In Survey, College Students Identify Progressive Policies as "Middle"

[courts]

Moderate American liberalism is in no way "left-wing". As a social democrat, I am "center-left".

there's barely any sort of right wing in the us. which makes sense because it was founded by rich liberals. even our 'conservatives' at least rhetorically speak in the language of (outdated) liberalism - 'limited government,' 'free markets,' etc. maybe a bit more peppered with talk about jesus or something but still. actual right wing ideas like organic culture, hierarchy, responsibilities over rights, etc. are foreign to the us for the most part (except maybe in the form of support for fundamentalism or worship of 'job creators'). moreover as i said before your side has basically been winning for hundreds of years now. if someone held the same social attitudes as your typical left winger 50 years ago they'd be considered right wing now.

[pbrower2a]

What's the difference between being 62 and being 22? If you are now 62, then you are unlikely to be around in 2060, and how unlivable the world will be then or how nasty the political order or economics will be in 2060 will not  matter. You will almost certainly be dead because you are unlikely to reach age 98. If global warming has taken over, then people may have been waging some horrible wars over a smaller land area that might not be as productive of food because it is more desert-like in much of it and there might be some tropical diseases reaching such places as Paris, Beijing, and Chicago.  If you were born in 1991 you will be middle-aged.  You have good cause to want the world to be livable when you are in your late 50s. If those who truly rule us bungle things or manage the economy for quick gain they might neglectfully so mess up the world that you will endure the Malthusian 'checks' of war, plague, and famine -- all nasty ways to go. Wars, plagues, and famines also bring out the worst in people

If you are 22 you can see the world from a long view  in your own interest. Someone forty years older might do so, but only out of charity.  If you are 62 and all you see is how your investments perform, then you might find quick-buck profiteering as a way to make your last years more economically comfortable.

[Vosem]

What's the difference between being 62 and being 22? If you are now 62, then you are unlikely to be around in 2060, and how unlivable the world will be then or how nasty the political order or economics will be in 2060 will not  matter. You will almost certainly be dead because you are unlikely to reach age 98. If global warming has taken over, then people may have been waging some horrible wars over a smaller land area that might not be as productive of food because it is more desert-like in much of it and there might be some tropical diseases reaching such places as Paris, Beijing, and Chicago.  If you were born in 1991 you will be middle-aged.  You have good cause to want the world to be livable when you are in your late 50s. If those who truly rule us bungle things or manage the economy for quick gain they might neglectfully so mess up the world that you will endure the Malthusian 'checks' of war, plague, and famine -- all nasty ways to go. Wars, plagues, and famines also bring out the worst in people

If you are 22 you can see the world from a long view  in your own interest. Someone forty years older might do so, but only out of charity.  If you are 62 and all you see is how your investments perform, then you might find quick-buck profiteering as a way to make your last years more economically comfortable.

So what's your solution to the inherent immorality of old people? Take away their right to vote?

My main problem with this survey is that I fit pretty comfortably into their category 'progressive', even though I think everyone on this forum could agree that, by world standards definitely but even also by American standards, I'm a pretty right-wing fellow.

[courts]

I'm curious to know how many of these students have a job.

Actually, 58% reported that they had a job. Still, I don't really understand the point you were trying to make here, since most of the ideological questions aren't related to economic matters.

i find this particular talking point really bizarre. why would 20-something barristas, bartenders, low level corporate employees, retail workers, etc. be more likely to embrace policies like abolishing/lowering minimum wage, 'privatizing' healthcare (so they have the freedom of being uninsured or worse if they have a pre-existing condition like being poor), 'flatter taxes', etc. ? i know a lot of americans are gullible, if not masochistic, but really...

