From Woodstock to Oil Stocks= MacLennan via Graves

"From Woodstock to oil stocks" is how Frank Graves describes Boomers' evolution. Hugh MacLennan got there first. I remember reading, somewhere (I've never been able to find it again), Hugh MacLennan recounting his arguments with his students at McGill in the "Sixties", who were pretty much all "New Left". He disagreed with them because he thought that their arguments were based on demographic superiority rather than the kind of firm socialist convictions his generation espoused, thinking back to the Spanish Civil War & all the sacrifices they made to advance their cause in Canada, where they were treated terribly (even a Trudeau, with his background, was prevented from becoming a Law Prof at UdM because of Duplessis' prejudice, and many suffered much worse, across the country). His generation based their arguments on classic marxist analysis, and stuck to it, through thick and thin, and deserve a great share of the credit for the construction of the social welfare state. MacLennan was dismissed as old and out of touch by his students, who were convinced that their generation was special and found MacLennan & friends' analysis too restrictive, and called their own mish-mash the "New Left". But MacLennan told his students that therefore their implicit premise was demographic rather than political or religious (since new ageism is as weak as identity politics) and foresaw their transformation into selfish middle and upper classes. This was hotly disputed by the students, who were convinced they were a special generation who would so transform the world that they would avoid such pitfalls. As MacLennan responded, that's precisely the problem, your own narcissism: you may advocate left-wing causes now because it's in your current socio-economic interest, but what happens when you change classes? Since your premise is yourselves, that necessarily implies you'll adopt a pro-capitalist position. If you want to really change the world for the better, you've got to start from firm premises. And here we are.

It's interesting to read Graves' prediction that generations X & Y, being more enviro-aware, will do more. Probably. But that's another demographic prediction that makes me wary, and will be true only to that degree that their convictions are firm. The reduced period between inchoate youthful idealism & midlife crisis quest for meaning may well have as result a greater willingness to make the personal material sacrifices necessary for improving the world. Given the psychology of conspicuous consumption etc., it's true that if everyone's standard of living declines (as opposed to quality of life, which may well increase), then everyone should be fine with that. But we're into game theory and the problem, as evidenced at Copenhagen, is preventing free riders: all it takes is one cheater or significant group of cheaters to make the Xes & Ys less willing to sacrifice. But since rhetoric precedes reality, the oft-criticised, confused rhetoric of sacrifice which dominates ever more, like "fair trade", is probably a good thing, on balance, however irritating its incoherences. It has broadened and now we hope it deepens. If it does, then the free-riding materialists will be the disdained losers, the same way MacLennan's generation of socialists looked at materialistic contemporaries. Can such a view be generalised? The scandinavian examples would argue yes, given the popular disdain for extravagant and cheating behaviour, like residing in Monte Carlo to avoid the taxes. But is that culturally specific to a bunch of protestants at the edge of beyond? Perhaps. Mainstream protestantism, viewed as a social phenomenon defined by its compulsion to take its premises seriously, is not a big seller worldwide. People are more drawn to the spectacular incoherence of charismatic tradition, whether nominally protestant (evangelical crazies), catholic (fundamentalist crazies), muslim (aliterate crazies), capitalist (cf. crashes) or marxist (cf. maoist movements worldwide).

Fukuyama was wrong because he was too simplistic and hence went too far, but in general thrust he was right about something important. From what we know, so far, the mixed (sustainable) economy democracy is the only answer. But it has no drama: the more rational the Scandinavians have become, the less interesting their art & society. We can make our struggle for sustainability into an impressively manichean drama, but the closer we come to achieving it, the harder it will be to sustain, because it is fundamentally so boring. Take wartime conditions, rationing etc., and take away the war, and what do you have? Terrible boredom. In the Eastern Bloc they coped by drinking. In Finland they still do. Huxley's epigraphs to Brave New World speak to this.

Basically, the world has to stop sabotaging itself, as we all do to spice up our lives, and become Northern European Protestants. Can we do it? We can and we must. Will we? Our species' history argues for pessimism but the obvious necessity, as evidenced by the very fact of all the world's leaders meeting in one place to work on one problem, as at Copenhagen, argues optimism.

Here's the full Graves, so you don't have to read rest of Taber nonsense:

3. Pollster versus pollster. EKOS's Frank Graves is taking on an assertion yesterday by Praxicus Research pollster Dimitri Pantazopoulos “that attitudes to the environment are unlikely to rebound to previous levels even in the face of an improving economy.” Mr. Pantazopoulos says, “the warm front has passed, so to speak.”

Mr. Graves, who has also done much research in the area of global warming and climate change, says this is a “highly provocative claim.”

“The recent cooling of public concern with the issue is a product of an unusual focus on the economy (which will dissipate slowly). The other factor is the tepid support for climate change from the politically dominant boomer cohort. We characterized their long term waning of enthusiasm as the journey from Woodstock to oil stocks.”

However, Mr. Graves says that the longer term tracking - comparing attitudes, values and behaviour - “doesn’t support the conclusion that concern with the environment won’t rebound.” Again, he believes, based on his research, that the downturn in environmental concern is the result of economic woes.”

As for those boomers? “The now larger under-45 cohort will push the boomers aside over the next several years and they place much higher relative emphasis on this issue,” he says. “After all, it’s them and their children who will inherit the mess and they aren’t willing until to PEI is under water to take action.”