KEY POINTS:
I am heartily sick of the youthquake which has shaken the world. Since Barack Obama (47) defeated John McCain (72) for the US presidency and John Key (also 47 - he was born five days after Obama) shimmied Helen Clark (58) out of office, it seems acceptable, even trendy, to be unashamedly ageist. Goodbye baby boomers, your work here is done. Hello Generation X, Y or Z. Born before 1960? It's on yer bike, sunshine.
However, commentators who circulate this view - Pundit.co.nz's Tim Watkin (38) is a typical example - may describe it slightly differently. Just-installed Labour leader Phil Goff (55) and deputy Annette King (61) are a dusty choice not because they are ancient, but because they have too much of something called "baggage". Watkin is one of many who spout the terribly boring rallying cry of "change, change, change, oi, oi, oi": such a magnetic, meaningless mantra for signifying, well, nothing really. This puppyish infatuation with the newest thing is part of a robotic embracing of change for change's sake. But it's also bogus.
Worship of youth is based on a misconception that young people are more flexible and open-minded than those who have been around the block. This is bollocks. A lot of so-called yoof, reared on a core syllabus of anti-racism and anti-sexism and other be-careful-before-you-speak dogmas, are more conformist, risk-averse and prissy than their baby boomer parents. Conservative in the true sense, their idea of daring is to smoke a fag or use a non-recyclable plastic bag.
A 60-year-old CEO of a major Auckland company recently complained to me about how hard it was to get his 20-something workforce to adapt to a new way of doing business. "The poor buggers are wondering what the devil has hit them with the open-plan, integrated-service model," he vented. "Oh, for the old days. Why do we have to change the way we do things every few years? And why are the young so resistant to change? They're meant to be the hungry, adaptable thrusters. My 87-year-old aunt is more ready to give things a go than the young."
Plus, the idea that someone under 50 has more energy is codswallop. Ask Winston Churchill (dead just now). Despite having won the war - cheers for that - the ungrateful sods turfed him out of office in the 1945 election, aged 71, in a fever of desire for post-war reform. We are going though the same global paroxysm of new-broomery. Churchill was returned to power in 1951, aged 77, and governed for another four years.
Another part of the youth cult has been the unquestioned rule that if you're going to do something, you had better do it while you're young or you never will. This is not the case, according to a new study on genius which found success is all about putting in the hours. Even a child prodigy like Mozart only started doing his memorable work after completing some 10,000 hours of hard slog: he just got started earlier, writes Malcolm Gladwell (45) in Outliers: The Story of Success.
I know this column is going to sound curmudgeonly coming from a relatively past-it-in-media-terms 41-year-old. I don't intend it to be. I don't want to be one of those ageing scribes who take mean-spirited swipes against the next generation. Look at the chippy condescension my fellow columnist Noelle McCarthy (29) has to take from the rest of the media - particularly women - for daring to be 20-something and mixing with the grey-haired alumni of Radio New Zealand. Still, she is almost 30 so she had better hurry up. If the youthquake continues, she'll soon be considered geriatric.
deborah@coneandco.com
