logo
The 1980s Are Back, and Not in a Good Way

The 1980s Are Back, and Not in a Good Way

New York Times16-02-2025

When I was 7, I sent a birthday card to President Ronald Reagan. It was the 1980s. I lived in rural Alabama, and pretty much all the adults around me were loudly on board with what was then the Reagan revolution, which had swept Jimmy Carter and his timid liberal apologists for America's greatness out of power and made the presidency, especially to my young eyes, a glamorous exemplar of everything good about the country. I remember the seductive appeal of the story he told about America as a global superpower, a 'shining city on a hill' where anyone could be successful with enough elbow grease, so long as those meddlesome big-government liberals didn't get in the way.
Being young and preppy and rich back then looked cool to me. Within a few years I had a crush on Alex P. Keaton on 'Family Ties,' who horrified his ex-hippie parents with his love of heartless capitalism and harebrained business schemes. I didn't see that the show was making fun of him, too. The young conservatives of the '80s were all molded in his image (and he in theirs).
Now, in 2025, some young people (who were not yet born in the age of Reagan) are renouncing the progressive politics of their millennial elders and acting like it's the '80s again. There was a marked shift toward Donald Trump by voters under 30 according to exit polling in last November's election, so maybe they are just dressing the part. But when I read about a group of younger MAGA supporters reveling in their victory at the member's only Centurion New York (declaring, as one 27-year-old in attendance did, that Trump 'is making it sexy to be Republican again. He's making it glamorous to be a Republican again') or see photos or watch videos of MAGA youth at, say, Turning Point USA events run by Charlie Kirk, a preppy right-wing influencer whose organization recruits high schoolers and college students to be soldiers in the culture war, or in Brock Colyar's New York magazine cover story about the young right-wing elite at various inauguration parties — I get a very distinct feeling of déjà vu. It's laced with nostalgia but grounded in dread.
These young right-wingers have a slightly modernized late '80s look. I doubt they use Aqua Net or Drakkar Noir, but I imagine their parties have the feel of a Brat Pack movie where almost everyone is or aspires to be a WASPy James Spader villain. Few of the people I'm talking about were even alive in the 1980s, and so they can't understand what it means for Mr. Trump to be so stuck in that time, still fighting its battles. Now, instead of renouncing hippie counterculture, they've turned against whatever their generation considers to be woke. The incumbent liberal they detested was Joe Biden instead of Jimmy Carter. Instead of junk bonds, many of them plan to get rich by investing in crypto and trust that this administration will pursue or exceed Reagan levels of deregulation to facilitate it. After all, Project 2025 mentions Reagan 71 times.
Mr. Trump's '80s were, until now, his glory years, when he built Trump Tower, published 'The Art of the Deal' and called the tabloids on himself using a made-up name, John Barron. He was routinely flattered in the tabloids thanks to the excellent public relations skills of Mr. Barron, popped up regularly on TV and wrestling promotions and started making movie cameos. Urban elites looked down on him — Spy magazine called him a 'short-fingered vulgarian' — but he embodied what many people who weren't rich thought rich people looked like, lived like, and, in his shamelessness and selfishness, acted like.
More important for us now, his formative understanding of politics seems to have been shaped by that era, when America, humbled by the Vietnam War, Watergate, crime and the oil crisis, was stuck with a cardigan-wearing president who suggested that we all turn down our thermostats for the collective good. Reagan told us to turn the thermostat way up, live large and swagger again. Hippies became yuppies, at least in the media's imagination.
