See that Knute Berger is "Knuite" in the copy. Apologies for the typo.

"Kinsley...blithely states, 'It was the Boomers, not the Greats (of the Greatest Generation), who forced the nation to address civil rights.'

"Not so. Most Boomers were in grade school when the Greats and we Depression kids put themselves at risk on the road to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, the defining civil-rights achievements of our time. Boomers have done at lot of 'values posturing,' as philantrophist Pete Peterson puts it, about civil rights in ensuing years but were nowhere in sight when the battles were fought.

"Boomers — that is, the politically active, high-visibility members of that generation — deserve credit for their opposition to a mistaken Vietnam War. But, truth be told, many were there to get high, get laid, or do social networking as much as to challenge a serious policy error. Tellingly, protests fell off sharply when President Richard Nixon abolished the military draft and Boomers' own hides no longer were at risk."

This time, Mr. Van Dyk, you nailed it.
Your words are worth repeating.

It was not the "boomers" who forced the nation to address civil rights. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was born in 1929. The WW II vets, most of them decent men of charater who worked hard and raised families, were vexed by the racial discrimination they witnessed against their brothers in arms here in their own country, after fighting to end tyranny overseas. Millions of "DP's," displaced persons who came to the US as refugees escaping the communist Iron Curtain that descended on the central and eastern European countries, also were disheartened by the racial discrimination they saw in their new land and did what they could to take a stand for the freedom they held so precious.

And certainly, the men in leadership at the time who pushed through the civil rights laws, were not "boomers". They were members of "The Greatest Generation" - many of high ideals and integrity whose names are fading from memory as history marches inexorably on - such as Hubert Humphrey, who would no longer recognize the very political party he was dedicated to and likely not feel welcome in today.

Is this a parody of the "Fake Ted Van Dyk" column written by liberal bloggers?

Lordy Lord, I think heartscribe must be right, even the real TVD couldn't have written some of this stuff, could he???

Let's see. The "less noted, silent Boomers" have worked unglamorous jobs, raised families, bought homes, saved for retirement and their kids' education, volunteered in their churches and neighborhoods and have not run for office, been TV commentators or columnists, or regarded themselves as superior to their peers. That, TVD, would constitute just about every Boomer I know. If my sample is reasonably representative, that would mean 75.9 million of the 76 million Boomers fall outside your caricature of the Boomers. So perhaps he should confine his attacks to a handful of Boomers he disapproves of, such as Joe Klein.

Jumping to TVD's proposed solutions at the end, I'd like to hear what "discretionary public spending programs" he'd like to cut. There is not a whole lot of cuttable fat outside of military and national security spending, I'm afraid. See Sunday's NY Times editorial on that issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/opinion/26sun1.html?_r=1&scp;=3&sq;=deficit&st;=Search

Ways to solve the long-term Social Security and Medicare challenges have been "readily at hand for many years"? TVD has opposed the Medicare fixes to curb Medicare spending contained in this year's health care reform law, which have support from both Republican and Democratic health care economists. Does TVD support raising the income caps on Social Security taxation? That's one of the most commonly proposed Social Security fixes from economists and other experts who care about the wellbeing of non-wealthy elderly Americans.

A lot of rhetoric here and little in the way of useful analysis or ideas.

If I ever wanted to explain the character Polonius in modern terms, this would be the article to do it with.

Thanks for pointing out why boomers should not take much credit for the civil rights legislation. But I would contend that boomers shouldn't be credited for ending the war in Vietnam either. For all of the attention that the war protesters got, they marched for years without accomplishing their goals. In 1973, after seven years of serious protesting, did the protesters finally get through? Or were the Paris Peace Accords signed regardless of, or perhaps even despite, the protesters? The anti-war movements that sprung up around the Civil War, World War I, and in the past decade also seem to have accomplishing nothing at all. What the Vietnam anti-war movement did accomplish, though, was seriously derailing the Democratic party; on foreign policy, it's not clear that the party ever recovered.

