Saturday, January 28, 2017

Obama, divider in chief


When Obama was sworn in as the 44th president, 46% of the population thought the country was more politically divided than ever before to 45% who did not think so. During Obama's eight years, perceived political division steadily increased all the way to the extent that when Trump was sworn in as the 45th president last week, 86% of the population thought the country was more politically divided than ever before to just 12% who did not think so.

Trump didn't cause this divisiveness, he's a consequence of it. And he might just be the manifestation of what will reverse it. More likely, though, is the political dissolution of the country in our lifetimes.

26 comments:

Mil-Tech Bard said...

AE,

The reality is this --

"Politics don't resolved Identity issues. They Inflame Them."

The American Left does not want to be American. Just as the American Slave Holding faction of the 1850's did not.

You find Leftist academics studying the Civil War period are drawn to the critiques by the Jeff Davis slave holding faction of American capitalism. The hate of Yankee America draws the lefties like a magnet.

Most Red state Americans and a minority of Blue area Americans disagree.

You can see this difference in one of the most significant markers between American rural and urban culture. Something I've see called "Public Displays of Patriotism." Specifically, old style patriotic expression is "social justice warrior bait" in urban areas. Specifically, in many California school districts the display of the American flag is officially suppressed on May 5th -- Cinco De Mayo.

Rural culture is very comfortable with "PDP"events and it's predominent artistic form -- country music, the "White man's blues" -- is where you find it in American popular culture.

At the current Bush-Obama trajectory, blows will eventually decide...barring a seven figure casualty foreign WMD attack.

This is why Trump is uber focused on economics

Economics changes people's identities out from under politicians.

AKA If the economy is good enough for a lot of men to marry and have kids, that family formation will utterly change the voting population's reactions to hot botton issues of urban left and rural right.

"It's the Economy, Stupid."

Mil-Tech Bard said...

AE,

This Urban-Rural schism happened during the Vietnam War.

College deferments and the whole counter-culture spit on returning soldiers -- who were white working class and rural -- put a huge amount of poison into the American body politic that has festered over almost 3-generations.

Reagan's victory in the 1980's and Bill Clinton's asendence in the Democratic party only partially lanced this festering wound.

The 24-years of Chinese exports hollowing out of "Fly-over-country" and the leadership failures of George 'Dubya' Bush WRT Iraq and Afghanistan that brought out all the old pain -- with the added cultural superiority memes of Obama -- have made the schism unresolvable by politics.

America now has two almost equally balanced identity issue factions that constitute the majority of the American population.

And politics only inflames identity issues.

NB: If Trump is wildly successful in making the USA an energy exporting nation to the advantage of the working classes and white non-college educated in particular.

The Left will be even more cray-cray.

And it isn't strictly Urban-Rural.

There are a lot of ethnic Southern European and Irish white working class enclaves in the North East and Upper Mid West and lots of Black rural enclaves in the South.

To capture the culture of the 1960's urban white working class without college deferment, when the Schism began, the movie Deerhunter has a very true to life snap shot of Ohio-Pennsylvania.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mil-Tech Bard,

Right, that's an articulation of the long-shot chance Trump has of reversing the entropy and putting the country back together--by largely ignoring the culture wars (what Derb calls the cold war among American whites) and instead focusing on America First populism.

Theodoric said...

The Obama years certainly redpilled me. I, to my shame, voted for him in 2008. I honestly thought he would ease racial tensions. Then Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, all the BLM riots happened. I boarded the Trump Train right after his first speech, and I have never looked back.

Audacious Epigone said...

Theodoric,

Lots of people like that, people I *never* would've guessed that to have been the case with (like this guy).

Feryl said...

"There are a lot of ethnic Southern European and Irish white working class enclaves in the North East and Upper Mid West and lots of Black rural enclaves in the South."

Get comfortable, this won't be quick. How are white ethnics distributed throughout America?

Northeast - Potato famine Irish Catholics (of whom some went West, a few went to the Midwest, and fewer still went to the South). Italians (heavily concentrated in this region with occasional appearances in the Midwest and far West, nearly non-existent in the Oldish South). A fair amount of Slavs. Still, even to this day, quite a bit of WASP blue blood that antagonizes other ethnics (especially Germans who are quite uncommon on the East Coast). Some French in the upper parts (who tend to be proleish). Lots of Jews, hard Leftists, and immigrants these days, but improbably still doesn't seem to feel anathema to pre-1965 America perhaps because it was heavily settled and developed ages ago.

