The problem with politicians is not a generational thing.

People do grow more conservative with age, which is a good thing. But, while people might go into politics armed with ‘principles’, most of them take the easy way out by obtaining the endorsement of a party.

Having done this, they are then bound by the party line and must leave their individual ideas at the door.

“Much of what passes for “generational theory” is simply the perpetuation of trite generalities.”

Like the title of the article!

or

“A great many boomer politicians, and their families, had access to better social services in their youth, in relative terms.”

(Yet many of those boomers’ paid a lot more for the domestic durables which they bought than anyone pays today.)

Or

“In public statements they are often derisive of today’s youth,”

Maybe we could have some quotes to support what reads to me as a very “trite generality”

Or

“At what point did boomer politicians abandon the principles they fought so hard for in their younger days”

Again, maybe some examples to put at least some meat on a very boney, very trite skeleton

“Josh Fear is a Research Fellow at the Australia Institute, a public-interest think tank based in Canberra.”

Then I suggest he does more research before he bothers to write another article.

To be honest he must be a product of one of those “no-criticism” schools, where instead of being graded in his performance, he was pandered to for his effort.

In real life,

“effort” don’t count for squat.

It is only “achievement” which matters

Human nature is stronger than generational trends. John Howard is a baby boomer, but his provincial mindset belongs entirely to an earlier generations. Or perhaps an earlier phase of evolution.

Increased quality of health is one explanation for the different retirement lifestyle baby-boomers enjoy in comparison to previous generations. One reason for this is increased access to, and quality of, public health services – something subsequent generations also benefit from. Another is reduction in the cost of food as a proportion of household income (far cheaper relatively now than in the past despite recent cost increases). So the quality of nutrition has improved - perhaps a little too much in some cases.

One reason for increased travel is the radically decreased cost. Again, while fuel costs are on the rise now, they still represent nothing like the income-proportional costs of the 70s and earlier. Air travel is exceptionally cheap compared with times past.

A far smaller proportion of the baby-boomers enjoyed access to university than the subsequent generations and the services provided by government in many areas including welfare of multiple-forms was far narrower (if at times a little more generously proportioned for the recipients – but, the further you spread the loot, the less each claimant gets). Aged care is one example. A greater proportion of elderly people today have access to pensions and aged-care facilities than did elderly people of earlier generations and a broader array of services is offered. Austudy didn’t exist for most babyboomers, Whitlam introduced TEAS in 73. This doesn’t mean we have to be happy with what is currently available, just that waxing lyrical about some imagined past is not going to tell us anything.

In short, where’s your evidence that boomer-pollies are any more or less risk averse than younger and older pollies; or more or less derisive of youth (it’s Kate Ellis who needlessly kicked youth punching bag Corey Worthington while he was down); or free from ideals (because their ideals differ from yours?). Hey – maybe everything you say is right, but it’s sounding like the trite generalities you mock in your introduction. You have the stage, you are a researcher – inspire our politicians to do better for us by improving the quality of your critique of them.

Sancho,

Howard is not a baby boomer. Howard was born in 1939, Boomers are born between the years 1946 and 1964.

There seems to be a common misconception that because baby boomers involved themselves in the political issues of the day, during their youth, that somehow boomers care more about politics than any other generation. This is complete bollocks.

The vast majority of the hippie generation was swept up in a FAD, just like skateboarding or yo'yo's. Just because they went along to a couple of demos and spoke in slogans doesn't actually mean their interest in politics was any more acute than later generations. In fact, the death of the ideas of obligation and responsibility can be directly traced to the boomers. The boomers were truly the first me generation, convinced of their "RIGHTS" but having no sense of any attendant "OBLIGATIONS". This "rights" focussed approach of the boomers has permeated public policy over the last 40 years, although govt's have recently begun to acknowledge the disastrous effects such a perverted outlook brings about.

Whilst I personally am not religous, the born again movement in the US; and to a certain extent the religous zealoutry of the Islamic extremists; can be seen as a backlash against the values and choices of the post war generations.

Hallelujah the views of Paul L.

The so-called 'baby-boomers' conveniently ignore the preceding generation usually termed 'seniors'.

I was born in 1937, can recall much of the hardship of WW2 and the immediate post-war years; but also the wonderful prosperity that followed up to the 1960s. The world then became smitten by the 'Woodstock' culture and our previous sense of values and ethics got progressively trodden.

The 'boomers' are now the dominant age group greatly influencing how our society functions and the majority are very self-oriented. The wisdom and skills of 'seniors' are generally forsaken on an age basis so they are largely barred from the work force and roles that they have the expertise to perform which is an appalling waste of invaluable human resources.

The notion of generational divisions with a society mitigates against cohesive national integrity.