This post will drop on August 4, 2026, the day four primaries take place in the country—Michigan being the most important. A total of 16 primaries will be held in August setting up the crucial election in November, which will determine how our “democracy” is likely to function in the near and distant future. I’m writing in the hope that both young and old can come together to help re-envision that future. I acknowledge that the Z’ers have a much longer slog ahead than the Geezers and that the Z’ers are stuck with cleaning up what many of the Geezers have created and have continued to cling to.
As you probably know, Gen Z consists of all the people between the ages of 14 and 29. Those of us who are 70 or older are considered Geezers. I know the gap well because my grandkids are 14 and I’m 81. They are young Z’ers and I’m an old Geezer.
Unfortunately, people often frame these groups as a battle between the young idealists and the old institutionalists. But now, dear reader, instead of going down that path, I invite you to consider an opportunity to look beyond the stereotypes—to see the possibility of bridging generational as well as other divides.
The hard truth is that we are often guilty of employing binary processing systems to help us make sense of the world. In this case, you are probably dealing with the conventional visual images that differentiate Z’ers and Geezers. You likely see Z’s as young, vital, energetic, passionate, anti-establishment victims of the status quo. And, you probably see Geezers like me as old, tired, listless, defensive beneficiaries of the status quo. Imagine the possibilities if both groups saw the other in more multi-dimensional ways and actively sought out ways to connect inter-generationally. Let me take you on a brief tour of the differences between binary, linear thinking and multi-dimensional and interrelated thinking. I promise to return to our existential challenge in November after this brief tour.
Personally, I’m struck by the binary and limited processing constructs that so many people use to understand the world. Here are some examples:
Muslim/Christian/Jew: There are about 2 billion Christians, 2 billion Muslims, and 16 million Jews in the world. In a previous post, I wrote about the Future of Peace which addresses the possibilities of engaging in productive dialogue among all three of those groups. For many adherents to those religions, however, binary processing dominates their thinking. Rigid allegiance to the orthodoxies contained in those religions can even be a litmus test for either welcoming or demonizing people depending how they “pass” the test. Litmus tests function as classic examples of binary processing because they sort outcomes into one of two opposite categories. They provide a simple pass/fail, yes/no, or red/blue result to evaluate a complex condition. The litmus test for some Christians, for example, is “Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, the divine Son of God whose death and resurrection offer the sole path to salvation?” To me, that’s a non-starter for productive dialogue that respects differences. For some Muslims, the litmus test is to embrace the chant “from the river to the sea,” which, for many, means to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state.
Ivy League/Not Ivy league: For some people, binary processing is dominated by academic achievement. This processing manifests in the assumptions people make about Ivy League or Ivy adjacent graduates (MIT, CIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Chicago, Michigan, Johns Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon, Duke, NYU or Northwestern). Ivy grads are assumed to be smarter and more believable than people who don’t graduate from those schools. In short, sources and opinions are more highly valued if they come from these elite institutions. To be clear, I’m not suggesting that all opinions are equal or that gaining admission to these institutions does not reflect enormous effort and dazzling intelligence, I’m just saying that dismissing opinions from less elite institutions and people is not a particularly helpful way to bridge divides. It’s simply another form of binary processing that diminishes the value of dimensionality, different paths, and the interconnectedness of all of us. And it is true that elite condescension has been a primary cause of the situation we are in now.
Ethical Leadership/End Results: In Greek mythology, Odysseus embodies the tension between rigid moral frameworks and pragmatism. The foundational dilemma he faces—ethics versus results—asks whether trickery, deceit, and compromise are justified to achieve a necessary end. A binary view of virtue demands absolute truth and honor (e.g., the noble warrior ideal exemplified by Achilles). Yet, a purely principled approach would have left the Greeks stranded outside Troy indefinitely. Odysseus introduces a multidimensional strategy: the Trojan Horse. He operates in the grey zone, recognizing that survival and victory require balancing ethical compromises against strategic necessities. His tragedy, however, lies in the fallout of this complexity—the loss of his men and a decade of wandering, proving that navigating multidimensional spaces carries its own heavy toll. After having read so many articles about The Odyssey, the new blockbuster movie, I can’t wait to see it and attempt to understand all of the conflicting points of view. I can’t imagine that my experience will result in a simplistic “good” or “bad” answer.