South - Heavily Scots-Irish (Protestant, clannish, fiercely proud, more Nordic/Anglo than the mostly brunette and auburn potato-famine Irish who weren't exactly welcome down South). Some of these people helped pioneer the West beginning with the Plains and ending with the Pacific, though they typically didn't leave as big a legacy in the more Northern part of the Plains where Teutons rule (compare Iowa to Oklahoma). The ones who stayed in the South and Appalachia are less mixed and more conservative, as you go further West they get flakier, less racially aware, and have much less of the charmingly genteel Southern affect. Post WW-2 there's been increasing waves of Yankees though it's only seemed to have greatly affected regions with highly trendy and cosmopolitan transplant populations (e.g. Atlanta, Northern Virginia, and some of North Carolina). Appalachia in particular has seen less demographic/cultural changes than any other region of America. Hell, the semi-Hillbilly-ish Pittsburgh metro area gave greater support to Trump than virtually any other region of comparable size.

Feryl said...

Continued -

Midwest - more and more German as you go further north though I'd say Germans predominate even in much of the Southern portion (obvious exception being the more rugged and Scots-Irish portions of certain parts like the areas bordering on the Appalachia's as well as the Ozarks of Missouri. Tellingly, accents essentially flatten out as you head further west and north as the untrained ear would have a hard time distinguishing people from a huge swath of the central Midwest apart. The far Northern parts of the Midwest are noticeably more verbally indebted to Nordics (uff da, Yoopers) who dominate this sub-region. I still (half seriously) say ja sometimes instead of yeah). Italians/Meds? Some in Chicago-land maybe, but very few elsewhere. I suppose there is a not insubstantial amount of French people, likely drawn from the Protestant farmer parts of France (I run into French surnamed Silents/Boomers up here from time to time). Some Slavs too.

West of the Plains - far less awareness of family and ancestry, there is some superficially but people just don't feel it in their bones like they do East of the Rockies. That's why Trump's appeal to enthno-nationalism fell so flat West of the Plains (yes, I know most of the states that don't border the Pacific voted for him, but that was largely due to the pre-existing GOP die hards not due to independent/Dem cross overs).

America in general has a lot English/Scots ancestry, but what flavor you get changes from one region to another. Arrogantly elitist WASPs like Bill Buckley in the Norhteast (who vowed to drive out of "respectable" conservatism the mostly Southern/Midwestern anti-cult Marxist elements that gave Jews the heebie-jeebies), genteel Southerners, Midwestern ones being mostly not drawn from either the Northern or Southern old-stock elite but more the proles/middle class ones who just wanted some cheap farm land and/or were tired of East Coast snobbery. They fit right in with the stolid (and mostly Protestant) Teutons, French, and Slavs who settled in the Midwest.

Feryl said...

Also WRT Vietnam, there was very, very little class consciousness in 1960's America. It was very easy for most people to get by. Rich people downsized their appetites in the 40's-60's so as not to show off too aggressively.

True, some were still more privileged than others. But The ease with which one could dodge the draft was primarily based on the G.I. generation spoiling their Boomer children/grand children. That's the heart of it. Generations. The very Boomers who swore to not do as their fathers did were precisely able to take such a stand because they'd been so spoiled as children and adolescents. Randy Savage and his brother avoided the draft when their father decided to move to Canada to protect his kids from the draft. Ironically, in spite of the Boomer promoted war on the older generation, it was actually true that many older people were wary of Vietnam. That's a big reason they aided their children in dodging the draft, of course.

In terms of the raw treatment of Vietnam vets, keep in mind that there was a great deal of hostility towards what the Boomers said and represented in the 60's and 70's. Including between Boomers. Some of the older generation as well as some conservative Boomers quietly fumed that Boomers were much worse soldiers than the people who fought WW2 and Korea (which is true, BTW, the G.I. Gen. and Silents didn't get hooked on drugs or frag their superiors like Boomers did in 'Nam). The Leftist Boomers, of course, were much more openly sneering. Blasting at the often hapless young men who ended up in the 'Nam grinder for much of what was regrettable about the war and it's effects.

After Reagan was elected, people really wanted to get the taste out of their mouths in terms of what happened in the 70's. All of the sudden, 80's movies came out in which Boomers/later Silents of all stripes essentially got to vicariously relive Vietnam and even belatedly clean-up the mess as atonement as we saw with Uncommon Valor, Rambo 2, and Missing in Action (Chuck Norris's brother was a POW).

