“Fool” “Stonehead”… Daegaemun 4050 called the twenties like this

“It’s understandable, guys, that I regret taking Moon Jae-in, but it doesn’t make sense to get on the Oh Se-hoon campaign with that heart. What should I do if the government gets on a speculator vehicle because it hasn’t caught up with the speculators? You really don’t know that the vehicle came from Gokseong?” Reporter Heo Jae-hyun, a former liberal press and a pro-moon influencer.

When young people in their twenties climbed into the power of the people, it seems that medicines rose a lot. Call them “stupid” and ask their supporters. “If you remember their faces well and come for a job interview, be sure to drop them off. They are the ones who will ruin a healthy company. It is not a problem because we support the people’s strength, but because we are stupid.”

Could it be more clear than this to show the separation of generations between the 20s and 40s? Here, the 20s are represented as interviewers, and the 40s as the main axis of’Daegaemun’ are represented as interviewers. Those in their 40s who were shouting’democraticism’ have already become such an existence that forces their political choices on the younger generation who are hung up for’employment’ with their modest power.

Poet Ryu Geun, a close influencer, said when the approval rating of Oh Se-hoon in his twenties was high. “How lonely person is when a young man in his twenties holds a phone at that time and presses something to support Se-hoon Oh.” He calls those in their twenties “stone heads” and adds that “it is not helpful for the development of the community.”

Candidate Youngseon Park blames his lack of historical consciousness in his 20s. “In the case of the 20s, the experience value is lower than in the 40s and 50s for things like past history.” The conclusion here is straightforward. ‘We must teach history to our twenties.’ However, aren’t the things in their twenties that they hate most are the ‘Kondae’s who try to teach them.

Candlelight boys and girls in their twenties

It’s probably because of that antipathy. Hundreds of young people flocked to the ‘2030 Campaign’, the power of the people. On the other hand, at Park Young-sun’s camp, they seem to have struggled because they couldn’t find young people to give support speeches. In order to set up a crossfire, a’female citizen in their 30s’ and a ’28 year old graduate student’ were posted on the streetcar, but it turns out that both were members of the Democratic Party.

The so-called ’20s dog theory’ is not new. In 2009, Kim Yong-min, a member of Kick-Soo Na, cursed “you have no hope” in their 20s, who had poor political participation, and raised that only teenage boys and girls who held candles were hope. However, the candlelight boys and girls he called his hope are now in their twenties and are on the verge of the people’s strength.

The Democratic Party used to blame their ignorance whenever their 20s lacked support. In 2019, Congressman Seol Hoon said, “It’s basically an education problem.” “I received school education during the Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye administrations, and I have a question whether it was a proper education at that time.” In the Park Geun-hye administration, he was a progressive superintendent. There is no reflection at all.

A poet in his 50s asks. “Anyone with normal thinking skills can support ugliness such as Oh Se-hoon and Park Hyeong-jun?” (Ryu Geun), an intern in her 20s, answers. “We do not film Oh Se-hoon because Oh Se-hoon or the people’s strength is good. If you saw the last reflection and corrected it, you decided that it would be better than him (the Democratic Party) and gave him a chance.”

A community of memories of generations

It is the historical memories shared by that generation that play a decisive role in the formation of a generation’s political identity. Now in the 60s or older, it is the memories of industrialization in the 60s and 70s. This industrialization narrative is a historical memory that has supported the conservative Korean society. It is, of course, a memory of the democratization movement in the 80s in the generation of the squadron cooperatives who turned 50.

In their 40s, the generation of Han Chongryon, socialism fell and democratization was systematically completed during these school days. Their political memory is mainly about the death of former President Roh Moo-hyun or No Samo. What is more intense than the de-idealized senior generation is probably because I learned politics through na tricks and YouTube, not books.

The 2030 generation are completely different political actors. These are the post-activist generations, whose tendencies are not collectivist but individualistic. Their only political memory is the impeachment candlelight protests. They share this memory with the 4050 generation. However, I feel that even the memory of that victory was stolen by the 40s and 50s.

