Recently, American Enterprise Institute resident fellow David Frum wrote a short piece for National Review discussing the collapse of support for George W. Bush. This piece features the usual scholar’s template: lay all the trouble out on the line and then discuss or proffer solutions judged to be realistic given the obstacles listed first.

I know that this kind of framework isn’t to all tastes; other types of people prefer a more eschatological thrust to this kind of reasoning. An easy way to pin down the typical think tanker can be found in the book Generations by Neil Howe and William Strauss, which splits Americans up into four personality types based largely upon when they were born, and what their parents were like. Think tank scholars are all expected to be “Civic” types.

Such a person thinks of themselves as action- oriented and practical, and considers “hard- headed” to be a compliment. (Perhaps the more innocent ones see “rock-ribbed” as flattering too.) A hard-headed pragmatist is expected to drag all the obstacles that they could face out in the open, under their own initiative, and then come up with an action plan to either solve those problems or minimize the damage that these doleful events might cause. Letting ideals get in the way tends to brand one as a misfit.

It’s seemingly strange that the “Civic type” tends to raise the “Idealist” type as their loved and cherished son, but this could be ascribed to a secret fear on the part of the dad that their pragmatism is in part amoral. The usual stereotype concerning this generational skip – that the tough-drinking-dads are too busy working and planning to raise their boys properly and that this parenting gap is filled by Mother – has some truth to it, but the above disappointment seems to come closer. Note that the second flip- flop brings the family line back to the pragmatic soul, as the Idealist secretly chalks up his lack of success, relative to that of his father, to his squishy-souled nature.

The other two personality types have the same track: Adaptives and Reactives. The Adaptive type tends to see themselves as both easygoing and unconsciously pragmatic. Playing off against the Civics which they as a cohort follow, the Adaptives’ basic brag is that they can roll with anything, that they can “go with the flow” no matter what the source of the river is. And their secret shame seems to be a sense of over- dependence on their social environment, which they try to correct by raising their kids in a way that the other father-son pair would regard as “neglectful.” This gives birth to the Reactive cohort, whose lack of sheltering makes their lives both hard-bitten and ridden with suffering, taken as a matter of course. The phrase “the cold, cruel world” or “nature red in tooth and claw” - what the Adaptive dad would consider a warning against straying from the consensus - the Reactive tends to interpret as a descriptive statement. That’s the way it is, kids.

But the maturing Reactive discovers that his you-can-never-be-too-tough-or-too-cynical philosophy, though good for him, would be just plain brutal for a child. So he switches to somewhat over-protective, and thus raises an Adaptive.

(I should note that the reason why women are explicitly omitted from the above, although their influence is definitely there, is largely because of my ignorance.)

Here’s a quick summary of the above four character types:

1. Civic - pragmatic and tough-minded problem-solvers. Tend to be somewhat intolerant. This is P.J. O’Rourke’s “Mercury Medicare sled” cohort.
2. Adaptive - easygoing and task- centered. Tend to be somewhat overdependent upon others. This is the “Up The Organization” crew.
3. Idealist - somewhat cynical regarding material success; they don’t mind straying from the path for the sake of their values. They tend to be somewhat self-righteous. I’m sure you’ve already guessed that today’s Idealist type is none other than “Boomer Boy.”
4. Reactive - very independent and achievement-oriented. Tend to be somewhat fond of mocking the idealistic type, through both words and actions, and exposing idealists as hypocrites or moochers, which gives them a cruel streak. This cohort is, of course, Generation X.

And, of course, every cohort has to face stereotyping by those that don’t find them likable:

1. Civic: Do-gooders, or machine men.
2. Adaptive: Sleazes, or permanent teenagers.
3. Idealists: Mouth-offs, or permanent children.
4. Reactive: Wayward souls, or doll- crushing misanthropes.

What has this got to do with President Bush’s falling fortunes? Here’s the answer: the quest for authenticity – to fit most transparently into one’s category – makes it easier for those who dislike you to successfully smear you. Or, to put it more simply, the more authentic you strive to be, the more efficacious your enemies become at stereotyping you.

If Frum’s analysis is correct, then perhaps Bush’s recently-won status of being loved among conservatives is precisely what’s hurting him at the polls. Chances are, he’s being called “secretly right wing” by the Democrats.

In otherwords, he’s being Goldwatered, with smear adapted to Bush’s own public image. I can’t think of a modern American conservative presidential candidate I respect more that Old Barry Morris, but you know what the election results of 1964 were.

Which really illustrates what “authenticity” is: a successful glamorization of the root unpopularity of a subculture. That’s fine for hippies, but...