The effects of 'Nam will die with the Boomers. Gen X-ers and Millennials are no-where near as neurotic about defending their generation and blaming other generations for all and sundry problems. We should be so grateful. Western culture only has to deal with a contrived and wrenching generational conflict every time the Boomer generation type comes of age. Fortunately, that's only about every 70-80 years. X-ers and Millennials have as much right (maybe more of a right) to bitch about clueless elders, but don't have Boomer sized egos to launch another generational war.

tanabear said...

Liberals have been promoting and cheering on diversity for 50 years or so now. Diversity, division, divide all come from the same root word. If you are promoting diversity then by definition you are promoting division. If diversity is good then unity is bad. So when liberals say we need to come together it is just sentimental pap. They want division and we know it.

Feryl said...

https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/american-nations-2012nationwidecountymapshadedbypercentagewond.png

This seems, well, naïve in hindsight. Many New Englanders right now want absolutely nothing to do with the Midwest. We elected Trump, after all.

Trump is primarily appealing to the older parts of America that are Midwestern/Teuton (Trump the tireless industrialist and grower) as well as Southern/Scots-Irish (Trump the Scot warrior). With adjuncts among a decent amount of Italians, Slavs, and French in the rust-belt.

It's like we've had enough with the Anglos and Jews who dominate our discourse and destiny. Trump is literally not one of them, in the blood. Saying that he's rich, his dad was rich, blah blah blah is to miss the point. He hasn't been, and still isn't, "rich" in the right kind of way (e.g. of the disposition, affect, and so forth that flatters and impresses the Anglo-Semitic cultural elites). They don't mind our "low" culture (or Teutonic industry) as long as it's kept where it belongs on the farm or at the Nascar track. Lord knows the Jews don't want Teutons having a greater say in how we manage our demographics (sheeesh, we might wake up to who's making the degenerate "entertainment" and who's cheerleading the 3rd world invasion. And we might just do something about it ala Eisenhower's Operation Wetback). They've pitied us for long enough; we'll know we're making progress as that pity turns to fear. Of the once-dormant avenger's rusty sword tasting the blood of decadent rulers and traitors.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Still, even to this day, quite a bit of WASP blue blood that antagonizes other ethnics (especially Germans who are quite uncommon on the East Coast).

So is Trump's scabbard-hand at the ready more for the WASPs or the Jews? Who hate the German carpetbaggers more?

Heavily Scots-Irish (Protestant, clannish, fiercely proud, more Nordic/Anglo than the mostly brunette and auburn potato-famine Irish who weren't exactly welcome down South). Some of these people helped pioneer the West beginning with the Plains and ending with the Pacific, though they typically didn't leave as big a legacy in the more Northern part of the Plains where Teutons rule (compare Iowa to Oklahoma)

Probably the single most surprising primary/caucus result of the election cycle to me was the Cruz victory in Oklahoma. Fortunately I didn't put any predictit money on it and my record, save for Nebraska (for which I took Cruz early without adequately weighing the likelihood that Trump would've already wrapped it up by that point), stayed perfect. Attributable to home field advantage (if you live in Oklahoma, the Cowboys are your NFL team, etc)? Or, like the mountain states in the general, the result of a die hard allegiance to Team Republican?

Audacious Epigone said...

Tanabear,

Pithy, rhetorical gold. Thanks!

Feryl said...

Teddy was definitely the fundie/Western/libertarian candidate. So he did well in Oklahoma and especially in Kansas. I think the GOP in the Plains states (with the slight exception of MN) is ruled by evangelical types who'll exert even more influence in the caucus states like Iowa and Kansas. MN has attracted enough less religious strivers, and has a strong enough Nordic pagan and big government streak, that primary voters didn't know what to make of the field. Trump's ethnic/economic-nationalism and brash personality were a turn off to 80's/90's GOP 4 Ever hobbyists in the northern Plains, while Cowboy Cruz was too libertarian and brashly pious for their liking (benign Nords don't want to hear about sinners and damnation). Who was left? Little Marco, who seemed to offer a cozy and "safe" path.

Superficially (in the eyes of the aforelinked Jayman) the South, Southern Plains, and Mountains ought to be in sync on much. Yet, as we saw in the primary, it was the rust-belt, Appalachia, and core South (e.g. not NorVirginia or Texas) who demonstrated the most enthusiasm for the unusual (for it's time) package delivered by Trump. Yes folks, even the hillbillies in Western PA and Alabama don't care for abstraction, apocalyptic rhetoric, or moralism as much they just want good jobs and stable communities.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> The Obama years certainly redpilled me. I, to my shame, voted for him in 2008. I honestly thought he would ease racial tensions. Then Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, all the BLM riots happened. I boarded the Trump Train right after his first speech, and I have never looked back.

