I apologize for not making my usual post last week. To make it up to you, this week I have prepared a very special double book review. Both are non-fiction books, and both have a similar topic. The full titles were too long to put in full in the blog heading. They are A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America and Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster. I like when a book is up front with its title. Short of emulating Albert Jay Nock and titling the book “Our Enemy, The Boomers”, neither author could have been more direct.

The two books take different angles of attack on their shared target: Gibney’s Generation of Sociopaths is a sweeping odyssey across many different levels of alleged Boomer selfishness, complete with numerical summaries quantifying their malfeasance. Andrews meanwhile takes a more literary approach, modeling her book after Lytton Strachey’s Eminent Victorians, and attacking Boomer vices using six prominent members of their generation as the foci of her assault.

Curiously, the two books present slightly different definitions of what qualifies someone as a Boomer. Andrews uses the standard birth years of 1945 to 1964, whereas Gibney includes those born from 1940 on. Either way, the generation (which presumably could also be called Gen W, although I’ve never seen it referred to as such) has many members, and, according to these two, not many of them are good.

Gibney is more vindictive in his attacks. He diagnoses the Boomers as clinically sociopathic, behaving with a total lack of concern for others and a single-minded focus on their own welfare. Much of his book is devoted to detailed examinations of American tax law, dedicated to the thesis that Boomers voted for policies to benefit themselves at the expense of both older and younger cohorts.

Here, the alert reader might raise an objection: isn’t America theoretically a representative government? And might not a representative government be reasonably expected to respond to what a large percentage of its population wants? And since the Boomers are by definition a large percentage of the population, shouldn’t we expect them to vote in their own interest? Isn’t that, like, democracy in action? But this is not good enough for Gibney. The Boomers display, in his view, a lack of the prudence and foresight that was characteristic of previous generations.

Andrews does without the graphs and figures. Her book is much more personal, targeting specific foibles of specific people: Aaron Sorkin is an out-of-touch writer of TV dramas who mistakes his characters for real life. Camille Paglia is a decadent artist who is shocked when the values of her salons translate into reality. Al Sharpton was the last corrupt boss of Tammany Hall-style machine politics. Even Steve Jobs, to whom Andrews is clearly more sympathetic than the others, was at best a flawed hero, insofar as his phones and music players ultimately fueled Boomer-ish conspicuous consumption.

Gibney’s book concludes with an appeal to Carl Schmitt’s Friend/Enemy distinction, exhorting his readers to view the Boomers as a kind of scapegoat on to whom the sins of our nation must be cast, and of whom a ritual sacrifice must be made before there can be absolution. Andrews ends her book with a more meditative note on how millennials can avoid following in the footsteps of their parents. (Interestingly, both books also make approving references to Lord Kenneth Clark’s 1969 television series Civilisation. It is almost as if there is some anti-Boomer Q source from which they are both working.)

What is perhaps most interesting about the books is the different perspectives of the authors. Andrews is a reactionary conservative, Gibney seems to lean progressive with maybe some libertarian influence thrown in. As a result, their analysis of what exactly the Boomers did wrong differs, with Andrews believing they destroyed the fabric of society with their libertine disregard of cultural norms, while Gibney views the social issues that alarm Andrews—feminism, gay marriage, etc.—as mere footnotes. In his view, the overall culture is far more right-wing now than it was when the Boomers were coming up. As he frequently reminds us, Nixon was more left-wing than Obama when it came to expanding the scope of government.

In the end, their diagnosis seems to converge on the idea that the Boomers, growing up in a time of peace and plenty, were spoiled by their material wealth, and selfishly squandered it all, leaving their progeny in a far worse situation economically, politically, and—in Andrews’s case anyway—spiritually.

And here we come to the central point, the specter that haunts both books: the Boomers’ progeny, most of whom are the generation we know as Gen Y, the Millennials, or, if you’re of a mind to use a slur for us as Gibney does for the Boomers, “the Participation Trophy Generation.”

I am one of these Millennials, born in 1990 to Boomer parents. As a member of that generation of supposedly disinherited knights that the Washington Post once dubbed “the unluckiest generation in U.S. history”, I am, if Andrews and Gibney are to be believed, a victim who is entitled to redress of his grievances.

And this is the great irony of both books: in each case the authors accuse the Boomers of being rebels without causes, of not respecting the traditions of their ancestors, but instead deriding them, overthrowing them, and stealing their wealth, all while acting as if they are aggrieved and entitled to compensation… and then they each proceed to do exactly the same with the Boomers themselves!

Gibney’s hypocrisy is particularly irritating. He proposes levying large taxes on the Boomers, the proceeds of which should be redirected to California venture capitalists such as himself. His whole book indicts the Boomers for stealing the wealth of others to benefit themselves, and then he ends by proposing to do the very same thing. He justifies this by saying that “a Schmittian menace does motivate society, sometimes to good ends, if the Us is genuinely commendable and the Other, not so much.”

In other words, “we are the good guys, and anything we do is therefore also good.” Does it ever occur to Gibney that this is also what the original students of Carl Schmitt were thinking?

Anyway, before Gibney starts building wicker men for Boomers in the hopes that next year’s crop will be better, I would point out that failure to show respect for the ancestors is one of the major sins across virtually all cultures in history. That the Boomers may have been guilty of it is no excuse for their successors to do the same.

Back to that Washington Post article, and specifically this chart, which demonstrates that Millennials enjoyed the least growth in GDP per capita of any generation. Very unlucky! Not nearly as “lucky” as the G.I. Generation (b.1900-1924) or the Silent Generation (b. 1925-1945). Look at the economic growth they enjoyed during their first years in the workforce. What luck! I’m sure, as they were about to storm the beaches at Normandy, they were all thinking how incredibly lucky they were to have been born at this time!

To my fellow Millennials (and Gen Zers–those who can read), I say this: yes, we inherited a mess from previous generations. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to see what they might have done differently. But every generation in history could say the same. No one was ever gifted a perfect world, and if they were, mythology suggests they would lose it almost immediately. If we are going to at least set our lands in order, we cannot do it by heaping scorn upon those who went before us. We can only study what they did right, what they did wrong, and use that knowledge to make ourselves better. We can still be, as that wonderful work of Millennial fiction Samantha, 25, on October 31 says, “the generation that changes it all.” But

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”