A few years back, Hollywood did something amazing. They listened to their audience goers. Well, they didn't so much as listen as they responded to dropping theatre attendance, citing (of all things) dwindling interest in the quality of their product, namely the same 4 movies they kept making with the same 10 actors. This revelation was made public, is still making headlines and editorials, and (hopefully) will continue to serve as a warning to a monolithic industry that maybe what they do over there in California is not so much dictate what we like as come awfully close enough that we won't say anything. Then again, we probably don't need them anyway - we have an uncanny ability to find a way to entertain ourselves regardless of what's offered.

Cue the metaphor. A few years back, we elected to the position of president a man who ran on a platform of everything the majority of America had seen before and was comfortable with. I raised no objection at the time, was complacent with the same story line and the same 5 cabinet members, and was unaware of a drop in quality of idea and execution coming out of Washington. But something changed. I became aware of an entirely different set of ideas and began to see alternatives.

If our current administration were subject to the fickleness of our free market, not only would you see an immediate change (i.e. millions of votes, aggregated into decision making), you would also see a slew of new politicians and ideas being seeded, the result of which, I have no doubt, would be a truer version of what our founders had in mind - a pool of ideas and political innovation that would not only average out to very little government at all, but ultimately the very best it had to offer.

I want to talk about something that I've been thinking about for awhile - an idea that attempts to combine progressive thought with entrenched conservatism, based on my observations and experiences with both sides. What I'm calling "Inclusive Progressiveness" is a concept that follows from the idea that progressive ideals will probably always be challenged and held back by the oldest (and most politically and economically involved) generation. The motivation for this generation is to pull up the ladders and keep things status quo so as not to damage the well-earned lifestyle they have worked their entire lives to gain. This is to be respected as they are the reason younger people are around and if the future is to pass on to us, we owe them much more than consideration in the twilight of their lives. I will not be the one to tell my parents they no longer matter.

What does need to be communicated, or realized, (I feel) is that a lot of political issues that become important later on in life tend to be ones concerned with self-preservation as opposed to those benefiting the common good. Even issues completely unrelated to one's well-being are confused into threats, radical paradigm shift, and degradation - and in this way are highly effective. They hit their mark with the very people for whom these messages carry the most weight.

Our current generation has to make it clear through our actions, public policy, and person-to-person interactions that each one of us will take personal responsibility to care for our elders (once again) so that they can trust us to take the helm when the time comes. The "time" is amorphous, the "helm" is everywhere and the "trust" must be so well-ingrained that our elders have no reason why progressive ideas couldn't come about without opposition. Inclusive Progressiveness means including our mothers, fathers and grandparents in our lives so that they in turn will include us. It is a realization that our respect and deference will earn us necessary lee-way in the future, a veritable back-scratching that is not taking place currently and leads us all into not so much class-warfare as age-warfare.

At some point, I realize my personal ideas and concerns will no longer be completely applicable to my nation at large. It's happening already and I notice it - things that once were within my realm such as video games and toys have developed past what I knew and was comfortable with. But I don't greet this change with fear. I realize that it's all contributing to public discourse and really has very little net affect on me and my future. To this end, I will continue to vote when I get older but my votes will not be cast with my eventual demise in mind. What is usually framed as "us vs. them" is no more than a disguise for "me vs. you".

If change is constant, younger generations must create a climate in which older generations feel less need not stop it, if only to (presumably) save themselves. This would reduce the inclination to say "no" and produce a "maybe" which, when combined with the progressive "yes", is more than enough to achieve the desired affects - a slower, more American version of the "Grand March" which would have at it's center a combination of aspiration and humility, which still defines the citizens of our country today.