is 46 days older than Clinton. The second largest gap
is Eisenhower-Johnson, 6,526 days. The median gap is 1,527
days (Taylor-Fillmore).

Trivia questions:

How many Presidents were older than their immediate predecessors?

Answer: 12

Which Presidents was older than his last _three_ predecessors?

Answer: Reagan.

Which Presidents were born on the 4th of July?

Answer: Coolidge and G W Bush.

[pyotr filipivich]

Nobody ever spoke up, saying they wanted the position.
--
pyotr filipivich
When I was a boy, we had Outcome Based Education, too.
We called it "Being held back a year"

[Jack Linthicum]

David Tenner Feb 22, 11:05 am

Since I am of that generation I would like to give testimony. First the
generation was small, I believe that 1935 was the lowest birthrate year
in U.S. history. Second, the GIs who were the Greatest Generation went
to college instead of going back to the farm as the WWI doughboys had.
So the Silents had competition from people who were old, wiser and more
diserving than the Silents. Third the Silents were silent, we did
essentially what we were told with some exceptions. (If I mention some
of my teen age adventures to the present Xers they blanche and shake
their heads in disbelief.) Our military service was of the post-Korean
war pre-Vietnam type, on patrol some activities but no full fledged
invasions. Lebanon is the exception. Much achievement in space,
science, etc. The big battles were internal, civil rights being the
primary one. We sent a few people to Vietnam (25th Division) and ran
Desoto (Destroyer patrols Tawain Straits) operations that eventually
went sour and got a lot of later generation people killed. The
politicians were all WWII vets, up to Clinton that was a requirement,
after a detriment, too old. Even Reagan claimed a war record and old
cavalry experience. Bush 41 was a hero, the youngest pilot in WWII or
something. When you have the youngest pilot in WWII winning the
Presidency in 1988 there isn't much room for someone born in 1925 who
didn't serve in WWII to reach the presidency. My brother-in-law
enlisted when he was 17 and got wounded in the first days of Iwo so I
mark him and others like him as the last of the Great Generation.

[r***@domani.net]

Carter could well have served during World War II but he didn't
(because he was at Annapolis?) GHWB, who did, was less than 4 months
older. People born in 1925 and 1926 were likewise likely to be drafted
/ serve. My former father-in-law (b. 5-12-1927) went into the Army
immediately after graduating from high school (May 1945) and finished
his basic training just about the time Japan surrendered. He never
served overseas and was out of the Army within a year.

As for gaps:

The Eisenhower (1890) to JFK (1917) gap is bigger than Carter-Clinton.

rpj

[poutineq]

Post by r***@domani.net
The Eisenhower (1890) to JFK (1917) gap is bigger than

Carter-Clinton.

You're forgetting about
LBJ (1908) as well as Reagan (1911), and Nixon and Ford (both 1913).

There does seem to be an 18-year gap between Ike and LBJ.

[Jack Linthicum]

poutineq Feb 23, 7:30 am

Look at the Almanac says gap between Lincoln (1809) and Grant (1822)
and the one between McKinley (1843) and Teddy Roosevelt (1858) are the
generation gaps previous. You can say that longer life spans make 'old
war heroes' last long (McKinley was the last Civil War officer to be
President) and that new war heroes (Grant, Kennedy) can beat the
experience problem.

[Old Toby]

Post by r***@domani.net
Carter could well have served during World War II but he didn't
(because he was at Annapolis?) GHWB, who did, was less than 4 months
older. People born in 1925 and 1926 were likewise likely to be drafted
/ serve. My former father-in-law (b. 5-12-1927) went into the Army
immediately after graduating from high school (May 1945) and finished
his basic training just about the time Japan surrendered. He never
served overseas and was out of the Army within a year.
The Eisenhower (1890) to JFK (1917) gap is bigger than Carter-Clinton.

And the Washington-Clinton gap has them all beat...

If you're going to be examining generational representation,
you have to look at presidents that are consecutive by age,
in which case the gaps we have to mind are Eisenhower-Johnson
(1890-1908, 18 years), and Carter-W. (1924-1946, 22 years,
W. has 44 days on Clinton).

Next up after that is the nearly 14 year gap between
Mickinley and Wilson ( (Jan. 29 1843-Dec. 28 1856),
and a 13 year gap between Lincoln and Grant (1809-1822).

After that, you get a whole bunch of 7-9 year gaps

Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net

[r***@domani.net]

Barack Obama was born in 1961. He's a (very late) Boomer, not a
Gen-X-er.

rpj

(also a late -- 1958 -- boomer)

[James Nicoll]

Post by r***@domani.net
Barack Obama was born in 1961. He's a (very late) Boomer, not a
Gen-X-er.

I expect this is subject to regional variations but I'm early
1961 and I never felt part of the Boom. It was made very clear to my
cohort in school that we were nothing special, that the kids before
had all the good jobs and that we'd better expect to work hard for
little pay.

[r***@domani.net]

Demographically speaking, you're still part of the boom. The birth rate
remained high through 1964, after which it dropped precipitously.

Having said that, I've always made a distinction between the first and
second half of the Boom. People in the first half of the Boom
(1946-1955) had to contend with Vietnam but they graduated from high
school before:

-- Watergate
-- The Arab Oil Embargo
-- The 1973-74 recession
-- The end of the draft

People born in the second half of the Boom (1956-1964) graduated from
high school didn't have to deal with Vietnam but they did have to
contend with:

-- Stagflation
-- Minimal job growth
-- Evaporation of good paying factory jobs
-- Record high oil prices
-- Record high interest rates
-- Skyrocketing divorce rate

The experiences of the two halves, in economic terms, were
significantly different. But demographically they're all part of the
surge of births that began in 1946 and continued unabated until 1965.

rpj

[r***@domani.net]

Forgot to mention:

Of course, with ANY of these categorizations, YMMV (your mileage may
vary.) I have a couple of former U-M colleagues who are an excellent
example. Both born the same year (1940), both entered librarianship in
the mid-60s. And looking and talking to them you would assume that
there's at least 10 years difference in their ages. E is very much a
part of the Silent Generation. And despite the fact that she's 6 years
premature J's attitude has always been that of the early boomer 60s
college activist. Go figure!

rpj

[b***@forpresident.com]

The birth rate did start dropping after 1957, so that "surge of births"
did
not continue unabated. While the big drop off began in 1964, I wouldn't
consider those born after 1960 to be boomers.

[Larry M Headlund]

Post by r***@domani.net
Having said that, I've always made a distinction between the first and
second half of the Boom. People in the first half of the Boom
(1946-1955) had to contend with Vietnam but they graduated from high
-- Watergate
-- The Arab Oil Embargo
-- The 1973-74 recession
-- The end of the draft
People born in the second half of the Boom (1956-1964) graduated from
high school didn't have to deal with Vietnam but they did have to
-- Stagflation
-- Minimal job growth
-- Evaporation of good paying factory jobs
-- Record high oil prices
-- Record high interest rates
-- Skyrocketing divorce rate

And how does graduating from high school before 1973 insulate you
from any of your list? In fact, for some of them, the evaporation
of factory jobs for example, the effect could be magnified. Here's how:
You put 5,10,15 years into that career before it disappears and get
to start over at 30 or 40.

As I said in another post, everybody feels the other guy got all the breaks.

[1oki]

Post by Larry M Headlund

Post by r***@domani.net
Having said that, I've always made a distinction between the first and
second half of the Boom. People in the first half of the Boom
(1946-1955) had to contend with Vietnam but they graduated from high
-- Watergate
-- The Arab Oil Embargo
-- The 1973-74 recession
-- The end of the draft
People born in the second half of the Boom (1956-1964) graduated from
high school didn't have to deal with Vietnam but they did have to
-- Stagflation
-- Minimal job growth
-- Evaporation of good paying factory jobs
-- Record high oil prices
-- Record high interest rates
-- Skyrocketing divorce rate

And how does graduating from high school before 1973 insulate you
from any of your list? In fact, for some of them, the evaporation
You put 5,10,15 years into that career before it disappears and get
to start over at 30 or 40.

