The Silent Generation Speaks

by Marjorie Binder

In his recent New York Times essay, on John McCain and the “Silent Generation” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/weekinreview/27tanenhaus.html ) Sam Tanenhaus gets it wrong. The first thing he gets wrong is the timeframe, defining the “Silent Generation” as those born in the 30s. This bridge generation between the GIs and the protesters generally includes those born between 1925 and the end of 1944, the latter, war babies instead of postwar babies; for many of us born in the mid-40s, that fact has made a huge difference in perspective, often seen in the same families. The second thing Tanenhaus gets abysmally wrong is his statement that it might be that Americans born in the silent generation lack the particular qualities we look for in our national leaders. Regarding leaders, what then do we say about, for example, Martin Luther King, Jr (1929); Neil Armstrong (1930); Gloria Steinem (1934) and Ralph Nader (1934), not to mention the not-so-silent Maxine Waters (1938), Bob Dylan (1941) and Joe Lieberman (1942). And for the record, when John F. Kennedy said “the torch has been passed to a new generation,” we eagerly reached for it (assuming he was speaking directly to us).

Generational generalizations are sometimes difficult to support. According to Tanenhaus, this “Silent Generation” was “collectively disengaged from politics” and “content to be guided by their elders.” Yet it was this generation that fueled the Civil Rights Movement and went south in droves as college students to sign up new voters, including civil rights workers James Chaney (21), Andrew Goodman (20) and Michael Schwerner (24), who were murdered by the Ku Klux Klan while working to register black voters in Mississippi in the summer of 1964. Regarding their contentment in being guided by their elders, see Abbie Hoffman (1936), self-described “orphan of America ” and “child of Woodstock Nation" and the rest of the Chicago Seven at the 1968 Democratic Convention.

Regarding attitudes toward korea and Vietnam , which Tanenhaus blithly labels the result of those “more likely to serve than to lead,” he really seems to mean more likely to serve than protest. Those who served might be more likely to attribute their actions to the concept of responsibility and though more loath to guess about motivations than Mr. Tanenhaus, might point out how quickly the protest against the latter war died along with the draft. Noting that he has created caricatures, he then excuses himself by claiming that they were “rooted in truth." Yet when he tries to illustrate his theory by stuffing John McCain(1936) into his not-so-neat theory as a man “skeptical toward the very expectations he stoically fulfills” he could be describing any thoughtful human being doing what some have called and still call “duty.”

The choice in the upcoming election ought not to be between some arbitrary, sociology laden, cutsy labeling of candidates as part of generation “silent,” “boomer," “X," “Y” or “Z.” Rather, it needs to be a serious attempt on the part of the electorate to gauge the judgment, temperament, intellect and yes, devotion to duty that will lead us toward fulfilling our responsibilities to our future selves, our neighbors around the world and the generations that come after us.

Comments should be sent to Open Spaces Editors.