During the 1970s, as large numbers of boomers became disillusioned with the political process, they turned inward. The marketing industry recognized that identity was an important characteristic of boomer thought, and seeing that the message of conformity that was so dominant in 1950s advertising was no longer effective, developed niche marketing. One's purchasing habits were now to express one's individuality, not to conform to the latest fashion demands. This is probably the first major cultural impact of the boomer generation.

On the political front, Ronald Reagan was the first politician of national stature who understood how boomers were different from voters of the Eisenhower era through the Nixon era. Reagan's campaign themes were of patriotism and optimism for the future, centered around an ethic of individualism and self-reliance. Policy-wise, this ethic manifested itself in the form of lower taxes, deregulation, and reduced domestic spending, particularly on social programs. Reagan's individualism was the same sort perfected by niche marketers in the 1970s, and for this reason I consider Reaganomics, not civil rights or the end of the Vietnam War, to be the first major political achievement of the boomer generation.

Your description of the unassuming boomer, virtuous in his family and community life, and not a politician, as forming a key component of the Tea Party movement, is reminiscent of Richard Nixon's silent majority, or maybe even Karl Marx's proletariat. It's a popular and appealing image in American history, going at least as far back as Andrew Jackson's campaigns, and it is one that the Tea Party is only the latest conservative movement to adopt. But I don't think that it fits very well with either the history of the boomers or the nature of the Tea Party. At any rate, we will have to look to sources other than the Tea Party for solutions to our current economic challenges.

Peppar raises some interesting points. Some random thoughts in response.

Pepper is right that today's Tea Partiers have lineage dating back to Andrew Jackson's populist base. I would not characterize them as conservative so much as reactive. In recent history we have seen Wallaceites, 1968 and 1972 Nixon Democrats, Carterites, Reagan Democrats, and Perotistas emerging in response to actions and policies which have generated significant disaffection. The Tea Partiers of 2010 have a list of grievances including economic distress, changing cultural values, and
the fact that ordinary taxpaying, mortgage-paying citizens have paid for bailouts of irresponsible people and institutions associated with financial/economic calamity.

Such movements, including the Tea Partiers, should not be expected to have positive agendas. By their nature, they are reactive and responsive---sending a message of discontent which one or both of the two major parties, historically, has heeded and taken into account.

There is always a silent majority in the United States. That is, a generally moderate, independent, middle-culture majority always
exists. It normally is not actively involved in politics. It exists within the Boomer generation as well as other generations. It is the
politicized, culturally involved Boomers who are most visible and who
do share certain characteristics. A very good point by Pepper about
the connection of Reaganomics to the Boomer generation. Think of a
Mercedes SUV, bought on credit, with a bumper sticker: Stop War and Racism.

It would be a mistake, though, to compare an American silent majority to Marx's European proletariat. No ideology involved in a U.S. silent majority---mainly a commitment to patriotism, family, and traditional
social values.

As I hope I have made clear in earlier pieces, I do not see the present
Tea Partiers as some kind of right-wing threat. I see the whole movement as one which will result in a throw-them-out shakeup this November...the rejection of incumbents of both political parties (although Democrats, holding strong congressional majorities, will be disproportionately hit)...and, next year, an acknowledgement of the discontent in both parties' agendas.

I do continue to have concern that Boomers in Power will adequately step up to meet the financial/economic challenges looming over the horizon.
A "spike" economic recovery is unlikely. We are probably in for a good five years of flatness and will be lucky to avoid a downward spike or two along the way. International variables abound. We are not going to be able to "have it all" or to continue to live on credit. Lessened expectations and tough choices---alien territory for the Boomers in charge.

May I remind TVD that it was Greatest Generation member Ronald Reagan who pushed through massive, unpaid-for tax cuts -- in other words the type of free lunch TVD associates with Boomers. Reagan's budget director David Stockman recently wrote about what a disastrous policy that was. And it was pre-Boomer presidential candidate John McCain who was all for fighting two wars while cutting taxes. TVD still doesn't say what tough choices he would make to cut discretionary federal spending -- slashing food safety and environmental protection perhaps? I would say that tough choices are tough for everyone, not just Boomers. But it's the values the guide the tough choices that TVD is completely missing.