Intellectual/philosophical/emotional change is never impossible but the
younger you are the more significant the zeitgeist is in influencing your
mindset.

IOW though not a hard and fast rule your basic outlook on life has been
rather firmly entrench by the time you are out of high school.

The term 'formative years' is rather apt.

[Larry M Headlund]

Post by 1oki

Post by Larry M Headlund

Post by r***@domani.net
Having said that, I've always made a distinction between the first and
second half of the Boom. People in the first half of the Boom
(1946-1955) had to contend with Vietnam but they graduated from high
-- Watergate
-- The Arab Oil Embargo
-- The 1973-74 recession
-- The end of the draft
People born in the second half of the Boom (1956-1964) graduated from
high school didn't have to deal with Vietnam but they did have to
-- Stagflation
-- Minimal job growth
-- Evaporation of good paying factory jobs
-- Record high oil prices
-- Record high interest rates
-- Skyrocketing divorce rate

And how does graduating from high school before 1973 insulate you
from any of your list? In fact, for some of them, the evaporation
You put 5,10,15 years into that career before it disappears and get
to start over at 30 or 40.

Intellectual/philosophical/emotional change is never impossible but the
younger you are the more significant the zeitgeist is in influencing your
mindset.
IOW though not a hard and fast rule your basic outlook on life has been
rather firmly entrench by the time you are out of high school.
The term 'formative years' is rather apt.

The term "basic outlook on life" is vague enough that I doubt there
could be any way to prove or disprove your assertion. I will say that
a number of people seem to have found some events post-high school,
including but not limited to military service, college, and marriage
as having a significant effect on their viewpoint.

To take a "boomer" example, it was a cliche what changes a few semesters
away in college could do to a "nice normal" teenager.

I also note that some of your marker events, such as record high interest
rates and job evaporation, only really kicked in well after your devision.
For that matter, the "record high" oil prices were not record highs in
constant dollars.

If your high school dividing line were true, one would expect to see
similar devisions in the WWII generation, say a difference between
born before 1921 (HS grads before WWII) or before 1923 (Pearl Harbor).

Interestingly enough I agree with you that the "bay boomers" need
to be at least divided into several cohorts, I just place at least
one big marker on the group for whom Vietnam was of personal importance,
say born 1943 through 1955, as opposed to those born afterwards.

[1oki]

[...]

Post by Larry M Headlund

Post by 1oki
Intellectual/philosophical/emotional change is never impossible but the
younger you are the more significant the zeitgeist is in influencing your
mindset.
IOW though not a hard and fast rule your basic outlook on life has been
rather firmly entrench by the time you are out of high school.
The term 'formative years' is rather apt.

The term "basic outlook on life" is vague enough that I doubt there
could be any way to prove or disprove your assertion. I will say that
a number of people seem to have found some events post-high school,
including but not limited to military service, college, and marriage
as having a significant effect on their viewpoint.
To take a "boomer" example, it was a cliche what changes a few semesters
away in college could do to a "nice normal" teenager.
I also note that some of your marker events, such as record high interest
rates and job evaporation, only really kicked in well after your devision.
For that matter, the "record high" oil prices were not record highs in
constant dollars.

Just to clarify: The initial assertian and marker events were not mine. I
was responding to other posters' opinions and counter-opinions.

Post by Larry M Headlund
If your high school dividing line were true, one would expect to see
similar devisions in the WWII generation, say a difference between
born before 1921 (HS grads before WWII) or before 1923 (Pearl Harbor).
Interestingly enough I agree with you that the "bay boomers" need
to be at least divided into several cohorts, I just place at least
one big marker on the group for whom Vietnam was of personal importance,
say born 1943 through 1955, as opposed to those born afterwards.

Interesting anecdote: An acquaintance of mine has three young children [4 -
9 years or so]. Around the time of Reagan's death news coverage included his
famous 'Tear Down that Wall' speech. Upon seeing this news clip my friend's
daughter responded in confusion; 'There used to be a wall in Berlin?'

It was curious and a bit bemusing to my and my friend that while such
events can figure so large in one generation's mind is nothing to the next.
It also highlighted the nasty fact that we're getting to be old farts.

I pointed out that in all likelihood her children's children would ask in
confusion about some tall buildings in New York that got knocked down.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by 1oki
Interesting anecdote: An acquaintance of mine has three young children [4 -
9 years or so]. Around the time of Reagan's death news coverage included his
famous 'Tear Down that Wall' speech. Upon seeing this news clip my friend's
daughter responded in confusion; 'There used to be a wall in Berlin?'

I'm not surprised - about two years ago PBS re-broadcast the von
Karajan concert at the Brandenburg Gate commemorating the end of the
wall and my kids (born 1987, 1989, and 1991 so they would have been
15, 13 and 11 at the time) couldn't figure out why Mom and Dad were so
affected. (They know Dad is a bit of a military history nut but...)

Since then eldest daughter has gotten interested in history and got
REAL knowledgable about the Cuban Missile Crisis (which my main memory
of at age 7 was my grandmother crying a lot) and Russian matters
generally. She is annoyed with me that I can't locate the box my copy
of the Gulag Archipelago is in and has started reading Crime and
Punishment for recreational reading.

Post by 1oki
It was curious and a bit bemusing to my and my friend that while such
events can figure so large in one generation's mind is nothing to the next.
It also highlighted the nasty fact that we're getting to be old farts.

Yup. The average 20-50 year old Canadian if he/she remembers Sarajevo
at all remembers it for being the site of a Canadian peacekeeping
force which got a lot of attention in the early 90s. If pressed he/she
MIGHT remember there was an Olympics there about 10 years before that.
Only a minority would remember that it was connected to a certain
unpleasantness 90 years ago - though most would correctly attach
November 11th to WW1 and 'In Flanders Fields' and all that. Whether or
not they would recall where Flanders is is left as an exercise to the
reader.

Post by 1oki
I pointed out that in all likelihood her children's children would ask in
confusion about some tall buildings in New York that got knocked down.

No question about it. I'm certain if you asked most kids who Franz
Ferdinand was you'd get either blank stares or a rock band. As a data
point Ijust now asked my 13 year old son that question and he said
"Wasn't he the guy who was shot and they fought WW1 over it?" which is
good until he said "...the only reason I remember is that Monty
cartoon, the one where he went back in time and stopped the killer..."

(This is the one that had the URL posted here as "OT but of interest
to SHWIers")

[Larry M Headlund]

<snip>

Post by 1oki

Post by Larry M Headlund
I also note that some of your marker events, such as record high interest
rates and job evaporation, only really kicked in well after your devision.
For that matter, the "record high" oil prices were not record highs in
constant dollars.

Just to clarify: The initial assertian and marker events were not mine. I
was responding to other posters' opinions and counter-opinions.

My mistake and my apologies.
<snip>

Post by 1oki
Interesting anecdote: An acquaintance of mine has three young children [4 -
9 years or so]. Around the time of Reagan's death news coverage included his
famous 'Tear Down that Wall' speech. Upon seeing this news clip my friend's
daughter responded in confusion; 'There used to be a wall in Berlin?'
It was curious and a bit bemusing to my and my friend that while such
events can figure so large in one generation's mind is nothing to the next.
It also highlighted the nasty fact that we're getting to be old farts.
I pointed out that in all likelihood her children's children would ask in
confusion about some tall buildings in New York that got knocked down.

Your anecdote brings to mind the things we think are significant at the time
but turn out to be not so. There are plenty of examples of missed events,
but I am thinking of what was generally agreed to be a Big Thing(tm)
but turned out not to be so.

I'm not saying the Berlin Wall falling was not a big event, I am
searching for events we mistakenly thought were important.

For example, the Kellog-Briand Pact (no I don't remember it personally)
seems to have been a major event at the time but its consequences were
not as expected. The Selma campaign did not have the paramount position
in the Civil Rights struggle it seemed at the time. Perhaps the clearest
example muight be the fate and condition of Quemoy and Matsu, which
one time (1960) featured prominently in a presidention debate.

