Stories

The (phony?) generation wars

David Seymour
March 16, 2014
Stories

The (phony?) generation wars

David Seymour
March 16, 2014
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

The past few years have seen a flurry of commentary about intergenerational fairness. There are substantial underlying issues that have led to this, perhaps best identified by Brian Lee Crowley in his book Fearful Symmetry.

Measured by almost any parameter, World War II is the most significant single event in human history. One of its most enduring legacies, the baby boom, is still with us. The existence of such a large generational block has set up a variety of cleavages in culture, public policy, and the economy.

Rich fodder for political commentary. This Issue of C2C Journal digs a layer deeper to ask what might be called the meta questions; how real is the generational divide, who if anyone is winning and losing and what, at a high level, should be the role of governments where generational groups interact?

Meredith Lilly kicks off by observing that there is something seductive about the neat organization of history and social trends into homogenous generational groups. We should demur, however. She argues that generations become less and less homogenous as they leave education, and that all cohorts have followed roughly the same pattern.

In case Lilly is wrong, Scott Hennig makes keen observations about how the fiscal implications of the Boomers retirement might affect the strategies of Canada’s historically pragmatic political parties.

Garrett M. Petersen presents a cogent argument that reports conflicts are inherently political because politics is inherently confrontational. The market, Petersen argues, is a far more just way of ensuring justice for the unborn.

Continuing Petersen’s market-salvation theme, Paul Pryce uncovers some stereotype-busting numbers. It turns out the baby boomers are Canada’s leading entrepreneurs, and that Millennials would be better to follow their example, perhaps in cooperation with them, than stoking the effigy of idle and parasitic retirees.

Andrew Pickford echoes Lilly with his thought provoking comparison of Canada in 1972 with Canada in 2019. Generations are one thing, he argues, but nothing compared to the external and internal changes that have affected all Canadians over this period.

Dan Osborne gripes, with some justification, that urban planners and property-rich baby boomers have conspired to withhold the supply of housing from Millennials in what may be the largest ever intergenerational transfer of wealth.

Finally, generational interloper Angela MacLeod Irons is bemused by the funny but somewhat narcissistic boomer P.J. O’Rourke in his recently published The Baby Boom.

If you’re like me, by the end of this Issue you’ll have a much richer view of the somewhat hyped rhetoric surrounding intergenerational politics. In the words of one author, generational differences are real, but they are not everything.

Finally, this is my final Issue of C2C.  I am returning to New Zealand to contest a seat in parliament.  Thank you for your readership, kind comments, and support.  Thank you especially to all of C2C’s talented contributors.  The new editor will be announced soon, and is an impressive and talented individual.  Until then, adieu.

David Seymour is editor of C2C Journal


Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Not Bluffing: Donald Trump and Canada’s Role in the Defence of North America

Donald Trump launched his campaign to strengthen his country’s security with typical bombast. But does the U.S. President’s style entirely delegitimize the substance of his messages? Grave security threats are lapping at North America’s shores. Where others see only chaos and craziness in Trump’s approach, former Canadian Armed Forces officer Barry Sheehy detects coherence and good cause underlying an emerging continental security strategy. And as other countries bend to America’s will, warns Sheehy, Canada had better step up, begin repairing its neglected, decrepit military and national security apparatus, and start doing what it should have done long ago to secure its Far North.

What the Oscar-nominated Canadian Documentary Sugarcane Gets Wrong, and Why

The secret to every good magic trick, Michael Caine’s character explains in the 2006 movie The Prestige, is a willing audience. “You want to be fooled,” he says. Anyone watching the Oscar-nominated documentary film Sugarcane could find themselves slipping into a similar act of self-deception. Focused on a residential school in northern B.C., the Canadian-made Sugarcane withholds key facts, arranges other evidence in confusing ways and encourages viewers – already primed to think the worst of residential schools – to reach unfounded conclusions about what they’re actually seeing. Even professional movie critics have been fooled. Documentary filmmaker Michelle Stirling pulls back the curtain on the dark magic behind Sugarcane.

The Dangerous Absurdity of Canada’s “Nation-to-Nation” Treaty with Manitoba Métis Federation Inc.

When the Métis were included in Canada’s 1982 Constitution as “aboriginal peoples”, some members complained that they’d been handed an “empty box” compared to the ample rights and treaties offered to Indian and Inuit people. Since then, however, Canada’s court system has been hard at work filling up that box. Now, with the signing of a “nation-to-nation” treaty late last year, Manitoba Métis have a box that’s positively overflowing with new rights, powers and federal cash. Peter Best explores how Canada came to recognize a fractious, landless, fully-assimilated, colonial-era group – a group that is actually represented by a corporation – as a nation with an inherent right to self-government, as well as the deeply problematic consequences of this decision.

More from this author

Rankled

What is it about rank-ordered lists that capture our attention? We appear helpless before the Siren call of any list promising the “greatest”, the “biggest” or “the best.” Given Canada’s urban nature, it is unsurprising that Maclean’s magazine – famous for its ranking of Canada’s universities – just days ago released its list of the “Best Communities in Canada 2019”. It’s good fun ridiculing this list’s absurdity for, as everyone knows, Toronto is hands-down the “best community.” In this interview/essay, David Seymour looks at two prominent urbanists – Richard Florida and Joel Kotkin – and examines their competing visions for what, ideally, makes for a prosperous and flourishing city.

Reading Progress

Share This Story by David Seymour

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.