[angus]

Vosem, I think one of the reasons for the popularity of these tests that merely report your political ideology as an ordered pair is precisely that they don't label you.  Political matrix, political compass, etc., just give you a (5.3, -2.7) or whatever.  It is more quantitative than the Harvard test or the selectsmart test or "the world's shortest political quiz" or whatever.  Moreover, it avoids the necessity of defining terms.  The writers of this article are stuck in the labeling mentality.  They need a label, and "progressive" is the one that they came up with to describe people who are rediscovering moral community responsibility.  I personally don't like the term either, even though I happen to agree with all of the positions that they label progressive.  We don't have to use the term--I certainly won't--but it isn't necessary to get bent out of shape when some airhead journalist decides to use it to describe the views you hold.  After all, it's not like he called you a Communist.

[Sbane]

A college study about college students.... nothing more needs to be said.

Do you really doubt the results regardless?

I doubt that it's of any value.  "Kids" (yes, I'm using that term because I'm old) are still exploring their ideals and opinions on the issues.  Many fall into group-think while others are still tied to those taught to them by their parents.  Give me a survey based upon 30-somethings and I'd be more inclinded to give it a little more weight.

I know that thinking people get more conservative as they age is popular, but it's not really true. Most people keep their political viewpoints as they age, with some movement to the right with rising income (usually correlated with age). Considering the huge margins by which the Republican party is losing young people currently, and considering their views on social issues and how much it differs from the current Republican party (as opposed to fiscal issues where minds could change), I have to say the Republican party is in for a rough 10-20 years.

[Vosem]

 We don't have to use the term--I certainly won't--but it isn't necessary to get bent out of shape when some airhead journalist decides to use it to describe the views you hold.  After all, it's not like he called you a Communist.

I don't find being called 'progressive' offensive, but rather I'm using the absurdity of calling my views that to criticize the article's conclusion.

Being a native Russian speaker, 'communist' -- both in good fun and by people seriously trying to insult me -- is a word I hear quite frequently.

[pbrower2a]

What's the difference between being 62 and being 22? If you are now 62, then you are unlikely to be around in 2060, and how unlivable the world will be then or how nasty the political order or economics will be in 2060 will not  matter. You will almost certainly be dead because you are unlikely to reach age 98. If global warming has taken over, then people may have been waging some horrible wars over a smaller land area that might not be as productive of food because it is more desert-like in much of it and there might be some tropical diseases reaching such places as Paris, Beijing, and Chicago.  If you were born in 1991 you will be middle-aged.  You have good cause to want the world to be livable when you are in your late 50s. If those who truly rule us bungle things or manage the economy for quick gain they might neglectfully so mess up the world that you will endure the Malthusian 'checks' of war, plague, and famine -- all nasty ways to go. Wars, plagues, and famines also bring out the worst in people

If you are 22 you can see the world from a long view  in your own interest. Someone forty years older might do so, but only out of charity.  If you are 62 and all you see is how your investments perform, then you might find quick-buck profiteering as a way to make your last years more economically comfortable.

So what's your solution to the inherent immorality of old people? Take away their right to vote?

My main problem with this survey is that I fit pretty comfortably into their category 'progressive', even though I think everyone on this forum could agree that, by world standards definitely but even also by American standards, I'm a pretty right-wing fellow.

Well, I am very left wing myself and I am in my late 50s. 

Youth too can be very immoral too. Violent crime is largely a pathology of troubled youth and young adults.

College students typically have no loyalty to commercial entities. Once a college grad gets a job as a manager trainee even for an awful employer (as in retailing), that adult quickly learns the company line and can no longer have the intellectual independence of a college student. Working 50-60 hours a week in a corporate setting obviously limits one's connections to people who might have other views. Expressing political values contrary to those of the top management is inconsistent with going up the corporate ladder. If the Company Way is to regurgitate what is said on FoX News Channel, then one had better not cite Rachel Maddow.

College graduates who enter the public sector or non-management positions can have more independence of thought. So it is with public employees, journalists, creative people, waiters, bartenders, clergy, medical professionals, and maybe people in the family business (especially if the owners are liberals). It might not be that professionalism keeps one independent.  If one is a geologist or accountant for an oil company it is wise to parrot the company line on global warming. 

