The Old and the Young
The old, we’re told, will remain young by caring for the young, by caring about the young. Show me a real old man or woman, someone who looks and acts old, and I’ll show you someone who is probably no longer close to children.
Children are not only ours and the country’s future, but in the present they are our sanity, contributing mightily to our well-being. In spite of the really difficult work involved in bringing up children there are very few who ever choose not to do this work. And there are very few grandparents who do not pitch in and help with this work, seeming to understand that this is to their own benefit no less than that of their children.
Who would defend the old if the inevitable selfishness of old age, the selfishness arising from long years of living for oneself and one’s survival, were not attenuated by the presence of the young, by what is the transforming and life giving presence of one’s children and grandchildren?
In the words of David Brooks, “One of the keys to healthy aging is what George Vaillant of Harvard calls “generativity” — providing for future generations. Seniors who perform service for the young have more positive lives and better marriages than those who don’t. As Vaillant writes in his book “Aging Well,” “Biology flows downhill.” We are naturally inclined to serve those who come after and thrive when performing that role.”
Now enter into the old/young equation the Federal government. Not only do our leaders in Washington seem not to have read Vaillant, but they are, by their redistributive policies heavily skewed in favor of the old, turning Vaillant’s conclusions on their head.
“Far from serving the young, as Brooks tells us, “the old are now, [by the number and extent of the Federal programs directed to their benefit] taking from them. First, they are taking money…. the federal government now spends $7 on the elderly for each $1 it spends on children.”
Then they are taking, as Brooks goes on to explain, their freedom, and with the loss of freedom, opportunity, there being for the young considerably less of both as the old receive more and more of both in the form of generous Federal entitlements.
Brooks points out the extreme irony of the situation. While we are there for our children and grandchildren the government, more and more, is there for us. As if they considered it our job to care for the country’s future, and their job to care for us.
Again a situation where one group of citizens, in this case the old, has powerful friends in Washington, and the other group, children, does not.
The situation is doubly ironic in that the old, if they were to demand and accept less for themselves from the Federal government, if they were to insure their own brief future less, they would be insuring more the only future that counts, that of their children and grandchildren.