[Mike Stone]

Post by Larry M Headlund
Your anecdote brings to mind the things we think are significant at the time
but turn out to be not so. There are plenty of examples of missed events,
but I am thinking of what was generally agreed to be a Big Thing(tm)
but turned out not to be so.
I'm not saying the Berlin Wall falling was not a big event, I am
searching for events we mistakenly thought were important.

Prohibition?

Post by Larry M Headlund
For example, the Kellog-Briand Pact (no I don't remember it personally)
seems to have been a major event at the time but its consequences were
not as expected. The Selma campaign did not have the paramount position
in the Civil Rights struggle it seemed at the time. Perhaps the clearest
example muight be the fate and condition of Quemoy and Matsu, which
one time (1960) featured prominently in a presidention debate.

Could the whole wrangle over "busing" as a means of school desegregation
come into this category?

During the late 60s/early 70s it was such a burning issue[1] that it looked
as if one or two cities, at least, were headed for a mini-civil war over the
question. Thirty or so years on, despite having directly involved a whole
lot of people at an impressionable age, it seems to have dropped completely
down the memory hole. Though still subscribing to a number of US news
magazines, I rarely hear it mentioned either favourably or unfavourably.

This even seems to extend to fiction. US courtroom dramas are a popular form
of entertainment on my side of the Atlantic, but offhand I don't str a
single one which has centred on a busing order. There seem to be three
possible explanations

i) There were such dramas, but somehow I just managed to miss them all.

ii) There were, but they didn't cross the Atlantic - someone assumed that
British tv viewers wouldn't be interested in such a purely American matter

iii) There weren't any, or at any rate very few - the whole thing was such a
touchy subject that even scriptwriters preferred to steer clear of it.

Any thoughts?


[1] Literally so on occasion. Istr hearing about some town (Pontiac, Mich?)
where a whole garage of school buses got destroyed by an arsonist.

--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

I don't say he's racist, but he does seem to think that the U in UN stands
for "Uppity".

[George Carty]

Post by Mike Stone
Could the whole wrangle over "busing" as a means of school desegregation
come into this category?
During the late 60s/early 70s it was such a burning issue[1] that it looked
as if one or two cities, at least, were headed for a mini-civil war over the
question. Thirty or so years on, despite having directly involved a whole
lot of people at an impressionable age, it seems to have dropped completely
down the memory hole. Though still subscribing to a number of US news
magazines, I rarely hear it mentioned either favourably or unfavourably.

Isn't that just because middle-class white Americans started sending
their children to private schools more, specifically in order to
circumvent busing?

[b***@forpresident.com]

Post by George Carty

Post by Mike Stone
Could the whole wrangle over "busing" as a means of school

desegregation

Post by George Carty

Post by Mike Stone
come into this category?
During the late 60s/early 70s it was such a burning issue[1] that it looked
as if one or two cities, at least, were headed for a mini-civil war over the
question. Thirty or so years on, despite having directly involved a whole
lot of people at an impressionable age, it seems to have dropped completely
down the memory hole. Though still subscribing to a number of US news
magazines, I rarely hear it mentioned either favourably or

unfavourably.

Post by George Carty
Isn't that just because middle-class white Americans started sending
their children to private schools more, specifically in order to
circumvent busing?

Didn't many states outlaw mandatory busing as well? (I'm in "post
and run" mode today so I don't have access to my usual references)

[b***@forpresident.com]

Post by George Carty

Post by Mike Stone
Could the whole wrangle over "busing" as a means of school

desegregation

Post by George Carty

Post by Mike Stone
come into this category?
During the late 60s/early 70s it was such a burning issue[1] that it looked
as if one or two cities, at least, were headed for a mini-civil war over the
question. Thirty or so years on, despite having directly involved a whole
lot of people at an impressionable age, it seems to have dropped completely
down the memory hole. Though still subscribing to a number of US news
magazines, I rarely hear it mentioned either favourably or

unfavourably.

Post by George Carty
Isn't that just because middle-class white Americans started sending
their children to private schools more, specifically in order to
circumvent busing?

Didn't many states outlaw mandatory busing as well? (I'm in "post
and run" mode today so I don't have access to my usual references)

[mike]

Post by b***@forpresident.com
Didn't many states outlaw mandatory busing as well? (I'm in "post
and run" mode today so I don't have access to my usual references)

Not outlaw, really, since it had been upheld in the courts, and
striking
down anti-busing initiatives, but the increasing costs of shuffling
around kids from one side of a city to the other, it was sometimes
put as a cost saver, that the money spent on busing would be spent
on the schools to improve them.

2nd, in time those who were all for busing were going out of
office(retiring, voted out) as time went by, but local neighborhood
groups were still as against busing as they had been since the
'70s.

3rd, and White Flight kept ongoing to the suburbs, away from Busing
districts.

It wasn't worth the fight anymore, since the benfits of busing
really never showed.

And yes, that means schools are resegregating, because that is really
the end result of local schooling, and open enrollments.

What should have been done for all those years was to do a better
job of funding schools equally, and getting better teachers.

That kids get out of highschool reading at 6th grade levels is a crime,
but nobody is punished.

**
mike
**

[Mike Stone]

Post by George Carty

Post by Mike Stone
Could the whole wrangle over "busing" as a means of school

desegregation

Post by George Carty

Post by Mike Stone
come into this category?
During the late 60s/early 70s it was such a burning issue[1] that it looked
as if one or two cities, at least, were headed for a mini-civil war over the
question. Thirty or so years on, despite having directly involved a whole
lot of people at an impressionable age, it seems to have dropped completely
down the memory hole. Though still subscribing to a number of US news
magazines, I rarely hear it mentioned either favourably or

unfavourably.

Post by George Carty
Isn't that just because middle-class white Americans started sending
their children to private schools more, specifically in order to
circumvent busing?

Possibly to a very limited extent, but, while I don't have precise
stats handy, it was my impression that private and homeschool students
combined have remained a comparatively small minority of the school-age
population.

I had thought that, insofar as busing had _any_ particular effect
(other than to generate a lot of heat <g>), it was to encourage changes
of residence away from the affected areas, usually to suburbs. However,
this population shift had been in progress for at least a decade or so
even before busing came along (iirc it even predated 1954)and was just
as prevalent in cities (eg Philadelphia) where no busing orders were
ever issued. This suggests that the only effect was to cause some
people to make up their minds about moving to a suburb a few years
sooner than they would probably have done without it, ie to prod them
into doing now what they more than likely would have soon been doing
anyway.

In any case, this wouldn't explain the comparative paucity (if my
impression is correct)of fictional references to the issue. Plenty of
scriptwriters manage to write about things they haven't personally
experienced.

--

Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

I don't say he's racist, but he does seem to think that the U in UN
stands for "Uppity"

[tzintzuntzan]

Mike Stone wrote:

(snip)

Post by Mike Stone
I had thought that, insofar as busing had _any_ particular effect
(other than to generate a lot of heat <g>), it was to encourage changes
of residence away from the affected areas, usually to suburbs.

It had an effect on elections; Nixon made it one of his
signature issues (Wallace also did, before he was shot).
Opposing busing was an appeal to the not-yet-called-Reagan Democrats.
It was also the core of the Southern Strategy;
although busing was a lot more visible in the North,
opposing it was a strong signal to Southern whites.
The same was true of the school choice movement, which
was widely seen (by both conservatives and liberals)as
an attempt to circumvent integration rulings.

Busing was also an issue for the Democrats; the
McGovernites made supporting it an ideological
purity test. At the 1972 convention, the McGovernites
let Wallace give a speech denouncing busing. Once he
was finished, they let him go back to his hotel room
to sleep -- and wrote support for busing into the
party platform.

(snip)

Post by Mike Stone
In any case, this wouldn't explain the comparative paucity (if my
impression is correct)of fictional references to the issue. Plenty of
scriptwriters manage to write about things they haven't personally
experienced.

Mad Magazine mentioned it a lot, although usually
as a one-liner. For instance, their parody of the
movie "Dirty Harry" (called "Dirty Larry") has a
scene where the killer hijacks an elementary school
bus, and Dirty Larry hopes onto the bus roof to
stop him. Then comes the inevitable line where
Dirty Larry (already established in several jokes
as very right-wing)says he'll stop the hijacking,
mainly because "I'm totally opposed to busing!"