Many people must sell out to the most rapacious and despotic figures in our economy to survive, let alone thrive, in Corporate America.  When they do they can no longer be overt liberals. If the company says that someone like George W. Bush is wonderful, it is best to say likewise even if objective reality indicates something much to the contrary.   

[AkSaber]

Actually, 58% reported that they had a job. Still, I don't really understand the point you were trying to make here, since most of the ideological questions aren't related to economic matters.

Working a job, whether it's good or not, shapes your worldview differently than enduring college exams and lectures. That's all I was after.

[Sbane]

Actually, 58% reported that they had a job. Still, I don't really understand the point you were trying to make here, since most of the ideological questions aren't related to economic matters.

Working a job, whether it's good or not, shapes your worldview differently than enduring college exams and lectures. That's all I was after.

Probably doesn't affect your social views though.

[AkSaber]

Actually, 58% reported that they had a job. Still, I don't really understand the point you were trying to make here, since most of the ideological questions aren't related to economic matters.

Working a job, whether it's good or not, shapes your worldview differently than enduring college exams and lectures. That's all I was after.

Probably doesn't affect your social views though.

Depends on the job, I believe. I'd think working in a convenience store, in a sh**tty part of town, would affect me.

[Sbane]

Actually, 58% reported that they had a job. Still, I don't really understand the point you were trying to make here, since most of the ideological questions aren't related to economic matters.

Working a job, whether it's good or not, shapes your worldview differently than enduring college exams and lectures. That's all I was after.

Probably doesn't affect your social views though.

Depends on the job, I believe. I'd think working in a convenience store, in a sh**tty part of town, would affect me.

Huh? Which views would be affected by that, especially those highlighted by this survey?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I think it should be taken into consideration that these are college students. Regardless, the results are hardly surprising. Social Conservatism is a dying breed and will probably kick the bucket as an accepted system of beliefs within the next decade or two.

[AkSaber]

Huh? Which views would be affected by that, especially those highlighted by this survey?

Wouldn't having to be with the dregs of society affect you? I know it'd make me cynical as hell.

[Sbane]

Huh? Which views would be affected by that, especially those highlighted by this survey?

Wouldn't having to be with the dregs of society affect you? I know it'd make me cynical as hell.

I am sure it would affect you, I just don't see how it would affect your views on gay marriage or abortion.

[rejectamenta]

It's not difficult to get someone to toe the conservative line if they already believe that poors (brownfolk) are in the situations they are as a circumstance of their own shiftlessness. I've witnessed a family member of mine convert from a particularly pro-union centrist type to a full blown teabagger in the last three years, and given his FB rants it seems to sprout from his belief in widespread welfare fraud.

[bballrox4717]

What's the difference between being 62 and being 22? If you are now 62, then you are unlikely to be around in 2060, and how unlivable the world will be then or how nasty the political order or economics will be in 2060 will not  matter. You will almost certainly be dead because you are unlikely to reach age 98. If global warming has taken over, then people may have been waging some horrible wars over a smaller land area that might not be as productive of food because it is more desert-like in much of it and there might be some tropical diseases reaching such places as Paris, Beijing, and Chicago.  If you were born in 1991 you will be middle-aged.  You have good cause to want the world to be livable when you are in your late 50s. If those who truly rule us bungle things or manage the economy for quick gain they might neglectfully so mess up the world that you will endure the Malthusian 'checks' of war, plague, and famine -- all nasty ways to go. Wars, plagues, and famines also bring out the worst in people

If you are 22 you can see the world from a long view  in your own interest. Someone forty years older might do so, but only out of charity.  If you are 62 and all you see is how your investments perform, then you might find quick-buck profiteering as a way to make your last years more economically comfortable.

So what's your solution to the inherent immorality of old people? Take away their right to vote?

My main problem with this survey is that I fit pretty comfortably into their category 'progressive', even though I think everyone on this forum could agree that, by world standards definitely but even also by American standards, I'm a pretty right-wing fellow.

