Baby Boomer Crowned Heirs Ready to Throw Mama (and Papa) Off the Train?

I'm feeling a little cranky this morning. Some may dismiss my mood as being the result of my advancing age. (I'm fifty-one years old, after all.) But I hope that you won't do that in my presence; I'm apt to go medieval on you.

It's the morning after the US Supreme Court's final session of the 2004-2005 term as I write this and there are people who are disturbed that William Rehnquist, the eighty year old chief justice hasn't announced his resignation from the Court. Others appear chagrined that associate justice Sandra Day O'Connor, age 75, hasn't also stepped down. After all, pundits and pols reason, they're old. O'Connor has had past health problems and Rehnquist is suffering from cancer while evidencing increasing physical frailty.

This morning, I read that University of Wisconsin law professor and blogger Ann Althouse was invited to appear on a public radio program to discuss "the legacy" of Rehnquist as though his resignation (and presumably, rapidly impending departure from this life) were done deals. I wrote:

That raises a concern I've had ever since the Chief Justice's announcement last fall of his cancer.

I have been thoroughly creeped out by the ways in which pols and pundits alike have assumed the imminence of Rehnquist's resignation. Often, it's been accompanied by discussions of his health, painting his death as imminent. It's seemed altogether too much like the behavior of prospective heirs of a wealthy frail person in some Grade B movie. In fact, a good bit of the judicial filibuster folderol was a kind of "death watch." All these discussions disregard Rehnquist's humanity completely; which is ironic in light of the fact that at least half of those engaged in the death watch describe themselves as pro-life.

This creepiness has extended of late to other people. The other day, I went to an otherwise fine group blog written by those of a Christian perspective. There, I found a mid-year review of one blogger's January 1 predictions. I had missed the original posted projections. But among its predictions, apparently, was a list of people he thought would die in 2005, a list running to something like fifteen names.

The blogger seemed almost disappointed that only one of those he thought would die had actually expired--Pope John Paul II--and pointed out that another entrant, Billy Graham, was actually preaching in New York City last week.

Mind you, the blogger wasn't rooting for these persons' deaths. He was just predicting them. But, it seemed crass beyond words and I told the guy so.

Similarly, the entire approach to coverage and discussion of Rehnquist's illness and possible resignation have lacked class, compassion, or any consideration of this Chief Justice also being a person. Or so it has seemed to me.

Am I overreacting?

Frankly, I don't think that I am. We Baby Boomers--and Busters and GenXers--act like narcissistic playboys (and playgirls) whose every whim has been indulged and now, like some crown prince, lusting for the throne, feel it our divine right to throw mama and papa off the train.

Is there one iota of evidence to support the notion that, for whatever physical ailments may afflict them, Rehnquist or O'Connor are contributing any less to the functioning of the Court than they ever have?

No! In fact, in Rehnquist's case, the evidence, as recounted by one Court-watcher on this morning's Diane Rehm Show, is that the Chief Justice continues to effectively guide discussions of upcoming cases and rulings among his colleagues, as well as presiding actively over the entire Judicial Branch and the major renovations to the Supreme Court building going on in D.C. right now.

Much of the speculation about Rehnquist and O'Connor reflect a disdain of the elderly that is profoundly disturbing.

I was just beginning to cool off when I went back to the Stones Cry Out, where a blogger referred to evangelist Billy Graham's joke after he was introduced at his New York City mission by former President Bill Clinton. The blogger, a fine writer, Jim Jewell, wrote:

Billy Graham’s last crusade in New York City has become a media love fest, and it is really great to see the admiration for Dr Graham and the way the Crusade is pulling together the Christian church in the city. But please don’t pay attention to anything Dr. Graham says these days, except in his prepared sermon. He has lost his political discretion, but it’s OK. He deserves a little senility late in life. Don’t condemn him, as some have. Just smile when it sounds as though he’s endorsing Hillary Clinton for president (when Bill Clinton joined him on stage, Graham "quipp[ed] that the former president should become an evangelist and allow 'his wife to run the country'”). This wasn’t politics; just a good-natured quip at an evangelistic crusade. We need to read in the discretion the grand old man of evangelicalism is now lacking.

I was appalled and responded:

This is absurdly and offensively condescending toward Billy Graham. His quip in no way could be read as an endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president, except for those listening with intensely partisan ears.

In fact, in his statesmanship and his refusal to say that one political party or philosophy is more righteous than another, Graham is not being senile. He's being Christian. He's showing an awareness that political isms are ultimately arguments over how to decorate a building marked for the wrecking ball. He refuses to be snagged by politics or to engage in any idolatry of ideology because he has a greater, more eternal cause.

His comments then, don't require our indulgence as though he were some witless oaf. I should think that the world's recent experience with Pope John Paul II, whose mind and work remained vital and relevant even as his life ebbed away, would keep us from dismissing those with whom we may disagree simply because they've attained a certain age.

Graham deserves our attention. He is showing how we ought to be the Church, that is, ambassadors of Jesus Christ, not emissaries of the Republican National Committee!

We Christians seek to win to Christ not just those who agree with our politics, but all people. Billy Graham knows this...even if he is eighty-six years old.

Apparently, some would prefer to ignore the wisdom that older people, including elderly Christian leaders, have to offer. They'd rather elbow them aside and dismiss them as being out of touch with reality.

As a Christian, I find this offensive for the same reason that I find abortion or euthanasia offensive. In each case, people who don't meet up to someone's specifications for acceptable humanity---whether the requirements are physical, mental, or philosophical--are marginalized and deemed ignorable or worthy of death.

What lessons are we Baby Boomers teaching our children by the way we treat and discuss our elders? Of what wisdom are we robbing ourselves because of our ideologies and prejudices?

UPDATE: Rob Asghar has linked to this piece. Thanks, Rob!

ANOTHER UPDATE: This post is one of many articles by many different people that you'll find at this week's Christian Carnival at ChristWeb.