Boomers Broke America: A Legacy of Irresponsibility

The Boomers inherited a world of stability, prosperity, and social cohesion, built on the sacrifices of their parents—the Greatest Generation. But instead of stewarding that legacy, they discarded the sense of duty and responsibility that had defined their predecessors. Where the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation operated with a mindset of collective obligation, the Boomers saw the constraints of the past and rejected them wholesale, failing to recognize that some of those constraints were the very glue that held society together.

Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone captures this unraveling of social capital, documenting the decline of community organizations, neighborhood associations, and civic engagement. The Greatest Generation believed in social responsibility and in institutions that provided a framework for mutual support—be it through religious organizations, social clubs, or unions. These networks fostered stability and belonging. The Boomers, however, largely abandoned these institutions, favoring an ethos of self-fulfillment and individualism over collective well-being. The result was an America where civic participation declined, trust in public institutions eroded, and the sense of a shared national project faded.

Economic policy reflected this shift as well. The Boomers benefited from an era of cheap education, affordable housing, and strong labor protections—many of which had been hard-won by their parents’ sacrifices. Yet, as they assumed positions of power, they presided over policies that stripped these advantages from subsequent generations. They cut taxes while increasing government debt, prioritized personal wealth accumulation over public investment, and pursued deregulation that widened inequality. Bruce Cannon Gibney, in A Generation of Sociopaths, notes that they “inherited the richest economy in world history and then set about gutting it to serve their own ends.” Their economic decisions led to stagnant wages, student debt crises, and a housing market transformed from a vehicle of stability into an instrument of speculation.

Gibney takes this further, arguing that the Boomers operated with a sociopathic lack of foresight. Their policies and personal decisions reflected an absence of concern for long-term consequences. He describes how they “defunded the very systems that allowed them to thrive, assuming that someone else would clean up the mess.” Unlike the Greatest Generation, who invested in future prosperity, the Boomers pursued instant gratification, refusing to sacrifice for the generations that would follow.

Nowhere was this more evident than in the housing market. The Greatest Generation saw homeownership as a path to stability, a way to build a future for one’s family and community. They built homes not just for themselves, but for their children and grandchildren, ensuring future generations had a foundation on which to grow. Boomers, by contrast, embraced housing as an asset for personal gain, advocating for policies that inflated property values while making homeownership increasingly unattainable for younger generations. Restrictive zoning laws, real estate speculation, and an overreliance on housing as a wealth-generating tool made entry into the market almost impossible for those who came after them. Instead of ensuring that their children could afford homes, they hoarded properties and turned neighborhoods into investment opportunities, trading the security of future generations for short-term personal enrichment. Gibney describes how Boomers “embraced the illusion that wealth could be conjured from nothing,” leading to a housing crisis that locked younger generations into renting while driving prices beyond their reach.

Gibney also points to the Boomer tendency to shift blame while hoarding resources. He describes how they benefited from affordable tuition and strong pensions but then convinced younger generations that financial struggles stemmed from personal failures rather than systemic inequality. They told Millennials to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” while dismantling the very institutions that had given them a leg up.

The drug crisis also illustrates this fundamental shift in values. The counterculture movements of the 1960s encouraged drug use as a form of rebellion, self-discovery, or escape. What began as experimentation soon spiraled into widespread addiction. Rather than addressing the consequences of their own permissive attitudes toward substance use, Boomers enacted a punitive war on drugs that disproportionately targeted younger generations and marginalized communities. As Gibney observes, “They treated drug use as a youthful rite of passage for themselves, yet a criminal offense for those who came after.”

This disregard for standards extended beyond policy and economics—it was reflected in cultural norms as well. The Greatest Generation understood that personal presentation was a reflection of respect for others and the community. They dressed with intention, whether working as professionals or laborers, understanding that appearances mattered. Over time, this shifted. The Boomers discarded traditional dress standards, arguing that comfort and self-expression were paramount. Where previous generations saw dignity in maintaining a certain level of decorum, the Boomers rejected it as outdated. The result has been a culture where people walk the streets in pajamas, sweatpants, and whatever they please, unconcerned about how they present themselves to others. This shift reflects a broader cultural turn toward extreme individualism—prioritizing personal comfort over the cohesion that comes from shared social standards. This hyper-individualism has reshaped American society, elevating personal experience and subjective feelings above objective truth. It is why gender, sexual orientation, and personal identity have become viral topics, with individual emotions taking precedence over facts. In a culture where self-perception trumps objective reality, history is rewritten, statues are torn down, and collective heritage is discarded in favor of personal narratives. The past is judged through the lens of contemporary feelings, rather than understood within its historical context, further deepening divisions and eroding the shared identity that once united communities.

I had a professor in the 1990s, well into his eighties, once remarked that even trash collectors used to wear a shirt and tie. While perhaps an exaggeration, his point was clear: a certain level of conformity brings cohesion, and without it, society fragments. The Boomers’ rejection of these shared expectations further alienated individuals from one another. Now, we are all “others” to each other, with fewer common standards to create a sense of unity.

The Boomers’ idea of freedom was one unshackled from duty, but freedom without responsibility is nothing more than indulgence. Their parents understood that true liberty is rooted in obligation—obligation to one’s family, to one’s community, and to future generations. The Boomers, in contrast, embraced an ethos that prized personal fulfillment above all else, believing that progress could come from tearing down rather than from refining and strengthening what already worked. They dismantled social frameworks without replacing them, leaving younger generations to navigate an atomized and unstable world.

Their legacy is not one of progress but of squandered opportunity. The structures that made their own success possible—affordable housing, strong social bonds, accessible education—were gradually eroded under their watch. The Greatest Generation built, the Boomers consumed, and the generations that followed are left with the consequences. As Gibney summarizes, “They treated the future as someone else’s problem—because, for them, it always had been.”