[Mike Stone]

Post by tzintzuntzan
(snip)

Post by Mike Stone
I had thought that, insofar as busing had _any_ particular effect
(other than to generate a lot of heat <g>), it was to encourage

changes

Post by Mike Stone
of residence away from the affected areas, usually to suburbs.

It had an effect on elections; Nixon made it one of his
signature issues

Agreed. I was thinking more of social and demographic affects than of
electoral ones.


--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

I don't say he's racist, but he does seem to think that the U in UN
stands for "Uppity".

[Kevrob]

Post by George Carty

Post by Mike Stone
Could the whole wrangle over "busing" as a means of school

desegregation

Post by George Carty

Post by Mike Stone
come into this category?
During the late 60s/early 70s it was such a burning issue[1] that it looked
as if one or two cities, at least, were headed for a mini-civil war over the
question. Thirty or so years on, despite having directly involved a whole
lot of people at an impressionable age, it seems to have dropped completely
down the memory hole. Though still subscribing to a number of US news
magazines, I rarely hear it mentioned either favourably or

unfavourably.

Post by George Carty
Isn't that just because middle-class white Americans started sending
their children to private schools more, specifically in order to
circumvent busing?

Sadly, no.* There were the Southern "academies" set up to avoid the
effects of court-ordered desegregation, but on a national basis the
"white flight" from large urban districts to suburban or exurban
residences far outstripped any change in private school enrollment.+
In fact, given the hits that private religious schools, especially
the Catholic school system started taking contemporaneously with
the integration of the public schools, the total % of American kids
in private v. public schools has declined somewhat.

"Private school enrollment grew more slowly than public school
enrollment from 1985 to 2003, rising 13 percent, from 5.6 million to
6.3 million. As a result, the proportion of students enrolled in
private schools declined slightly, from 12.4 percent in 1985 to 11.5
percent in 2003."

http://nces.ed.gov//programs/digest/d03/index.asp

See also:

"ENROLLMENT IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, 1890-1997
Year Percentage of Students
Attending Private Schools

1890 11.1
1900 7.9
1910 7.8
1920 7.3
1930 9.4
1940 9.3
1950 11.8
1959 13.8
1965 12.9
1970 10.5
1975 10.0
1980 11.5
1985 12.4
1990 11.3
1995 11.2
1997 11.2

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 1997 (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997), p. 12."

That 11.5% seems to be in the historical range for the post-WWII
era.

Kevin

*Not because I don't want little white kids going to school
with little brown and black kids. I'm just an opponent of
government-owned and/or run schools.

+A slogan of the "school-choice" movement here in the U.S.
is that middle- and upper-class families choose their school
through the real estate market. :)

[Mike Stone]

Post by Kevrob
http://nces.ed.gov//programs/digest/d03/index.asp
"ENROLLMENT IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, 1890-1997
Year Percentage of Students
Attending Private Schools
1890 11.1
1900 7.9
1910 7.8
1920 7.3
1930 9.4
1940 9.3
1950 11.8
1959 13.8
1965 12.9
1970 10.5
1975 10.0
1980 11.5
1985 12.4
1990 11.3
1995 11.2
1997 11.2
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997), p. 12."
That 11.5% seems to be in the historical range for the post-WWII
era.

In fact, it seems to have stayed remarkably constant, with a sharp dip in
the early 20C and a much briefer rise in the late 1950s (ie too early for
busing to have much to do with it).

Any thoughts on the reasons, esp for the former. Did private schools lose
students or did the public ones start getting kids who hadn't been attending
before eg by tougher enforcement of truancy laws and the like?


Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

I don't say he's racist, but he does seem to think that the U in UN stands
for "Uppity".

[Charlie Thorne]

Post by Mike Stone

Post by Kevrob
http://nces.ed.gov//programs/digest/d03/index.asp
"ENROLLMENT IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, 1890-1997
Year Percentage of Students
Attending Private Schools
1890 11.1
1900 7.9
1910 7.8
1920 7.3
1930 9.4
1940 9.3
1950 11.8
1959 13.8
1965 12.9
1970 10.5
1975 10.0
1980 11.5
1985 12.4
1990 11.3
1995 11.2
1997 11.2
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997), p. 12."
That 11.5% seems to be in the historical range for the post-WWII
era.

In fact, it seems to have stayed remarkably constant, with a sharp dip in
the early 20C and a much briefer rise in the late 1950s (ie too early for
busing to have much to do with it).
Any thoughts on the reasons, esp for the former. Did private schools lose
students or did the public ones start getting kids who hadn't been attending
before eg by tougher enforcement of truancy laws and the like?

1900 would have been about the time that high schools became required.
Before then, cities had one central high school. Most schools were
eight years whether City or the old One-Room School of rural areas.
The general percentage in school (12 years vs. 8 or less) would have
increased the total numbers.

I expect in 1930, the Depression meant there were more unemployed who
could afford to teach in private schools.

The 1950 might have been more complex--Urban Sprawl due to inexpensive
housing (with government loans) and the first factory built homes
possibly disrupted the education establishment so much that teachers
and buildings were slow to respond to the movement. Locally, we
permitted elementary teachers with only two years of college on a
temporary basis in the 1950's.

The late 1950's might well have been the start of desegregation fears
with the riots over the Brown vs. Board decision in 1954. Much of the
South was desegregated by the late 1960's, but Northern court assaults
started then with busing. First busing case was 1971 Charlotte, N.C.
that was county wide. First Northern case was Denver in 1973 and then
much of the North exploded. Nixon in 1969 continued replacing the
liberal judges of the earlier period (Warren was gone in 1969 and
Rhenquist was a late Nixon appointee).

Of course the 1973 Detroit case meant no movement across political
boundaries and so the flee to the suburbs took place rapidly in the
1970's and by 1980 the Reagan Whitehouse continued the Republican
domination of the Supreme Court.

Charlie

Post by Mike Stone
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
I don't say he's racist, but he does seem to think that the U in UN stands
for "Uppity".

[Kevrob]

From: "Kevrob" <***@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Subject: Re: Busing (was Re: Why no Silent Generation presidents?)
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:47:09 -0800

Post by Charlie Thorne

Post by Mike Stone

Post by Kevrob
http://nces.ed.gov//programs/digest/d03/index.asp
"ENROLLMENT IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, 1890-1997
Year Percentage of Students
Attending Private Schools
1890 11.1
1900 7.9
1910 7.8
1920 7.3
1930 9.4
1940 9.3
1950 11.8
1959 13.8
1965 12.9
1970 10.5
1975 10.0
1980 11.5
1985 12.4
1990 11.3
1995 11.2
1997 11.2
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for

Education

Post by Charlie Thorne

Post by Mike Stone

Post by Kevrob
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1997), p. 12."
That 11.5% seems to be in the historical range for the post-WWII
era.

In fact, it seems to have stayed remarkably constant, with a sharp dip in
the early 20C and a much briefer rise in the late 1950s (ie too early for
busing to have much to do with it).
Any thoughts on the reasons, esp for the former. Did private schools lose
students or did the public ones start getting kids who hadn't been attending
before eg by tougher enforcement of truancy laws and the like?

1900 would have been about the time that high schools became

required.

Post by Charlie Thorne
Before then, cities had one central high school. Most schools were
eight years whether City or the old One-Room School of rural areas.
The general percentage in school (12 years vs. 8 or less) would have
increased the total numbers.
I expect in 1930, the Depression meant there were more unemployed who
could afford to teach in private schools.

During the Depression the overwhelming majority of private school
enrollment would have been in Catholic schools, where the teaching
staff were then almost entirely members of religious orders - sisters,
brothers, and the occasional priest. These folks were paid a pittance,
if anything, back then. Some of the orders were under vows of poverty.
(cue the choir from "The Bells of St. Mary's"....)

Post by Charlie Thorne
The 1950 might have been more complex--Urban Sprawl due to

inexpensive

Post by Charlie Thorne
housing (with government loans) and the first factory built homes
possibly disrupted the education establishment so much that teachers
and buildings were slow to respond to the movement. Locally, we
permitted elementary teachers with only two years of college on a
temporary basis in the 1950's.