Many people who watched Oliver Stone's morality tale 'Wall Street' missed the satire in the 'greed is good' speech and moved to New York hoping to become the next Gordon Gekko, or at least live like him. At the time, the real-life Wall Street executive Michael Milken, who would later go to prison for securities fraud, was a national celebrity. (Trump pardoned Mr. Milken in 2020.) The takeaway for young people was easy: Any kind of moralism around moneymaking was regarded as uncool, or possibly even un-American. Mr. Trump embodied this archetype. He told a story about himself that in typical Trump fashion laundered his history as a beneficiary of nepotism who began his career with a few million dollars of help from Dad and often suggested that he had made it in New York City with the pluck and determination of Dolly Parton in '9 to 5.'
Yes, there was talk at the time of Trump running for president. But it came across mostly as an exercise in brand-building. Certainly, no one imagined that he would be seriously proposing that America annex Greenland and Canada. But if you understand that his worldview is permanently frozen in the '80s it explains, in addition to his fondness for Andrew Lloyd Webber and the Village People, that many of his foreign policy notions were largely formulated through the lens of the Cold War, in which two superpowers negotiated a state of peace via mutual deterrence. The opposing power is no longer Russia, however; it's China. Like Reagan, Mr. Trump is championing a 'Star Wars'-like missile shield project, an Iron Dome, that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is in charge of putting together.
The slogan that Mr. Trump cribbed directly from Reagan, 'Make America Great Again,' speaks to a longing for a revival. Reagan was mad at many of the same things Mr. Trump is — affirmative action, regulation, big government, high taxes, the Panama Canal, the Department of Education — but this time Mr. Trump, abetted by Elon Musk's squad of former interns, some still not old enough to legally drink, is doing more damage to those institutions and policies more quickly than Reagan ever did. Reagan, just like Mr. Trump, was often callous about people he did not see as important: To use one notorious example, members of his administration joked about the AIDS epidemic and abetted its destruction by initially refusing to do anything about it, stigmatizing it as a disease its victims deserved. (Mr. Trump's move against the United States Agency for International Development, among many other things, has already halted treatments for H.I.V. patients in poor countries.)
It's easy for someone my age to look back on the glamour of the Reagan years with nostalgia for the aesthetics and excesses of the '80s, which I then misunderstood as a kind of abundance. As a Christian conservative, I never experienced many of its cruelties firsthand. After Reagan's second term, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, it felt like America had won something.
But I know now that for much of the world, the shining city on a hill appeared more like the distant compound of a Bond villain. Nancy Reagan's antidrug campaign seemed virtuous when my fifth-grade teacher made our class memorize all the street names for PCP in case we ever encountered it in rural Alabama. I later understood the war on drugs as a prosecutorial cover for persecuting and incarcerating Black people. My isolation in a small, culturally monolithic community rendered these things invisible to me as a child, when the Reagan years were all glitter, big hair and fun.
As an adult progressive, I can now recognize that there's a cruelty underneath the glitter, an appeal to would-be elites who want to build a world for themselves while putting everyone else in their place. Reagan was an early architect of Mr. Trump's policies and ideas, but in pursing them he didn't try to burn down everything in his path. (He also won by a far more decisive margin.) The MAGA kids, perhaps not understanding the way Mr. Trump has taken a wrecking ball to the Constitution, or caring what that means, are entranced by some of the same things I was at a much younger age. It all feels oddly familiar, like we've been here before — but not in a good way.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Interior Department approves modifying federal coal mining project in Montana
Interior Department approves modifying federal coal mining project in Montana

