A Politically Correct Scapegoat?

Anthropologists have long debated the idea that targeting certain members of a society as “others” who don’t deserve care and respect has survival value for the group as a whole. If we assume that people have inborn tendencies toward violence, then focusing blame on a subgroup might support the cohesion of the larger group.

We can find plenty of examples to support that idea, especially in authoritarian societies where stigmatizing a vulnerable group can deflect blame from the powerful. Before it closed down in early 2025, The Center for Anti-Racist Research at Boston University wrote in a report:

Bigotry in all its forms and manifestations serves to consolidate power in a few at the expense of the many. Bigotry operates as a unifying force among those who benefit from social inequality.

Different societies choose different scapegoats; for example, older people may be revered in one culture and reviled in another. And, too, the choice of scapegoats can change over time.

The United States has a terrible history of scapegoating people with dark skin. Racism has never been eliminated in our culture, though at times it has been suppressed by countervailing forces. But those supposedly enlightened subgroups may choose other scapegoats. It’s hard to imagine today’s New York Times publishing an article attacking a group based on skin color (though as recently as 2020, the Times published and then retracted an opinion piece recommending Federal troops be deployed at George Floyd protests).

A Politically Correct Scapegoat

But the paper of record also has a history of articles casting blame on older persons, purely on the basis of age. To take one example, there’s the 2022 opinion piece, “Why are We Still Governed by Baby Boomers to the Remarkably Old?” Its accompanying graphic features a walker in front of a podium, evoking ableist stigma along with ageist stigma. No use pointing out that Nancy Pelosi at 80 was a more effective Speaker of the House than the current Speaker is in his fifties; writers such as Yuval Levin are unconstrained by calls to look beyond bias. That is the power of scapegoating.

In April the Times published an article with a remarkably similar graphic—this time a walker in front of the Capitol dome—called “Older Americans are Hoarding America’s Potential.” In his essay, Yale Professor Samuel Moyn (himself aged 55) bemoans the “overrepresentation in elections” of older people. “Seniors dominate elections, especially local and off-cycle ones, with their comparatively high rates of participation.” To vote shame olders, rather than encouraging youngers to vote, is so bizarre that it is almost surreal.

Moyn then blames olders for the housing crisis. “The 70-to-74 age group has the highest homeownership rate in the nation — above 80 percent — and those 75 and older are close behind.” If buying a house has become more difficult over time, how strange to attack those who already own homes rather than addressing the affordability problem for younger adults. He goes on, incredibly, to propose increasing property taxes on olders to force us out of our homes.

The attack on Social Security is front and center as well. Moyn goes on, “In the United States today, six to seven federal dollars go to seniors for every one that goes to children. It is plain that privileging one group can raise legitimate questions of unfairness. The benefits older people get relative to younger people — especially lucrative tax advantages — mean they are already treated differently.”

It’s actually much closer to six than seven dollars, but hey what’s rounding from $6.20 to $7.00 between friends? No mention of the fact that close to 50% of that “senior benefit” is Social Security and that circa 20% is for health care. Also, no mention of the massive tax benefits for the richest Americans and corporate entities built into the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill.” No mention of the cuts to Obama Care that target youngers, not Medicare recipients.

But why target older persons in particular, and why now?

First off, older persons seem to be a scapegoat that people across the political spectrum can get behind. Proposals to shore up Social Security typically involve increasing the ceiling for contributions, which is not popular with the conservative rich. And “gerontocracy,” the idea that too many older people are in politics, seems to have taken hold among moderates as well as the right. Despite the fact that many older persons are in the lowest economic bracket, portraying olders as hoarders of wealth has caught on.

Your Grandparents?

In other words, scapegoating olders is a foil for the real issue of growing corporate power and income inequality.

• Did your grandparents cause climate change by driving your dad to Little League? Or was it Exxon, hiding the data that proved emissions were a problem?
• Are your grandparents causing high home prices, or is it the investors buying up houses in your neighborhood and turning them into rentals?
• Are your grandparents hoarding all the good jobs? Try submitting a resume that looks like it comes from a fifty-year-old and see how many interviews you get.

At the heart of the Social Security debate is the real problem with older persons, from the point of view of an autocratic government: Many of us are independent thinkers who have outlived our early conditioning. Not only do we vote, but we also have time and energy to organize and protest. We are less fearful because we have already lived full lives. This generation of olders in particular took to the streets in the 1960s to protest the Vietnam war, and now we are out in numbers again, showing other concerned Americans that they are not alone.

Divide and conquer is the oldest game in the playbook of the powerful. The answer for olders is to band together and reach across generational lines. Let us focus on the real ills in our society and leave the scary stories about grandma behind.