The building boom in the Levittowns of America caused crowding in
suburban schools, and new school construction, of both government and
private types, was a big thing in the late 1950s and into the 1960s.
The Catholic schools had a real cost crunch post-Vatican II, though.
Recruitment of new members of the religious orders fell off
drastically, forcing the hiring of a much higher percentage of lay
instructors. These latter did not make as much as their counterparts
in government schools, but their added expense drove up costs. At
the same time many nominally Catholic families stopped attending
weekly Mass on a dependable basis, with a consequent drop in cash
in the collection plate.

Catholic schools' tuitions rose exponentially, as the new staffing
costs combined with reduced subsidies from their sponsoring parishes,
and many schools were either consolidated or closed. I attended an
8-grade parochial grammar school which had moved into a brand-new
building ~1960. It was turned into a regional school, supported by
several parishes, in the 1970's. The 4-year high school I attended
announced that our senior class (1974) would be the last, as the order
that owned it had failed to provide for the retirements of the nuns,
and had to sell properties across the U.S. in order to raise needed
funds.

I can remember much grumpiness from my parents about rising property
tax levies during this period, most of which went to the government
school system, which we did not use. I had one grammar school
classmate who switched to the local public school for junior high
(grades 7-8) for the superior science instruction, and the foreign
language and music courses our school didn't have. She joined our
freshman class, however, as our high school had a newly built science
wing.

Post by Charlie Thorne
The late 1950's might well have been the start of desegregation fears
with the riots over the Brown vs. Board decision in 1954. Much of the
South was desegregated by the late 1960's, but Northern court

assaults

Post by Charlie Thorne
started then with busing. First busing case was 1971 Charlotte, N.C.
that was county wide. First Northern case was Denver in 1973 and then
much of the North exploded. Nixon in 1969 continued replacing the
liberal judges of the earlier period (Warren was gone in 1969 and
Rhenquist was a late Nixon appointee).
Of course the 1973 Detroit case meant no movement across political
boundaries and so the flee to the suburbs took place rapidly in the
1970's and by 1980 the Reagan Whitehouse continued the Republican
domination of the Supreme Court.

The beginning of School Choice initiatives (tax-funded scholarships
for private school students) has helped to buck up enrollment in those
cities where they have been tried, but hasn't really had any effect on
segregation, as the vouchers are reserved for children from low-income
families. These are still experimental programs, which have had
to withstand numerous court challenges in order to include religious
schools. If anything, they have dispelled the notion that urban
private schools are some lily-white refuge from problems associated,
however unfairly, with minorities.

Kevin

[Larry M Headlund]

Post by Mike Stone

Post by Larry M Headlund
Your anecdote brings to mind the things we think are significant at the

time

Post by Larry M Headlund
but turn out to be not so. There are plenty of examples of missed events,
but I am thinking of what was generally agreed to be a Big Thing(tm)
but turned out not to be so.

Prohibition?

Good call. While important to US history Prohibition was not the dividing
line between drinking and drink free US history.

Here is another one from the same period: Woman's Suffrage. While important
enough for those who got to vote, I get the impression that many of its
supporters thought they were creating the Permanent Progressive Majority:
woman voters would not permit politics as usual, would shift the focus
to all sorts of Progressive issues, etc. Didn't work out that way.

Post by Mike Stone
Could the whole wrangle over "busing" as a means of school desegregation
come into this category?

<snip>

Post by Mike Stone
This even seems to extend to fiction. US courtroom dramas are a popular form
of entertainment on my side of the Atlantic, but offhand I don't str a
single one which has centred on a busing order. There seem to be three
possible explanations
i) There were such dramas, but somehow I just managed to miss them all.
ii) There were, but they didn't cross the Atlantic - someone assumed that
British tv viewers wouldn't be interested in such a purely American matter
iii) There weren't any, or at any rate very few - the whole thing was such a
touchy subject that even scriptwriters preferred to steer clear of it.

How about (iv) not all that dramatic? Busing cases involved one piece
of goverment (US Federal) against another piece (local school boards).
Long arguments over drawing of school district lines. Usually ending
in a consent decree or in extreme cases a recievership. You don't
get busing courtroom dramas for the same reason you don't get many
patent case courtroom dramas: no sex, no violence, no dramatic resolution.

Plus the golden era of courtroom drama started a couple of decades
after busing became an issue.

[David Tenner]

Post by Larry M Headlund
For example, the Kellog-Briand Pact (no I don't remember it personally)
seems to have been a major event at the time but its consequences were
not as expected.

I don't think it was that big a deal at the time. The senators voting to
ratify it made it clear that they had no illusions it was going to prevent
war. One of them quoted Villon:

"To Messire Noel, named the neat
By those who love him, I bequeath
A helmless ship, a houseless street,
A wordless book, a swordless sheath,
An hourless clock, a leafless wreath,
A bed sans sheet, a board sans meat,
A bell sans tongue, a saw sans teeth,
To make his nothingness complete."

[1oki]

[...]

Post by Larry M Headlund

Post by 1oki
Just to clarify: The initial assertian and marker events were not mine. I
was responding to other posters' opinions and counter-opinions.

My mistake and my apologies.

No problem.
[...]

Post by Larry M Headlund
Your anecdote brings to mind the things we think are significant at the time
but turn out to be not so. There are plenty of examples of missed events,
but I am thinking of what was generally agreed to be a Big Thing(tm)
but turned out not to be so.
I'm not saying the Berlin Wall falling was not a big event, I am
searching for events we mistakenly thought were important.

Reaching the Moon? In hindsight it didn't herald the age of space
exploration that many thought it would. True, it will always be recognized
as a monumental 'first'.

What impresses me was that we have lived through two major shifts in a
short time: USSR collapse and Sep11. Granted other pivotal singular moments
were longer; world wars, great depressions, civil wars, etc. And maybe one
could make the argument to link the two: the rise of Ossama as a logical
outgrowth of the USSR's collapse. But more realistically I would separate
them because they moved the world into such divergent directions: unbridled
optimism from the former, and if not outright pessimism, then certainly a
less bright outlook from the latter.

I'll claim foresight here in that I recall feeling at the time of the
Berlin Wall falling was not so much happiness and optimism but trepidation.
For all it's tension the Cold war bi-polar worls had stability. I thought at
the time that there was a disturbing opportunity for strife in the new order
that might well be chaotic. It was further supported by the abortive Russian
coup. I recall seeing it real time on CNN thinking that this wasn't a
pissant banana republic where tanks were rolling down the streets but a
nation with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads.

[Larry M Headlund]

<snip>

Post by 1oki
[...]

Post by Larry M Headlund
Your anecdote brings to mind the things we think are significant at the time
but turn out to be not so. There are plenty of examples of missed events,
but I am thinking of what was generally agreed to be a Big Thing(tm)
but turned out not to be so.

Reaching the Moon? In hindsight it didn't herald the age of space
exploration that many thought it would. True, it will always be recognized
as a monumental 'first'.

In retrospect more of an end than a beginning, true.

Post by 1oki
What impresses me was that we have lived through two major shifts in a
short time: USSR collapse and Sep 11. Granted other pivotal singular moments
were longer; world wars, great depressions, civil wars, etc. And maybe one
could make the argument to link the two: the rise of Ossama as a logical
outgrowth of the USSR's collapse. But more realistically I would separate
them because they moved the world into such divergent directions: unbridled
optimism from the former, and if not outright pessimism, then certainly a
less bright outlook from the latter.

The collapse of the USSR was a little more drawn out than the term singular
moment would indicate. Nor, as you yourself pointed out, were they unrelated.
Consider the links between Soviet collapse, Afghanistan resistance and the
rise of radical Islamic groups. While I would be happy to discuss these
links I think these are for us, in a history group, to soon to tell.

