Every morning, over my depressingly austere geezer breakfast of coffee; dry, unbuttered whole-grain toast; and an unsweetened half of a grapefruit, I conduct an informal survey of popular culture while reading the news on my tablet. I have recently noticed the new millennial put-down directed against we “out of touch” baby boomers: “OK, Boomer.”
Snide, dismissive, condescending, and passively aggressive—it is the perfect semantic equivalent of the classic adolescent eye roll long-directed by prior generations toward older people who “just don’t get it.” Perhaps in much older times, the elderly were venerated and their wisdom respected, but those days are long gone.
The smug certitude of youth is nothing new. There has long seemed to be the (usually) unspoken assumption among the young that people must grow more and more stupid as they age, since everything seems so clear to them. This inability to see the seemingly obvious must be attributable, they reason, to becoming addled and corrupted by the cares of earning a living, while the young are as of yet uncorrupted by such prosaic concerns, and can focus on the “big picture.”
Of course, what we really did eventually learn as we aged is that, if the solution to a problem seems really simple and obvious, then we really didn’t understand the problem in the first place. Reaching this epiphany involved an often painful and costly learning curve. And, of course, at some point, beliefs eventually leave the realm of mere gratuitous opinions proffered to pals around a keg or bong and evolve into important, high-stakes life decisions. Then, the formerly young typically find themselves in the truly terrifying position of “becoming their parents.”
I suppose that there is a bit of generational karmic payback involved, seeing as how we boomers coined the phrase “never trust anyone over 30” and were never shy about lecturing our parents with our wisdom. More than a few parents in the 1960s were treated to overwrought tirades on the moral bankruptcy of their bourgeoisie lifestyles from their college student children, shortly before the kid demanded a check for his college tuition so that he could continue to study under the charismatic Marxist professors who had “opened his eyes” to the emptiness and moral decadence of the middle-class lifestyle that funded junior’s studies. Many of us were pretty insufferable.
And many of us engaged in some real brain farts. Some were smitten with a beatific vision of a new agrarian utopia, of an Aquarian Age, where they would live in harmony with nature in communes and would toil in shared purpose—”living off of the land.” Little consideration was given to the how part of this undertaking and to their complete lack of experience in agriculture beyond sprouting avocado seeds in kindergarten. These English, art, and political science majors eventually found themselves staring forlornly at unyielding dirt. And, of course, the sharing part proved problematic, as some people were less interested in sharing in the labors than in sharing in the meals and parties.
The attractions of the siren-song of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll endured longer, at least until we saw the casualties among our friends mount up, and it morphed into the horrors of disco. My advice if your kids ever discover your hidden cache of platform shoes, bell-bottoms, leisure suits, and Bee Gees records: Either insist that they were planted by your detractors or bite your tongue and silently endure their “OK, Boomer” remarks.
The 1960s idolization of youth endures to this day. Consider the common Hollywood “out of the mouths of babes” narrative. In this dramatic device, a young child, possessed of youthful clarity and purity of spirit, saves the day by providing the wisdom that the adults need but are too blind to see. While the parents of a young child, whose primary interest is sticking a fork in a power outlet or stuffing dried beans in their nose, may be skeptical of the realism of this narrative, most audiences find it emotionally satisfying.
Predictably, there are those adults who are cynically willing to exploit this narrative for their own agendas. Witness the current example of Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish girl who is currently touring the world as the poster child for climate change. Despite her lack of scientific expertise, we find her lecturing us nearly daily with hysterical accounts of the dystopian future awaiting as we fuss about trivial matters like cost, technology, economics, and jobs. She may not add anything substantive to the discussion, but gosh, does she ever feel strongly about it! And for many people, that is what matters.