The 2030 generation has no memory of dictatorship, just as there is no memory of democracy. That’s why I heard that’the experience of history is low’. The 2030 generation meets 4050 generations as bosses in society. Of course that experience can’t be good. So they have no or less reluctance to make political choices with their 60s for a generation.

The depolarization of the people’s power

It is natural that the 2030 generation became a swing boater. This is because they are free from the memories of the two narratives that have defined the country’s political identity: industrialization and democratization. There is a huge gap between them and their 60s. They are now in their 60s for a while, but they can join the 40s and 50s at any time.

The power of the people has been trying to escape from the state confined to the memory of industrialization. The leadership apologized for the suppression of Gwangju and the mistakes of the two presidents, and supporters refrained from bringing the Taegeukgi to the campaign. Then, Rep. Chung Cheong-rae said, “Come out of Hwang Gyo-an.” It seems that they missed the confrontation that they were familiar with.

The Democratic Party concealed itself in the memory of the 40s and 50s, representing state administration as a democratic movement to fight against the forces of defense and coup d’etat forces, and dismissed the criticism of my corruption as a conspiracy of the enemies. Their behavior cannot be understood by the middle class without the identity of the movement and the 2030 without the memory of democratization. So I have no choice but to leave.

The problem of meritism

Professor Park Noja said that the young people who were on the streetcar of the people’s power were “the people who originally stood in the far right.” Although it is a vague remark, there is not much to be inscribed in his diagnosis. “The’fairness’ they think is not a civic’justice’, but rather a concept that rationalizes the outcome of the competition and does not question the competition itself.”

right. 2030 does not believe in equality of opportunity and justice of outcomes. The difference between the gold spoon and the soil spoon is considered a’destiny’, and the gap created as a result of fair competition is willing to admit. Therefore, they are asking you to keep only the fairness of competition. The narrative of 2030 is this meritocracy, the ideology of individual competition.

Professor Park says. “If it is in the right direction, the young victims who are disappointed by the Moon Jae-in regime should come to the left, not the far right.” right. However, the people on the left side bitten my child’s mouth, accidentally bought an apartment in Gangnam, and because of that, it hurt the fairness of the process through denial admission. If you are angry with it, is it’extreme right’?

“It’s a tragic that the victims of neoliberalism can’t laugh at that contribute to the birth of a neoliberal red-and-death regime with their own hands.” In a society where the leftists make child specifications with Pumasi and pass over asset gaps with real estate, is it so much to be blamed for asking,’I’ll do it with my skills, so let me compete fairly’?

Narrative for 2030

In my 50s, I didn’t have to worry about getting a job, and in my 40s I was lucky enough to get a house, so I enjoy the luxury of worrying about’country’, but in the reality of non-regular workers and homelessness, the only thing allowed in 2030 is a dark’me’ worry about the future. Even the left, who shouted for a social solution to a problem, attempts to behave individually in everyday life. Would 2030 believe what they don’t believe?

Of course, the process is not the only thing that should be said to be fair. The result is bleak when the kid with the gold spoon and the kid with the dirt spoon compete fairly. It is also not advisable for the winner to take over the fruit just because the competition was fair. This is the limitation of meritism. However, in order to overcome this, they had to believe in the equality of opportunity and the definition of outcome.

If you can’t solve their pain, why don’t you just listen to their voices? The 2030’s rise to the Conservatives’ campaign wasn’t because they believed the party would solve the problem. In order for conservatives to really be supported by them, they must listen to their voices and work with them to devise an alternative narrative of meritism.

It took 20 years for the 386 forces to become mainstream. 2030 will become mainstream in 20 years again. To seize power, whether conservative or progressive, you must capture them, and to do so, you must write the two narratives of modernization: industrialization and democratization, the narrative of the future. In such a yard, the Democratic Party looks like the old mortgage of the past, as it is spreading ’20s x x loans’.

Jin Joong-kwon, former professor at Dongyang University

※ External handwriting contributions may differ from the editorial direction of this magazine.