An exception to the rule of diminishing relevance

If we say for the sake of argument that a generation equals 20 years, it becomes obvious that during such an extended period, many changes occur. Among the obvious changes are new technologies and changes in social aspirations. Less obviously, but more significant, are the more subtle changes. Among these are changes in patterns and habits of thought; changes in the extent and quality of consciousness; and all the changes in the neural mechanisms, or brains, of the succeeding generations. These subtle changes are most commonly recognized through their effects.

A separation of two generations restricts the understanding between the separated generations. This is important, because today, there are prominent political leaders who are out of touch with many segments of their constituency. Chuck Grassley is 85. Diane Feinstein is 85. Nancy Pelosi is 78. Joe Biden is 76. Orin Hatch is 85. Can these men and women truly and adequately represent the generations which came after them? Whatever happened to the gesture of decency, when a good person voluntarily withdrew from a position of power, when one obviously had been left behind in terms of mind, emotion, thinking and consciousness?

I have purposely left out Bernie Sanders, as exception to the rule of diminishing relevance. Bernie has earned the trust and respect of younger voters. He has a long and consistent record of forethought. And has shown a balanced constitution — that is, his approach has utilized equal parts of head and heart.

Raphael O’Suna