UPI

time25 minutes ago

  • UPI

Interior Department approves modifying federal coal mining project in Montana

The Department of the Interior Friday announced approval of a mining plan modification for Bull Mountains coal mine in Montana. It authorizes Signal Peak Energy LLC to mine roughly 22.8 million tons of federal coal. Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum (pictured in April) touted it as an example of "energy leadership." File Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI | License Photo June 6 (UPI) -- The Department of the Interior on Friday announced approval of a mining plan modification for Bull Mountains coal mine in Montana. It authorizes Signal Peak Energy LLC to mine roughly 22.8 million tons of federal coal. It also permits the company to mine 34.5 million tons of adjacent non-federal coal. The mine is in Musselshell and Yellowstone counties and exports coal to Japan and South Korea. "By unlocking access to coal in America, we are not only fueling jobs here at home, but we are also standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies abroad," Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. The Trump administration policy of increasing fossil fuel production stands in stark contrast to Biden administration policies. In October 2024 the Biden administration announced $428 million in funding for 14 federal energy projects in small towns historically known for coal production. The Trump administration is in the process of attempting to undo that clean energy approach while doubling down on coal, oil and gas production. For the Bulls Mountain coal mine, the Interior Department said Friday it is using emergency permitting procedures to disregard normal environmental review. The Interior Department said in an April statement that the procedures reduce what would normally be "a multi-year review process down to just 28 days at most." The department asserts that the procedures using the radically shortened review process still upholds environmental standards. "The Bull Mountains project is proof that we can meet urgent energy needs, work with local communities and uphold strong environmental standards," Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Adam Suess in a statement. The Interior Department said it is using "alternative arrangements" for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the 1969 law requiring federal agencies to assess potential environmental effects of their decisions. According to the Interior Department, "These alternative arrangements apply both to actions not likely to have significant environmental impacts and to actions likely to have significant environmental impacts." The Trump administration is using a so-called national energy emergency declared by President Donald Trump on Jan. 20 to avoid fully complying with full environmental regulations agencies would normally have to follow. Under the alternative arrangements, companies would notify the department they want those alternative arrangements. The official responsible for reviewing the application would then "prepare a focused, concise, and timely environmental impact statement addressing the purpose and need for the proposed action, alternatives, and a brief description of environmental effects." According to the Interior Department, the Bull Mountains project is expected to generate "over $1 billion in combined local, state and county economic benefits, including wages, taxes and business activity."

Senate Republicans revise ban on state AI regulations in bid to preserve controversial provision
Senate Republicans revise ban on state AI regulations in bid to preserve controversial provision

Yahoo

time29 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Senate Republicans revise ban on state AI regulations in bid to preserve controversial provision

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans have made changes to their party's sweeping tax bill in hopes of preserving a new policy that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. In legislative text unveiled Thursday night, Senate Republicans proposed denying states federal funding for broadband projects if they regulate AI. That's a change from a provision in the House-passed version of the tax overhaul that simply banned any current or future AI regulations by the states for 10 years. 'These provisions fulfill the mandate given to President Trump and Congressional Republicans by the voters: to unleash America's full economic potential and keep her safe from enemies,' Sen. Ted Cruz, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement announcing the changes. The proposed ban has angered state lawmakers in Democratic and Republican-led states and alarmed some digital safety advocates concerned about how AI will develop as the technology rapidly advances. But leading AI executives, including OpenAI's Sam Altman, have made the case to senators that a 'patchwork' of state AI regulations would cripple innovation. Some House Republicans are also uneasy with the provision. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., came out against the AI regulatory moratorium in the House bill after voting for it. She said she had not read that section of the bill. 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power. Not the other way around,' Greene wrote on social media. Senate Republicans made their change in an attempt to follow the special process being used to pass the tax bill with a simple majority vote. To comply with those rules, any provision needs to deal primarily with the federal budget and not government policy. Republican leaders argue, essentially, that by setting conditions for states to receive certain federal appropriations — in this instance, funding for broadband internet infrastructure — they would meet the Senate's standard for using a majority vote. Cruz told reporters Thursday that he will make his case next week to Senate parliamentarian on why the revised ban satisfies the rules. The parliamentarian is the chamber's advisor on its proper rules and procedures. While the parliamentarian's ruling are not binding, senators of both parties have adhered to their findings in the past. Senators generally argue that Congress should take the lead on regulating AI but so far the two parties have been unable to broker a deal that is acceptable to Republicans' and Democrats' divergent concerns. The GOP legislation also includes significant changes to how the federal government auctions commercial spectrum ranges. Those new provisions expand the range of spectrum available for commercial use, an issue that has divided lawmakers over how to balance questions of national security alongside providing telecommunications firms access to more frequencies for commercial wireless use. Senators are aiming to pass the tax package, which extends the 2017 rate cuts and other breaks from President Donald Trump's first term along with new tax breaks and steep cuts to social programs, later this month. Matt Brown, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Points of Light, founded by the Bush family, aims to double American volunteerism by 2035
Points of Light, founded by the Bush family, aims to double American volunteerism by 2035