[Mike Stone]

Post by Larry M Headlund
I'm not saying the Berlin Wall falling was not a big event, I am
searching for events we mistakenly thought were important.
For example, the Kellog-Briand Pact (no I don't remember it

personally)

Post by Larry M Headlund
seems to have been a major event at the time but its consequences were
not as expected. The Selma campaign did not have the paramount

position

Post by Larry M Headlund
in the Civil Rights struggle it seemed at the time. Perhaps the clearest
example muight be the fate and condition of Quemoy and Matsu, which
one time (1960) featured prominently in a presidention debate.

FTM, during Andrew Jackson's administration there was for a time an
"Antimasonic" party whose objective was to combat the conspiracy of
Freemasons (including one A Jackson) to take over the country. Iirc,
for a time around 1830, before the Whigs got properly organised, it was
actually the main opposition party.

When's the last time anyone worried whether a Presidential candidate
was a Freemason or not?

(I suppose the flap in 1960 about the perils of having a Catholic in
the White House was a shorter-lived version of the same thing).

--

Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

I don't say he's racist, but he does seem to think that the U in UN
stands for "Uppity".

[Dale Ratner]

Post by r***@domani.net
People born in the second half of the Boom (1956-1964) graduated from
high school didn't have to deal with Vietnam but they did have to
-- Stagflation
-- Minimal job growth
-- Evaporation of good paying factory jobs
-- Record high oil prices
-- Record high interest rates
-- Skyrocketing divorce rate

Interestingly people born in my generation (1977-1984) have to deal with
these things as well. I know this from experience. I have had an amazing
amount of bad luck in finding entry level jobs in multiple fields after
graduation and am still temping as a proofreader. Most job offers I see
are for positions that require 3-7 years of experience.

[William P. Baird]

Post by Dale Ratner

Post by r***@domani.net
-- Stagflation
-- Minimal job growth
-- Evaporation of good paying factory jobs
-- Record high oil prices
-- Record high interest rates
-- Skyrocketing divorce rate

Interestingly people born in my generation (1977-1984) have to deal with
these things as well. I know this from experience. I have had an amazing
amount of bad luck in finding entry level jobs in multiple fields after
graduation and am still temping as a proofreader. Most job offers I see
are for positions that require 3-7 years of experience.

Stagflation? Now?

The evaporation of the good paying manufacturing jobs was
over a long time ago.

Record high interest rates? *raised eyebrow*

As for skyrocketing divorce rate, um, iirc, and I could be wrong,
it's been pretty steady for a while.

Oil prices? Over the last 10 years they've been record lows and
some fscking highs, but not record highs when accounting for
inflation.

As for finding jobs, well, depends on your field. The problem
you're citing has been one for a while now. I faced the same
thing in the 1992-1994 time frame for where I was. Are you just
out of college? Tis been normal for a long time. As for what
to do? This is where I always tell kids in college to take lots
of internships in the field they're going to be working in...:)
The mid to late 1990s were the exception, not the rule for jobs.

Will

--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Home: ***@gmail. has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Work: ***@nersc.go is something big, mean, with very sharp
Blog: thedragonstales teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
+ com/v/.blogspot.com somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.

[groton]

Post by Dale Ratner

Post by Dale Ratner

Post by r***@domani.net
-- Stagflation
-- Minimal job growth
-- Evaporation of good paying factory jobs
-- Record high oil prices
-- Record high interest rates
-- Skyrocketing divorce rate

Interestingly people born in my generation (1977-1984) have to deal

with

Post by Dale Ratner
these things as well. I know this from experience. I have had an

amazing

Post by Dale Ratner
amount of bad luck in finding entry level jobs in multiple fields

after

Post by Dale Ratner
graduation and am still temping as a proofreader. Most job offers I

see

Post by Dale Ratner
are for positions that require 3-7 years of experience.

The evaporation of the good paying manufacturing jobs was
over a long time ago.

Nope Wroung there I work in the Defence Industry
and it looks like The Shipyard is going have some Layoff's soon
And not Little 1% Type ether Im talking at minamal 10% of the
workforce.
Last Major layoff's for EB was in the late 1990's and they had just
over the last couple years hired US into EB also Hiredalot of the Guys
layedoff back.
but The Contracts that was Expected Are Gone I wont Say why becuse The
Navy is losing Money that would go to New Submarine Construction.

Post by Dale Ratner
Record high interest rates? *raised eyebrow*
As for skyrocketing divorce rate, um, iirc, and I could be wrong,
it's been pretty steady for a while.

Most of My Generartion that is Born in the late X gen Early Y's
have Been Children of Divorce.
at least once sometimes there Parrents Married new people and then Got
Divorced Again.

Post by Dale Ratner
As for finding jobs, well, depends on your field. The problem
you're citing has been one for a while now. I faced the same
thing in the 1992-1994 time frame for where I was. Are you just
out of college? Tis been normal for a long time. As for what
to do? This is where I always tell kids in college to take lots
of internships in the field they're going to be working in...:)
The mid to late 1990s were the exception, not the rule for jobs.

Iv worked Twice as a Securty Guard,Once in Telmarketing and now a
Pipefitter after leaving Highschool and getting Certafied in Web design
back in 1999.
never found a job in Web Design.
Wroung time,Wroung Place.
should of Went after Normol IT Certs

[Larry M Headlund]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by r***@domani.net
Barack Obama was born in 1961. He's a (very late) Boomer, not a
Gen-X-er.

I expect this is subject to regional variations but I'm early
1961 and I never felt part of the Boom. It was made very clear to my
cohort in school that we were nothing special, that the kids before
had all the good jobs and that we'd better expect to work hard for
little pay.

There is a lot of self definition involved as well as generalization. For
example, not all of the "Greatest Generation" (who self defined more
as the Swing Generation see William Manchester) were on the front lines.
As member Andy Rooney put it, a lot were in the 447th shoe repair battlion.

But I must comment on "the kids before had all the good jobs and that we'd
better expect to work hard for little pay." Everybody seems to think
the next guy has it made. Retailers think wholesaler's are on the gravy
train, wholesalers are sure manufacturers and retailers are lapping up the
cream, etc.

As far as the Boomer's go, I seem to remember there were a whole lot of
them competing for entry slots, college admisions, etc. Then there was
inflation, stagflation, etc. as they were starting their careers. Not
to mention that pesky war.

Now, the group just before me, say born in the early forties, THEY had
it made ...
`

[Sydney Webb]

James Nicoll wrote:

<snip>

Post by James Nicoll
I expect this is subject to regional variations but I'm early
1961 and I never felt part of the Boom. It was made very clear to my
cohort in school that we were nothing special, that the kids before
had all the good jobs and that we'd better expect to work hard for
little pay.

Suffer, youngsters!

ObWI: WI in 1902 Albert Einstein obtains a job more demanding of his
talents than that of a patent clerk in Bern? Can the Australians win
yet another Nobel prize for physics in 1921?

- Syd

[m***@willamette.edu]

Statistically speaking, what are the odds of skiping a generation like
that?

--
Mike Ralls

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by m***@willamette.edu
Statistically speaking, what are the odds of skiping a generation like
that?

Assuming an even distribution of presidential birth years? 42
Presidents, 214 years (from Washington-1742 to Clinton/Bush-1946), you
should have a presidential birthdate every 5 years or so.

The odds of skipping over 22 consecutive years? About 1%.


Doug M.

[Sydney Webb]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by m***@willamette.edu
Statistically speaking, what are the odds of skiping a generation

like

Post by m***@willamette.edu
that?

Assuming an even distribution of presidential birth years? 42
Presidents, 214 years (from Washington-1742 to Clinton/Bush-1946), you
should have a presidential birthdate every 5 years or so.
The odds of skipping over 22 consecutive years? About 1%.

Yabbut the ACW and WWII seem very important for subsequent presidential
elections. Don't forget that WWII vets were being elected from 1952 to
1988 - although Ike was a bit older than his cohorts. And that said
vets were still being nominated in 1992 and 1996. 44 years is a long
time for veterans of a single war to be important political players.

Compare and contrast Australia where the two main wartime PMs were a
militia man who refused to volunteer and a gaoled pacifist. And the
only two WWII vets (or veterans of any kind in the post-war era) to
seize the brass ring were Gorton and Whitlam, both of whom enjoyed brief
and truncated periods as heads of government.