At this advanced stage of our lives, when we romanticize a distant era in which displaying any sort of attitude toward a parent would earn an impudent young whippersnapper a quick clout to the head or a trip to the woodshed, we should realize that we are ourselves complicit in the current state. Our generation created this monster. So, instead of seeing “OK, Boomer” as a shot across the generational bow, we should just reply with a gentle and knowing “Far out, Milli.” Δ
John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach who, when pressed, will own up to having once owned a pair of Earth Shoes, and some bell-bottoms. Send comments through the editor at clanham@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Dec 19-29, 2019.
You have to empathize with millennials; we didn’t worry about our kids getting shot when we dropped them off at school and we were paying a tenth of what they are for rent, gas, health care and groceries in real purchasing power. We also resented our parents; bigoted alcoholics fawned over as the Greatest Generation. We did leave some good stuff for millennials, though: The right to marry who they love, access for the disabled, progress towards gender equality, ending the draft. We have to keep fighting as the power structure wants to take it all back.
I think a big difference between Boomers vs older and younger generations is their selfishness, their essential drive to consume, and their success in gathering and hording wealth. Their selfishness makes decisions, that seem obvious to younger generations (e.g. combat climate change, build more housing, welcome immigrants), into these great struggles. The “me generation” label has been prophetic.
I have been reading that the millennial [current young generation] are not consuming like those before them.
They already have and have had for some time all the devices they want to have, are not planning to buy a home soon, if at all, and seem to be happy with what they have if not what they see around them.
That is, they complain about conditions we all took for granted. The slaves were freed, most racism is not next door or in our own neighborhoods, jobs are different and, often more rewarding, etc. The past concerns them where we are happy the past is behind us needing no more concern by us. I think the older generations do not feel a need to focus on the past thinking most of those conditions no longer exist other than in isolated areas or individuals.
Does this make sense? have I explained my thought well enough for you, dear reader, to understand?
Ian Tanner’s response is making my point about a solution being obvious only when you don’t fully understand the probem. The concern about climate change is in conflict with the demand to build more housing,and to admit more immigrants. Building housing creates a lot of carbon, both in construction and manufacturing materials. It also eliminates the planted open space which generates oxygen and reduces carbon. Admitting more immigrants creates a need for even more housing, as well as creating newly monied consumers who are going to buy and drive cars, buy appliances, heat and cool their homes, and otherwise behave like the rest of the consuming society. Which will it be?
Don’t fully understand the problem? OK boomer.
John, your reply is a good example of why the “OK boomer” insult is so popular. Your arguments are based on (incorrect) assumptions that younger people just don’t make.
The amount of housing needed has two major control points, and those are the birth rate and housing turnover. People will find housing, it’s just a matter of where, and how expensive it will be. Immigrants will have housing, either in the old country or the new, only difference is where. The stupid prices around here, reflect the local nimby attitudes, and short sighted planning policies.
New housing need not take up huge swaths of land, many young people would happily live in an apartment downtown. But, stupid planning rules make it impossible to build apartment buildings.
Building need not create so much carbon either. Most young people would actually choose to pay more money for their electricity, knowing that it could come from renewable sources.
The author seems to be living in a world of cliches of his imagination, drawn from Hollywood movies. Maybe if he would step out of the dark theater and turn off the TV he might know more about the contemporary world. How many people do you know that went off to live in a commune in the 1960s? One person out of 100? One person out of 1000? And does he even remember there was this thing called Vietnam war?
Is there anything or anyone that the author does not stereotype and suggest he is superior to?
And can anyone figure out what his point is other than he is grumpy in the morning and doesnt know how to make a good tasting breakfast?
Thank you, Steve. Well said.
I am still getting used to the need of today’s parent to ‘hover’ over their children since I and my parents did not ‘hover’ at all. I and my children were free to explore the local community. My grand and great grandchildren are not.
Tied to devices, they miss out on the family history exchanged at gatherings over the holidays when I and my children grew up.
Perhaps this is why we see groups of Americans worrying about the loss of their version of the American Culture. It may well be generational rather than racist or nativism.