That's pretty much my redpill experience. I was a Democrat, a huge Obama supporter in 2008 because he largely ran on issues like transparency and accountability. Once it became clear that he had no intention of jailing Wall Street and banking executives, I lost interest in him.

For the 2012 election, I could barely stand either Obama and Romney. Obama knew that he couldn't run on his ineffective record so he just inflamed racial tension and tension between men and women. The culture war waged in 2012 seems understated and hopefully a book gets written about it. Obama knew it was a long shot and post-mortems showed that his campaign was planning on being defeated. Fortunately for him they had Mitt Romney who was hopelessly incompetent and appallingly tone deaf for the issues people wanted to discuss in 2012.

After that, the left pretty much ran roughshod over everything and it was all the fault of white men. I've heard that argument before but it was only in far left circles and now it was getting espoused on just about every media outlet. Anarcho tyranny ensured that any Democrat who didn't believe in that and expressed it vocally would find themselves kicked out and thanks to the internet, doxxed and fired. After that I checked out of politics entirely until Trump held his own about immigration reform.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

RD,

I came from a differnt POV.

As a Texan Bush was a regional candidate and he did good for my state.

Romney was the last candidate I wanted. Gingrich was my guy for 2012, but he visibly blew himself up. Then Romney did the same.

I went full on Tea Party in 2009-2010 and supported Walker in the early primaries until Trump showed himself the superior national security candidate on terrorism, immigration control, ballistic missile defense, nuclear rearmament, confronting China and ending the uni-state's permanent war in the Middle East.

Audacious Epigone said...

The National Question, of which the predominant political manifestation is immigration, has been the defining issue for me since shortly after I found Randall Parker's Parapundit and then Steve Sailer in 2005/06. I bought Tom Tancredo bumper stickers in 2008 and ended up voting for Chuck Baldwin of the CP in 2008 and Virgil Goode in 2012.

Feryl said...

It seems like we've locked onto a particular demo: people born from the mid 70's-mid 80's (e.g., those born late enough to grow up with cultural Marxist indoctrination and GOP negligence on trade/immigration but born too early to be totally corrupted by the cocooning of the late 90's-present day). We aren't beguiled by mid-century idealism like Boomers are, but we aren't as detached as early Gen X-ers are either (Silent and early Boomer parents did a pretty shit job of motivating their kids, just look at how lousy kids entertainment was in the 70's).

The blogosphere isn't a generational two-way street either. People of all types visit Boomer blogs, while Boomers generally don't frequent blogs by X-ers or Millennials (if they were here trust me we'd hear about it). It's in keeping with the never-ending and heavily one-sided generational war perpetrated by Boomers especially the ones born before the 60's).

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

That decadal birth cohort seems to constitute a disproportionately large swath of the Dark Enlightenment, too--the sort of precursor to the larger alt-right movement. That generational assault burns itself out in the 2020s? Think there will be any generational vengeance taken in terms of end-of-life decisions being made by Xers and Millennials on behalf of Boomers in the name of rationing health care?

Feryl said...

Not consciously, but I don't think it matters anyway because intra-generational relations among Boomers are already terrible. G.I.s and Silents who grew up in eras of reform (more so the former) or financial security for all (more so the latter) were ready and able to fight for ever-growing entitlements as a cohesive group. Us children of the 80's/teens of the 90's with Boomer parents remember firsthand the "focus on the family" (and give the finger to everyone else) era ushered in by Boomers post-Reagan. Boomers are rather narcissisticaly primarily interested in helping out themselves and their immediate family. The good thing about that is that just like how Boomers were much more oppositional to welfare use and criminal coddling (even when it was their fellow Boomers who were the primary offenders), so too will they be hostile towards fellow Boomers being spoiled in old age. And this venom will likely deepen due to the markedly more dysfunctional back-half of Boomers many of whom aren't even living that long due to extremely self-indulgent lifestyles that the 70's imprinted on them (early Boomers were imprinted by the idealistic and still quite wholesome 60's). Later Boomers, if anything, are even more callous towards their generation-mates with little sympathy towards the wayward ones.

Feryl said...

Ya know too, we've really been sold a bill of goods about how any generation now, "racism" and nationalism are going to flop over and die. Leftist Silents and Boomers presided over a takeover of our institutions, which has yet to end. Fortunately, in the age of the internet the logistical obstacles to outsiders being seen and heard aren't what they once were although many older people in particular don't seem that interested in getting informed online.