Well, I am very left wing myself and I am in my late 50s. 

Youth too can be very immoral too. Violent crime is largely a pathology of troubled youth and young adults.

College students typically have no loyalty to commercial entities. Once a college grad gets a job as a manager trainee even for an awful employer (as in retailing), that adult quickly learns the company line and can no longer have the intellectual independence of a college student. Working 50-60 hours a week in a corporate setting obviously limits one's connections to people who might have other views. Expressing political values contrary to those of the top management is inconsistent with going up the corporate ladder. If the Company Way is to regurgitate what is said on FoX News Channel, then one had better not cite Rachel Maddow.

College graduates who enter the public sector or non-management positions can have more independence of thought. So it is with public employees, journalists, creative people, waiters, bartenders, clergy, medical professionals, and maybe people in the family business (especially if the owners are liberals). It might not be that professionalism keeps one independent.  If one is a geologist or accountant for an oil company it is wise to parrot the company line on global warming. 

Many people must sell out to the most rapacious and despotic figures in our economy to survive, let alone thrive, in Corporate America.  When they do they can no longer be overt liberals. If the company says that someone like George W. Bush is wonderful, it is best to say likewise even if objective reality indicates something much to the contrary.   

You might not be able to say it publicly, but that still doesn't stop someone from voting for Obama since it is private. There were companies that threatened to cut jobs if Obama won and  nothing happened once he won. It's just fearmongering and I haven't met or heard of anyone voting to save their jobs.

[ZuWo]

I think it should be taken into consideration that these are college students. Regardless, the results are hardly surprising. Social Conservatism is a dying breed and will probably kick the bucket as an accepted system of beliefs within the next decade or two.

Social conservatism in some forms will always exist. As society becomes more liberal over time, social conservatism will shift as well. In some 100 years we will be debating marriage between robots and those who then oppose "marriage equality" will be the social conservatives.

[Simfan34]

I think it should be taken into consideration that these are college students. Regardless, the results are hardly surprising. Social Conservatism is a dying breed and will probably kick the bucket as an accepted system of beliefs within the next decade or two.

Social conservatism in some forms will always exist. As society becomes more liberal over time, social conservatism will shift as well. In some 100 years we will be debating marriage between robots and those who then oppose "marriage equality" will be the social conservatives.

This, sadly.

[DC Al Fine]

I think it should be taken into consideration that these are college students. Regardless, the results are hardly surprising. Social Conservatism is a dying breed and will probably kick the bucket as an accepted system of beliefs within the next decade or two.

Social conservatism in some forms will always exist. As society becomes more liberal over time, social conservatism will shift as well. In some 100 years we will be debating marriage between robots and those who then oppose "marriage equality" will be the social conservatives.

This, sadly.

[pbrower2a]

Actually, 58% reported that they had a job. Still, I don't really understand the point you were trying to make here, since most of the ideological questions aren't related to economic matters.

Working a job, whether it's good or not, shapes your worldview differently than enduring college exams and lectures. That's all I was after.

If anything, holding a cr@ppy job and going to college might make one less sympathetic to profits-first bureaucracies than doing exclusively one or the other. Someone who checks merchandise at a box store and has no college education may encounter no contradiction to the idea that working people can expect to be treated badly. Someone who has college education but little working experience may see the world through rose-colored glasses. Someone who attends college while holding onto a cr@ppy job might find out who Karl Marx is and find him relevant.

[angus]

In some 100 years we will be debating marriage between robots and those who then oppose "marriage equality" will be the social conservatives.

More like the right of an android to choose its own course.  There will be an abolition movement in which the progressives want android owners to liberate their artificially-intelligent androids while the Daddy Warbucks of the world want to maintain ownership.  Gotta keep your stereotypes straight, dude.  Nobody will give a damn one way or the other whether they marry, but the question of whether they are property will merit much debate.