The Hill

time30 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Points of Light, founded by the Bush family, aims to double American volunteerism by 2035

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Bush family's nonprofit Points of Light will lead an effort to double the number of people who volunteer with U.S. charitable organizations from 75 million annually to 150 million in 10 years. The ambitious goal, announced in New Orleans at the foundation's annual conference, which concluded Friday, would represent a major change in the way Americans spend their time and interact with nonprofits. It aspires to mobilize people to volunteer with nonprofits in the U.S. at a scale that only federal programs like AmeriCorps have in the past. It also coincides with deep federal funding cuts that threaten the financial stability of many nonprofits and with an effort to gut AmeriCorps programs, which sent 200,000 volunteers all over the country. A judge on Wednesday paused those cuts in some states, which had sued the Trump administration. Jennifer Sirangelo, president and CEO of Points of Light, said that while the campaign has been in development well before the federal cuts, the nonprofit's board members recently met and decided to move forward. 'What our board said was, 'We have to do it now. We have to put the stake in the ground now. It's more important than it was before the disruption of AmeriCorps,'' she said in an interview with The Associated Press. She said the nonprofit aims to raise and spend $100 million over the next three years to support the goal. Points of Light, which is based in Atlanta, was founded by President George H.W. Bush to champion his vision of volunteerism. It has carried on his tradition of giving out a daily award to a volunteer around the country, built a global network of volunteer organizations and cultivated corporate volunteer programs. Speaking Wednesday in New Orleans, Points of Light's board chair Neil Bush told the organization's annual conference that the capacity volunteers add to nonprofits will have a huge impact on communities. 'Our mission is to make volunteering and service easier, more impactful, more sustained,' Bush said. 'Because, let's be honest, the problems in our communities aren't going to fix themselves.' According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and AmeriCorps, the rate of participation has plateaued since 2002, with a noticeable dip during the pandemic. Susan M. Chambré, professor emerita at Baruch College who studied volunteering for decades, said Points of Light's goal of doubling the number of volunteers was admirable but unrealistic, given that volunteer rates have not varied significantly over time. But she said more research is needed into what motivates volunteers, which would give insight into how to recruit people. She also said volunteering has become more transactional over time, directed by staff as opposed to organized by volunteers themselves. In making its case for increasing volunteer participation in a recent report, Points of Light drew on research from nonprofits like Independent Sector, the National Alliance for Volunteer Engagement and the Do Good Institute at the University of Maryland. Sirangelo said they want to better measure the impact volunteers make, not just the hours they put in, for example. They also see a major role for technology to better connect potential volunteers to opportunities, though they acknowledge that many have tried to do that through apps and online platforms. Reaching young people will also be a major part of accomplishing this increase in volunteer participation. Sirangelo said she's observed that many young people who do want to participate are founding their own nonprofits rather than joining an existing one. 'We're not welcoming them to our institutions, so they have to go found something,' she said. 'That dynamic has to change.' As the board was considering this new goal, they reached out for advice to Alex Edgar, who is now the youth engagement manager at Made By Us. They ultimately invited him to join the board as a full voting member and agreed to bring on a second young person as well. 'I think for volunteering and the incredible work that Points of Light is leading to really have a deeper connection with my generation, it needs to be done in a way that isn't just talking to or at young people, but really co-created across generations,' said Edgar, who is 21. Karmit Bulman, who has researched and supported volunteer engagement for many years, said she was very pleased to see Points of Light make this commitment. 'They are probably the most well known volunteerism organization in the country and I really appreciate their leadership,' said Bulman, who is currently the executive director of East Side Learning Center, a nonprofit in St. Paul. Bulman said there are many people willing to help out in their communities but who are not willing to jump through hoops to volunteer with a nonprofit. 'We also need to recognize that it's a pretty darn stressful time in people's lives right now,' she said. 'There's a lot of uncertainty personally and professionally and financially for a lot of people. So we need to be really, really flexible in how we engage volunteers.' ___ Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP's philanthropy coverage, visit

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store