The fact that few white people were born in the 70's and early-mid 80's (the much talked about "spike" in the 1980's birth rate was for white people only like 1/2 a kid before around 1988, it's far far easier to find white people under 28 and over 50 than it is to "discover" whites in their 30's and 40's) means that it's that much easier for the racially idealistic gargantuan cohort of Boomers and very early X-ers to mischaracterize and ignore paleoX-ers and paleomillenials. BTW, might it be that the very small size of the 70's and earlier 80's white cohort is what makes us feel uniquely under siege? Particularly if we grew up in mostly white areas that were seeing an influx of non-whites.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

AE,

Regards this --

>> Think there will be any generational vengeance taken in terms of end-of-life decisions being made by Xers and Millennials on behalf of Boomers in the name of rationing health care?

The question isn't 'whether?', it is 'How Large?'

The issue WRT Boomer is that the 1960 to 1965 portion of the boomer cohort was shafted by the leading edge 1946 to 1955 Boomers who took all the management and leadership positions and collectively sat on them like a constipated fat man on the gold plated leadership & power toilet.

This lack of room for advancement combined with the post 1968 economic slow downs of over old WW2 factory infrastructure and the 1973 & 79 oil shocks tubed the late Boomer's family formation rates in the 1970's.

Feryl caught some of that in his previous two comments, but not it's source.

Feryl said...

There's merit to the facts you list, but at the end of the day most Boomer women were more interested in careers than kids. Focusing on when the white birth rate plummeted, during both the bummer 70's and the go-getter 80's, it's evident that the primary reason the white birth rate plummeted in the 70's and 80's was Boomer hedonism (peaked in the late 70's, gradually declined thereafter) and materialism (became more obvious by the late 70's and rose thereafter). It begin rising around 1989 as many earlier Gen X-ers reached fertility. That's in spite of Gen X-ers experiencing much greater financial hardships than Boomers and also facing a serious fracturing between social classes to go along with the onset of changing racial demos which undoubtedly have hit late X-ers and Millennials even harder. No wonder so many people born over the last 30-40 years aren't even marrying. The ability to attain anything resembling psychological and financial security has become so remote for us.

The racial awareness/paleo-economy revival is probably quite strong for us born in the last 40 or so years because the negligence of the spoiled pre-1970 cohort has done so much damage to us. 70's births are probably largely beyond hope at this point. , Too old, too much damage, too early, small in numbers while being cut-off from anything resembling the generational camaraderie you see in G.I.s/Silents (compare 1960's Star Trek to The Next Generation) to ever have a good shot at grabbing a bigger piece of the pie. They're still stuck at the kiddie table, well into middle-age.

Feryl said...

Also, Mil-Bard Tech, I dunno when you were born, but for somebody like me it's tough to cry for late Boomers. They had a better shot at things through the early-mid stage of life than my generation ever did. To the extent that they had it rough, a lot of that boils down to their narcissism and self-destructiveness. The 1955-1965 white cohort is very troubling. The most homeless demo,(often the result of chemical addled brains and the resultant alienation from one's family), lots of nasty criminals, just worn out-looking and sounding. The majority of Silents looked good even as they aged into their 60's; many Boomers (esp. the Disco youth) look terribly haggard for their age.

X-ers and Millennials barely had a bridge supported by anyone (not elder generations, not their own gen. mates, not banks, not colleges, not companies) while late Boomers actively sawed through the ample support they started with. Keep in mind that per the GSS, post '65 births were more likely to report being beaten or molested as a child. So Boomers don't even have the excuse of an abusive family/neighborhood to explain their behavior. If anything, the cruelty endured by X-ers has made them more aware of not falling into the hot-headed Boomer mischief that soaked society's fabric in the 70's-90's (by now, the worst Boomers are locked up, dead, or have finally grown up).

Mil-Tech Bard said...

>>Also, Mil-Bard Tech, I dunno when you were born, but for somebody like me it's tough to cry for late Boomers.

I don't think you are wrong to feel that.

However, several points --

The 1960-60 male Boomer cohort had their age peer women sucked up by the 2nd & 3rd marriages of the 1946 to 1955 Boomers who were looking for "Trophy wives."

"Divorce rape" in the modern sense happened after 1979 and accelerated with the "Dead Beat Dad" scam allowed family services local government to tax farm on working/middle class white males.