MAGA/Democrat: For many voters, the dominant binary variable is based on fealty to or ferocious hostility toward Trump. Trump, of course, is the poster child for demanding loyalty (even obedience and obsequiousness) from his supporters and enablers. MAGA is his tribe, and MAGA has a certain set of orthodoxies that align with Trump’s alleged positions on taxes, abortion rights, regulations, white rights, foreign intervention, gays, guns, god, and immigration. 82% of white, evangelical Christians voted for Trump in 2024. 65% of Republicans still embrace the MAGA label. Democrats, on the other hand, are far more fractured. While less than 1% are members of the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) party, about 32% of Democrats express a positive view of some democratic socialist positions and policies. The rest of democrats are split between a progressive faction and a liberal, establishment faction. Any attempt at dialogue that challenges either the MAGA or the DSA positions or beliefs is often a non-starter because passionate proponents of both ideologies are locked into one or two policy positions that bolster their simplistic understanding of the world.
Engaging in binary processing makes sense. Human “thinking” is inherently wired for cognitive economy. Faced with an overwhelming deluge of sensory data and systemic complexity, the human brain relies on mental shortcuts designed to simplify decision-making. Among the most pervasive of these shortcuts is binary thinking: the reduction of nuanced realities into either/or dichotomies. Whether classifying people as “Muslim, Christian, or Jew,” as elite or working class, or as “MAGA or DSA,” this thinking provides binary frameworks that offer a comforting illusion of order, simplicity, and/or superiority.
Yet, as history and modern psychological research demonstrate, the most critical dilemmas facing humanity exist far beyond these rigid boundaries. The contrast between binary constructs and multidimensional reality exposes a fundamental tension in human thought—one that shapes everything from mythological archetypes to existential geopolitical crises.
Binary thinking simplifies processing by replacing a spectrum with a choice between two opposing poles. This linear approach operates on straightforward cause-and-effect models.
A multidimensional understanding, by contrast, views reality as a web of interconnected functions, probabilistic outcomes, and feedback loops. It recognizes that identity, ethics, and systems rarely exist as discrete choices. Multidimensional thinking takes into account contextual variables, conflicting values, degrees of commitment, multiple components, and logical processes. It’s no wonder people prefer binary thinking.
All of which brings us back to the November election and the current divide and possible coalition between Z’ers and Geezers. In the Michigan primary, according to one poll, approximately 80% of people under 40 support Abdul El Said while Haley Stevens does not hold a commanding lead with any age group – even with the Geezers. For that reason, I’m going to predict an Abdul win in today’s primary even though, after much deliberation and with enormous trepidation, I voted for Haley. I simply could not get past Abdul’s anti-Israel rhetoric and his easy embrace of DSA policies like abolish ICE. To be clear, I hate Netanyahu and I hate ICE, but I fully support Israel as a Jewish state, the importance of having a secure border and following the rule of law. This was not a binary decision.
What’s more important than who wins the primary, however, or why you voted for whom is for all voters to get behind the candidacy of whoever wins. Whatever divides that may exist between the Z’ers and the Geezers need to be bridged. Instead of arguing with or demeaning each other, we need to learn from each other. As an old Geezer, I bring a perspective that may be valuable to younger generations. At least my grandkids think that is true. And, there is so much that I can learn from the youthful energy, creativity, and bold bravery of GenZ.
I’m hoping we observe carefully and think deeply about who we are as a democracy. I’m hoping we can resist giving into binary processing and simplistic solutions. I’m hoping that big tent democrats will come together to imagine a new future for America – one that is less divisive, demonizing, and draconian. May it be so.