ObWI: WI aggressive and warlike Australians? You Kiwis be quiet there.

- Syd

[j***@hotmail.com]

Post by Sydney Webb

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Assuming an even distribution of presidential birth years?
42 Presidents, 214 years (from Washington-1742 to
Clinton/Bush-1946), you should have a presidential birthdate
every 5 years or so.
The odds of skipping over 22 consecutive years? About 1%.

Yabbut the ACW and WWII seem very important for subsequent
presidential elections. Don't forget that WWII vets were being
elected from 1952 to 1988 - although Ike was a bit older than his
cohorts. And that said vets were still being nominated in 1992 and
1996. 44 years is a long time for veterans of a single war to be
important political players.

Another point is that the birthrate went down, a lot, in the Great
Depression. So there were not as many Silents compared with the
previous and following generations.

---
Joseph Eros
"Scientists want to know the dirt on Eros" --Boston Globe

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by m***@willamette.edu
Statistically speaking, what are the odds of skiping a generation
like that?

Assuming an even distribution of presidential birth years? 42
Presidents, 214 years (from Washington-1742 to Clinton/Bush-1946),
you should have a presidential birthdate every 5 years or so.
The odds of skipping over 22 consecutive years? About 1%.

I finally got around to checking this. I get a very different answer.
The chances of a 22 year gap or longer are about 15%. The median and
average largest gap is 18 years; the mode is 17.

My methodology:

I ran 100,000 simulations. For each one, I generated 42 first
inaugurations starting 1789, with each term having a 50% chance of
being four years and 50% of being eight years. (42 men have been
president, not 43, as one was president twice.) I threw away all runs
at which I didn't end up at the present. Wasteful, but so what? CPU
is cheap.

For each of the 42 first inaugurations in each run, I randomly
generated an age for the president, between 40 and 60, weighted so
that he'll be in his 40s 1/4 of the time, 50s 1/2 the time, and 60s
1/4 of the time. (The youngest president at his first inauguration
was 42; the oldest, 69.)

I then sorted the resulting birth years in order, and searched for the
longest gap between them. Here is how many times the longest gap had
each length:

10: 12
11: 137
12: 902
13: 2868
14: 6209
15: 9771
16: 12220
17: 13175
18: 12404
19: 10922
20: 8923
21: 6785
22: 5093
23: 3673
24: 2487
25: 1712
26: 1073
27: 655
28: 434
29: 278
30: 134
31: 70
32: 41
33: 11
34: 7
35: 1
36: 3

As you can see, a 22 year gap isn't that unusual.

While I haven't checked, I'm sure that the longest gap is often near
the beginning or end, and if it's near the end, as it is in real
life, it has a good chance of being filled in later. In other words,
whoever is elected in 2008 or 2012 may have been born before 1946.
Probably not whoever is elected in 2016 or later, however.

I didn't bother to model presidents with more than two terms, since
there's been only one of them, and he's not responsible for the 22
year gap. Nor did I worry about presidents resigning or dying in
office, as I doubt that would make any significant difference. In
fact I considered selecting the inauguration years completely at
random, but decided they might all just happen to bunch up in the
1960s or 1820s or something, and doing it the way I did it would
be slightly more realistic.

Note that a maximum gap of as little as ten years is extremely rare,
even though five years would be possible. It's sort of like choosing
42 people and random and seeing if any two have the same birthday
(date, not year). Chances are overwhelming that they will. I haven't
checked to see if any two presidents share a birthday, but I would be
astonished if they don't.

If anyone says I have way too much time on my hands, yes, about 22
million (simulated) years. And enough presidents to populate a major
city. Aren't you glad we aren't really plagued by that many?

[Tristan Jones]

Post by David Tenner
Who were some of the Silents most likely to have become president?

If,

Post by David Tenner
with Strauss and Howe in *Generations*, you date the Silents as those born

I am a believer of Generations theory which Neil Howe and Bill Strauss
have observed. The www.fourthturning.com/discussions site is a good
site if you find out more about the Generations Theory and discuss
about it.

Anyway I think the reason why the United States has had no Silent
generation president, because they weren't seen as Presidential
material by the voting public, against the GI (1901-1924) Generation
they were seen as dwarves who lacked gravitas (even in the 1980's the
public looked to aging GI political stalwarts like Tip O'Neill and
Ronald Reagan) and in the 1990's the public saw a passion gap between
the Silents and the Boomers (1943-1960).

While the Silent Generation never had a president, that have dominated
the behind the scenes positions in the White House since the JFK
administration and even deep into old age still have influence
(Rumsfeld) in the Bush administration.

[b***@socal.rr.com]

Post by David Tenner
In another thread, we have discussed the "Silent Generation." In OTL,
unlike that thread (with its presidents Hunter S. Thompson and Bobby
Darin...) the Silents have had no president of the United States and it
now looks like they never will. It seems that a key event here was the
American electorate's decision to skip a generation in 1992, going
directly from the GI or "Greatest" Generation (GHW Bush) to the Baby
Boomers (Clinton). In 1996 it again faced a Boomer/GI choice and again
the Boomer won; by 2000 it was facing a choice between two Boomers.

(And

Post by David Tenner
2004? By *some* definitions--those which treat people born as late as
1945 as Silents--Kerry was a Silent. But I think that Vietnam and the
antiwar movement make him a Boomer.)
Who were some of the Silents most likely to have become president?

If,

Post by David Tenner
with Strauss and Howe in *Generations*, you date the Silents as those born
Howard Baker (R)--b. Nov. 15, 1925--but the fact that he served in the
Navy during World War II makes me think Strauss and Howe perhaps begin the
Silent years too early and that something like 1927 might be a better
starting point.
Walter Mondale (D)--b. Jan. 5, 1928
James Baker (R)--b. April 28, 1930
Edward Kennedy (D)--b. Feb. 22, 1932
Mario Cuomo (D)--b. June 15, 1932
Pete Wilson (R)--b. August 23, 1933
Michael Dukakis (D)--b. Nov. 3, 1933
Jack Kemp (R)--b. July 13, 1935
Bob Graham (D)--b. Nov. 9, 1936
Gary Hart (D)--b. Nov. 28, 1936
Jerry Brown (D)--b. April 7, 1938
Pat Buchanan (R)--b. Nov. 2, 1938 (admittedly a long shot, even if he had
won the GOP nomination in 1996, which was itself unlikely)
Lamar Alexander (R)--b. July 3, 1940
Dick Gephardt (D)--b. Jan. 31, 1941
Paul Tsongas (D)--b. Feb. 14, 1941
Joseph Lieberman (D)--b. Feb. 24, 1942
Phil Gramm (R)--b. July 8, 1942
Obviously, there are individual reasons for each of these candidates not
making it. But perhaps most important here were the

vice-presidential

Post by David Tenner
decisions of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Bill Clinton in 1992. By choosing
GHW Bush and Al Gore, they made these men their presumptive

successors for

Post by David Tenner
the party nomination eight years later. Had Reagan for example chosen
Jack Kemp in 1980, or Clinton Bob Graham in 1992, there would be a good
chance of a Silent Generation president in 1988 or 2000.
Of course, one problem with a lot of the Silent Generation candidates is
that they were Democrats running in years like 1980 and 1984 and 1988 that
were very likely to be Republican. Conversely, in 1996 it is

conceivable

Post by David Tenner
that a Silent like Lamar Alexander (rather than the final Greatest
Generation candidate, Bob Dole) could have won the GOP nomination, but
unlikely that he would have beaten Clinton.
Any thoughts? Any candidates I have missed? (Bill Bradley and Bob
Kerrey, both born in 1943, are, like John Kerry, in the Silent/Boomer
borderline territory.)
--
David Tenner

The baby boom began in 1946.

[David Tenner]

Post by b***@socal.rr.com
The baby boom began in 1946.

I specifically said, "Bill Bradley and Bob Kerrey, both born in 1943, are,
like John Kerry, in the Silent/Boomer borderline territory" because there is
a dispute as to where the Silent Generation ends and the Boomers start. For
a defense of Strauss and Howe's 1925-1942 for the Silents, see
http://www.univcon.com/SGen/honorary.htm ("Moreover, the Boom Generation
definitely started in 1943 as a result of the progeny-securing marriages
during anxious military leaves in 1942.")