The male "Golden throne sitters" in the Boomer 1946-55 cohort could afford to cannibalize younger women of the late Boomer and early Gen-X cohorts.

The later Boomers had much less capital to survive worse "Divorce Rape" behind the "Golden Throne" males and many had 12-to-17 years of child support payments for 1 or (seldom) more kids that prevented middle/lower-middle class male boomers from even thinking about a new family again until their 40's, assuming their jobs were not Chinese import/H1B victims in the mean time.

Much of the rise of the fertility rate after 1989 were these late male Boomers delayed family formation with younger Gen-X and even Millennial women.

I fit in this late male Boomer demographic and my wife is between 10 and 15 years younger than I (hiding from data aggregators here).

Being in the s***y lane behind the "Golden Throne" cohort is a description of my work life, as I've had to train female/NAM people who later became supervisors above me.

I'm lucky to still be gainfully employed in my 50's, so I still count my blessings.

A lot of my 50-something age cohort are learning all about age discrimination and "diversity hiring" that does not include them.

Feryl said...

Lord, that hits too close to home. My 1960 parents divorced in the early 90's before me and my brother had even hit puberty. I heard a lot about those bills.

Good point about the age gap you often see in male/female relationships, though as my own parents indicate it's not always true.

Those X-ers had babies in the early 90's not just because they were hot, young, and schtupped en masse by male Boomers eager to star families; it's also because early Gen X women were much more manageable than Boomer women; they weren't as neurotic about leading a feminist Career Woman charge. If child-bearing was strictly about economics, than 1983-1986 was fantastic to have kids (it's when me and my brother were born actually) yet most Boomer women still were chilly about child-bearing, as children represent responsibilities that come greatly at the expense of personal autonomy. Not for nothing are Boomers the generation most concerned about privacy; see also the horrendous plague of oversized McMansions that Boomers perpetrated in the Nineties boom. The Boomers themselves grew up among large families in modest wholesome mid-Century houses of which my dad had one in the 90's, and it felt more comfy and closer to the outside world than the post mid 70's atrocities and apartments that my parents otherwise lived in. BTW, late X-ers and Millennials are steering home starts back to at least earlier 80's sizes. We're not going back to 60's sizes for awhile, until we all agree to tone it down.

I could go on for ages about the excesses of Boomer/early Gen X culture that we all associate (with good reason) with the later 70's-90's. Perhaps whatever the difficulties of the period, they should've had better things to do than cocaine, lawsuits (per-capita the lawyer rate has been rising since the mid 70's), divorces, and deafening rock concerts. Later X-ers and Millennials are substantially better behaved (whether they work as hard is beside the point, in which case they do indeed work harder than the Silent Gen had to at comparable stages of life) than 50's and 60's births yet have very little to show for it. Less, in fact, than pre 1970 births. College was cheap enough in the 60's and 70's that it practically was a joke, and you didn't desperately need it, either. Student debt alone is reason enough for later births to feel rage (if only the early Boomers realized that they didn't have jack shit to complain about in the 60's).

BTW, a lot of late X-ers and Millennial dudes are flat out not getting married, or delay it considerably, likely due to the wrenching divorces their Boomer parents went through, in addtion to the economic insecurity of later births.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

>> see also the horrendous plague of oversized McMansions that Boomers perpetrated in the Nineties boom.

These are still popping up like toad stools in North Texas.

I've seen 30(+) nice sized homes in neighborhoods I commute through get knocked down and replaced by these horrid McHomes. Frigging California and Colorado transplants.

>>it's also because early Gen X women were much more manageable than Boomer women; they weren't as neurotic about leading a feminist Career Woman charge

This wasn't the case with my early Gen-X sibs and their "more manageable" Gen-X women.

There wasn't much difference between late Boomer women and their Gen-X women that I could see, as one sib got thrown in jail by his Gen-X ex-wife for being in arrears for child support while unemployed.

They always had multiple jobs and always had to restart careers, despite 1960's births and large state college degrees.

My take was that the societal/social breakdowns started earlier than acknowledged now and hit the white working classes over all no later than 1968 and earlier in many communities.

The Cold Civil War between rural and city blue-collar ethnic whites on one side and and the City/Suburban ruling class whites on the other dates to about 1965 with the draft and college deferments.

Everything I've read and researched points to 1968 being the cultural inflection point date.

The date where rates of productivity growth, technological advancement (1968 saw congress cancel the SST and further moon-shots) and quality of life start their slow decline. The arrival of environmentalism (Earth Day), racial quotas, feminism grew like poisonous kudzu kicked off shortly after that.