Life isn’t based solely on absolutes

To the editor: I am not of the “newer generation” to which Milt refers, but I have friends from that generation._ Within my response below know that it is heavily influenced by two of my astute “newer generation” friends who, when I shared Milt’s thoughts, were glad to help me put into words a rebuttal of sorts.

Just so we are not confused, I believe when Milt, in his article refers to the “newer generations” he is referring to what today’s society calls, “millennials”._ Millennials (22ish to 38ish year olds) are often thought of as lazy, self-centered and privileged. While no doubt, there are some who are just that, it is not exclusive to that generation. I believe Milt would have called them, “beat nicks” or “long hairs” in his day. It seems to be a tradition for the “older generation” to belittle, insult and degrade the “new generation”. But it’s not accurate and it’s not conducive in resolving or solving anything.

Milt doesn't really offer anything factual in his minute article(articles) – it's all stuff he's parroting from other less-than-reputable sources that we’ve all heard before. The ironic thing is, that in the process of raging against entitlement, the only argument he really offers is 'We built this, you lack for nothing'. Maybe I'm just biased, but that sounds a lot like he's trying to say that he's entitled to a reward just for being part of the generation that came several generations before. His generation was called, I believe, “the greatest generation”._ Except it is not. There is no such thing. His generation was and is a reflection of that particular time. Just like each generation before and after Milt’s. There are good bits and bad…just like anything. Failures and successes.

It seems Milt is stuck operating out of a mindset of 'This is how it's always been, so this is how it should stay'. That’s what I am getting from each of his articles. Tradition can be great – lives are built on it, it provides a sense of stability, but it should never be a sole basis for society. It’s the springboard for bigger and better ideas. The goal of any given generation is not to set the bar and expect following generations to just hold it up, it's to find a way to improve society until the next generation is mature enough to take up that mantle – then it becomes that generation's job to take what was left for them and find a way to improve on it yet again. And so, it goes.

Milt also uses a lot of the same old tired arguments that have been around for the last century. His ideas and ponderings are nothing new. People love to use Russia and Venezuela as their silver bullet any time they catch even a whiff of socialist thinking, but there's one problem with that. Any system of government has an extreme it can reach, which can pervert even the most noble of ideals into totalitarianism in the wrong hands. Capitalism is no exception, and as much as people like Milt don't want to admit it, we're barreling toward that extreme. Russia is cited so often as a failure of socialism, but that's because it became a communist state. Stalin seized power, and 'redistribution of wealth' suddenly became 'the government holds the wealth'. Ironically, that's not all that dissimilar from the threat posed by the extremes that capitalism can reach. Once the people no longer had access to the resources they needed, society began to crumble, and with society crumbling? You guessed it, the government lost its wealth. It is a vicious cycle, and that's what ultimately led to the downfall of the former Soviet Union – not just the fact that they made an attempt at socialism.

Milt's 'arguments' reek of a mindset and writings are based solely on absolutes. Everything in life is black or white to him, there's no grayscale. That's not how the world works, though. Not only is he falsely equating socialism with communism, and placing capitalism on an exaggerated pedestal, but he believes that any given nation must be one or the other. If you are a capitalist society, you cannot be seen fraternizing with socialism. If you're a socialist nation, you are incapable of incorporating capitalist philosophies. It's just not true in the slightest. Some of the best things in life come from compromise, and government should be no exception. We need leaders who are willing to consider multiple views and find ways to take the best of each and blend them together into the best possible result. Everything in life is best taken in moderation. There are plenty of examples to follow out there – countries that have assimilated socialist ideals into a capitalist society, for the betterment of all. In fact, the United States is referred to as a mixed market economy, meaning that it has characteristics of capitalism and socialism. Which is good! But that doesn’t mean we just stop because we are afraid to keep evolving and solving our country’s vast problems. Just because we may think we’re “sitting pretty good” doesn’t mean we can’t improve. By the way, we aren’t the only ones. Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Georgia, Hong Kong, Switzerland and Australia, just to name a few, are also mixed economy societies.

Milt rages against the newer generation because he says they want free stuff. First of all, no one's asking for free anything. What people are asking for is accessibility and equality. Accessibility to affordable health care. Accessibility to affordable education and affordable housing. People are asking for, demanding for, equal rights. Second, the things that people are fighting so hard to make more affordable are things that no one should have to ask for. Higher education should not be a privilege reserved for those who can afford it. Give more people access to that education, and they'll learn a lot of the skills they need to fill fields in the job market that are hurting for quality help. Innovation is born, better quality of life evolves. Healthcare should not be a burden on families who find themselves in an emergency. If society is built in a way that forces people to consider their own health and wellbeing as an 'expense' that they cannot afford to invest in, then that society is broken. We are broken.

Can you even imagine what our country would be like if our jobs weren’t attached to our health insurance? The freedom to explore different fields of work and opportunities. Start your own business (the backbone of our nation). Imagine, not worrying about your health insurance. Right now, families that are already struggling to meet ends can get hit with medical bills (maybe from a freak accident that was no fault of their own) and end up stressed and stretched to their limit even when they do have health insurance. Imagine the innovation and the leaps and bounds we could make as a society if healthcare and education were not the biggest chunks of our income and the biggest chunks of our worry. We could possibly be that “#1” we always claim to be as a nation.

There are some real arguments and conversations to be had. There are real limits of taxing the wealthy, for example. Other generations may have had a better grasp on civic responsibility and sacrifice. There are historical lessons on the dangers of over-taxing and printing money. Milt doesn’t bother with any of them, and so we unfortunately don’t get to have a conversation. He’s high on sanctimony, low on facts and self-awareness and an ability to seriously engage with his opponents. He’s dreamt up a lazy, selfish, freeloading group of stand-ins for them, and he wins every argument with them in his head and in “his minute’ in print. Good for him! For that, I think he gets a participation trophy.

Corrine Swatzina