Note: This column is the 2nd in a two-part series; the first is titled "The Baby Boom at 50: Part I, The We Generation."

"The meek will be pushed to the end of the line, whether they're trying to get a good job, decent pay, or a nice house," writes demographer Cheryl Russell. Russell, arguably the foremost authority on midlife baby boomers, explains, "In [today's] environment, those who act cooperatively, in the common spirit of the past, are at the mercy of those out to get the best deal for themselves." Thus, Russell advocates a kind of enlightened self-interest, where today's midlifers serve the community as a means to serving themselves. "Americans must find a way to endow free agents with a willingness to solve community problems," she explains.

But Russell's recommendation is only half-right. She misses the mark because she misunderstands meekness. Meekness is not synonymous with weakness. It is not laissez-faire sociology where one simply ignores the realities of the day. The meek do not allow themselves to "be pushed to the end of the line" without a fight. It is just that they fight differently than their individualists counterparts. Rather than exchange shove for shove to better themselves, the meek readily seek the advancement of their peers. Their weapons are mutual respect, tolerance, compromise, cooperation, and love.

To respect you I do not have to accept your values but your value. Think of the heated debates of the day--welfare reform, affirmative action, gun control, abortion rights. How many antagonists in these conflicts find areas where they can value and respect one another? What would happen if they did?

Similarly, tolerance does not mean I must promote positions with which I disagree. It does mean I allow those who hold them to voice their views. Terrorism is the natural consequence of a society that does not allow significant expression of minority views.

Hand in hand with tolerance comes compromise. One of the negative off-shoots of today's so-called cultural wars is that Americans seem to enjoy less and less common ground with each other. Conversely, the founders of this remarkable republic celebrated their diversity within unity. On few issues did they demand all or nothing. It takes intellectually creative and morally bold people to do that. And it takes meekness; only the meek can win without having everything go their own way.

Once mutual respect , tolerance, and compromise are in place, cooperation will follow. The tough problems of the '90s will not be solved by individuals pushing their own agenda, but communities with overlapping agendas--people who seek the common good, and in it find uncommon personal success.

Yet, I would be simplistic and naive to end the discussion here. So far Russell could argue that I differ from her in semantics only. If the meek are always rewarded personally, then they may be one and the same with enlightened individualists. But the meek do not always meet with personal reward--not in this life anyway. Those Americans who died defending our freedom on the battlefield--and a host of others who gave their lives fighting disease, ignorance and injustice--did not benefit personally from their actions.

Why did they do it? Quite simply, they did it for others. They did it for love. This is why Russell is only half-right. Enlightened self-interest will do only part of the job. Love is the only force strong enough to solve the tough problems of the '90s. Love is how the me generation of our youth will become the we generation of our midlife.