[b***@socal.rr.com]

Post by David Tenner

Post by b***@socal.rr.com
The baby boom began in 1946.

I specifically said, "Bill Bradley and Bob Kerrey, both born in 1943, are,
like John Kerry, in the Silent/Boomer borderline territory" because there is
a dispute as to where the Silent Generation ends and the Boomers start. For
a defense of Strauss and Howe's 1925-1942 for the Silents, see
http://www.univcon.com/SGen/honorary.htm ("Moreover, the Boom

Generation

Post by David Tenner
definitely started in 1943 as a result of the progeny-securing

marriages

Post by David Tenner
during anxious military leaves in 1942.")
--
David Tenner

You also said that you think Vietnam and the anti-war movement make him
a boomer. A boomer, by definition is someone born from 1946 to 1964.
Politics are irrelevent.

[David Tenner]

Post by David Tenner

Post by David Tenner

Post by b***@socal.rr.com
The baby boom began in 1946.

I specifically said, "Bill Bradley and Bob Kerrey, both born in

1943, are,

Post by David Tenner
like John Kerry, in the Silent/Boomer borderline territory" because

there is

Post by David Tenner
a dispute as to where the Silent Generation ends and the Boomers

start. For

Post by David Tenner
a defense of Strauss and Howe's 1925-1942 for the Silents, see
http://www.univcon.com/SGen/honorary.htm ("Moreover, the Boom

Generation

Post by David Tenner
definitely started in 1943 as a result of the progeny-securing

marriages

Post by David Tenner
during anxious military leaves in 1942.")
--
David Tenner

You also said that you think Vietnam and the anti-war movement make him
a boomer. A boomer, by definition is someone born from 1946 to 1964.

By *some* definitions. Strauss and Howe define the Boomers as 1943 to 1960.

Post by David Tenner
Politics are irrelevent.

One can of course take the view that only date of birth matters, but that
leads to a certain arbitrariness for people born in the borderline years. It
seems to me reasonable to consider some such people at least "honorary"
Silents or "honorary" Boomers by virtue of having major life-experiences
most commonly associated with the Silents or Boomers. For the Silents, I
would say that one of their major characteristics is that for the most part
they did their military service (if any) in the years between World War II
and Vietnam. That's one thing that makes them Silent: they don't have any
war stories to tell--except of course about Korea, which most Americans would
prefer to forget. For the most part, those who either served in the Vietnam
war or participated in the anti-war protests--or did both, as in Kerry's
case--were Boomers, which is why I would tend to consider Kerry one, even if
by some definitions (not Strauss and Howe's) he was born near the end of the
Silents era.

[r***@go.com]

Post by David Tenner
In another thread, we have discussed the "Silent Generation." In OTL,
...
Who were some of the Silents most likely to have become president?

If,

Post by David Tenner
with Strauss and Howe in *Generations*, you date the Silents as those born
...

Beginning year of 'Silent Generation' - 1925.

Article II, Section 1 of U.S. Constitution -
'...No person...shall be eligible to the
Office of President...who shall not have
attained to the Age of thirty-five Years...'

Therefore, it is illegal to have a 'Silent
Generation' president before 1960.
Furthermore, the percentage of the 'Silent
Generation' that can be legally president
in 1960, of the whole 'Silent Generation'
population, is still low in that year
and only gradually steadily increases for
the next 17 years.

Presidents and birth years since 1960:

Kennedy - 1917
Johnson - 1908
Nixon - 1913
Ford - 1913
Carter - 1924
Reagan - 1911
GHW Bush - 1924
Clinton - 1946
GW Bush - 1946

In theory one could make statements
about old 'father figure' Republicans
and 'young radical revolutionary'
Democrats, mention the baby boom,
the development of radio and
television, or the amount of time
it would take for a political
figure to become established
enough to become a Presidential
candidate.

Nonetheless, I think that it is
a statistical fluke. The odds
are that there will be 'Silent
Generation' Presidents in the
future, but at this time, there
have not been enough data points
to fill in that time period.

[David Tenner]

Post by r***@go.com
Nonetheless, I think that it is
a statistical fluke. The odds
are that there will be 'Silent
Generation' Presidents in the
future, but at this time, there
have not been enough data points
to fill in that time period.

In the future? Well, it is theoretically possible in 2008, but if you use
Strauss and Howe's December 31, 1942 as the cutoff point, none of the
candidates I have seen mentioned for either major party would qualify,
with two exceptions. (For the Democrats: Hillary Clinton was born in
1947, Bill Richardson in 1947, Al Gore in 1948, Howard Dean in 1948, Tom
Vilsack in 1950, John Edwards in 1953, Mark Warner in 1954, Ken Salazar in
1955, Evan Bayh in 1955, Rod Blagojevich in 1956, Jennifer Granholm--whose
candidacy in any event depends on a very unlikely constitutional
amendment--in 1959, Barack Obama in 1961, etc. For the Republicans: Chuck
Hagel was born in 1946, Arnold Schwarzenegger--unlikely for the same
reason as Granholm--in 1947, Mitt Romney in 1947, Bill Owens in 1950, Bill
Frist in 1952, George Allen in 1952, Jeb Bush in 1953, Condoleeza Rice in
1954, Sam Brownback in 1956, Rick Santorum in 1958, Tim Pawlenty in 1960,
etc.) It is of course not unprecedented to elect a 66-year-old
president--Reagan was 69 in 1980--but it does seem to me that in 2008 both
parties will be looking for someone younger. The two plausible Silents (by
Strauss and Howe's definition) are

(1) John McCain (R) (born in 1936)--but he is so disliked by the right
wing of his party that I doubt that he could get the GOP nomination, nor
do I see him winning (or even running) as an independent.

(2) Joe Biden (D) born on November 20, 1942--but I would not rate his
chances of getting the Democratic nomination as very promising. If he
shows any signs at all of breaking out of the pack, we can expect to see
the plagiarism issue endlessly brought up again (his opponents don't need
to raise it--the media will do that job for them).

If you define the Silents as extending through 1945, I suppose there is
still the possibility that Kerry could be renominated and could go on to
win the general election, but it is not too common for a party to
renominate someone who has lost a general election four years earlier. I
can't think of any examples since Dewey and Stevenson (and of course both
of them lost the general election on their second as well as first
tries)--Nixon had to wait eight years. Also, by this expanded definition,
Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee (D) (b. November 21, 1943) and
Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania (D) (b. January 5, 1944) would
qualify, as would New York Governor George Pataki (R) (b. June 24, 1945)
and Tom Ridge (R) (b. August 26, 1945). The most likely candidate in this
Silent/Boomer borderline area is however Rudolph Giuliani (R) (b. May 28,
1944).

Of course being *elected* president is not the only way to *become*
president, and it is conceivable (but IMO improbable) that one of the
parties in 2008 will choose a Silent Generation vice-presidential
candidate who will go on to win in November and to become president after
the elected president dies or resigns. And although Dick Cheney (b.
January 30, 1941) says he will not run in 2008, he could become president
before then...

All in all, though, I would say that the Silents--at least if you use
Strauss and Howe's definition--are now unlikely ever to have a president.

[Paul Melville Austin]

so is the beginning of the Silent Generation 1925 or not?

[David Tenner]

Post by Paul Melville Austin
so is the beginning of the Silent Generation 1925 or not?

That's the Strauss-Howe cutofff line, so I'm using it, even though there
are certainly people born in 1925-6 who got in combat in World War II.
But in any event I was trying to discuss the possibility of a *future*
Silent Generation president, because the previous poster had surprised me
by calling it probable. (That's why I changed the subject line, and posted
follow-up to alt.history.future.) For that purpose, when you *start* the
Silent Generation makes no difference--the US is not going to be electing
an 83 year old president in 2008. Where you *end* it and start the
boomers OTOH is important because there are some plausible 2008
presidential candidates who were born in 1943-5, notably Kerry (should he
choose to run again) and Giuliani.