A.J. Dellinger has a revealing article over at Salon about why so many members of Generation Y are enamoured with Ron Paul and libertarianism. It is a rather confused piece, and that is to be expected. Apparently, Generation Y is irreligious, permissive on drugs and social/cultural issues, wants to end foreign military intervention, return to the gold standard, have a zero-percent income tax, and universal healthcare. Supposedly this is some new combination of personal responsibility and libertinism, but really, this just looks like a nicer version of the hippie-turned-yuppie ideals of the 1980s.
I don't understand why this worn out, failed philosophy is still attractive. Dellinger probably overstates how popular Gen Y libertarianism is, but I think there may be some truth to his article. It reminds me of the South Park Republican concept from a few years ago, which was used to describe the beliefs of socially liberal/economically right-wing young people. While I suppose it is a consistent ideology, I find it rather silly, especially because it does not grapple seriously with the question of power, outside of simply mocking powerful institutions.
By contrast, the Europeans seem to understand the issue of power with more seriousness and clarity, given their reactions to austerity and the realization that many of the European Union states are no longer fully sovereign and that national governments can be toppled and replaced with neoliberal "technocrat" administrations. Libertarians, in their blanket condemnation of authority, end up without a serious theory of power. Simply reciting the magic words "liberty," "freedom," and "personal responsibility" isn't going to cut it.
I’m actually thinking of abandoning my current blog for one focusing more on being part of generation y.
ReplyDeleteI’d say that with Ron Paul, whilst I often attacked ‘neo-liberalism’, I would concede that the differences between British social democracy and some kinds of neo-liberalism are not so great in the wider scheme of ideas. I did admire Paul’s moral courage in being more isolationist than almost any Dem (and some Scandinavian politicians), but think his views on poor people are pretty obnoxious. Though oddly enough whilst he possibly regards his economic views (especially in healthcare) as most vital, some of his fans probably shrug this off as unimportant.
Perhaps part of the reason for his popularity is reflected in the changing use of ‘technocrat’ from someone who thinks technological meritocracy is a foundation for optimism to a kind of flashy bureaucrat. It seems that combined with irreligiosity, there is a kind of feeling that ideals are a dated concept.
Whilst it would probably make me unpopular with some friends I also sometimes think of right wing gen Xers as ‘Nirvana Republicans’ because even if Cobain was not right wing, I think he helped change pop culture from an exciting voice of (admittedly sometimes immature) protest and a way of African Americans getting a mainstream voice to unembarassedly whinging about being a white middle class suburban guy.
Maybe this collapse in all the kinds of ideals generation x inherited from the baby boomers will lead people of my generation in strange ways. Admiring Ron Paul is one of them I figure there will be more.
Hi Gregor,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the insightful comments. I do agree with some positions held by Ron Paul and others, and I agree with your suggestion that people have lost faith in technocracy and other optimistic theories of politics, and often for good reason.
What I worry about, though, is that there will be a descent into nihilism, and when one is living in a state of practical nihilism, Mammon worship will eventually become dominant. This is also a problem for the New Atheism as well, which dovetails with the increase in irreligion among the young.
"Get rich or die trying" makes a certain amount of sense if all you believe in is materialism. Indeed, I would argue that this ideology dominates the thinking of street gang members and yuppies in equal measure, even if the outcomes in terms of quality of life are radically different.