Are young voters really as Democratic as being portrayed?

[pbrower2a]

What Howe and Strauss define as the Millennial Generation (born 1982 until at least 2000) now seems much more libertarian on sexuality and reproductive rights (which is normal for all youth generations) than its elders... and economics, which is not to be assumed about youth. Generation X was more right-leaning than its elders on economics, believing Corporate America very trustworthy well into the 1980s. It voted as if it had a stake in the enhancement of corporate power.

The Millennial Generation acts as if it has little stake in capitalism as it sees it.  Think of what it has seen: American capitalism at its absolute worst -- an economic order that offers neither equity, security, not potential for personal growth.  At best American capitalism offers conditional survival with the goodies going to people who have no empathy for any subordinate. The few who have started businesses aren't likely making enough money to be concerned as much with taxes as with revenues. It as also seen American right-wing religion at its worst, with obnoxious personalities trying to force superstition (like creationism) and sexual repression onto them. It's a good thing that America has little heritage of Socialist or Communist movements -- or else we might see the bloating of Far Left groups.

It enters adulthood with huge student loans to pay off, so it begins its working ages sympathetic to inflation as a solution for meeting the burden of debt. Beginning in the middle of this decade it has found itself priced out of home ownership -- only to see the collapse of a corrupt boom take down much of the American economy. It has seen the bloated incomes of executives while wages freeze and jobs disappear -- and executives crack the whip as their grandparents never knew. If it has been attending high school between 2001 and 2008 it has heard history and civics teachers compare Dubya to other Presidents -- and not well. It has cause to believe that the best for America is in the past lest there be extensive reforms. Because Communism is a moribund or at the most stagnant ideology and no threat, it has not seen any Red Scare propaganda that tends to make people more conservative than they otherwise might be.

The President that it best knows (at least until January 2009) is of course George W. Bush... and even with Bill Clinton it recognizes that the Republican-dominated Congress called the shots. Dubya was not the sort of President to serve as an introduction of American politics at the best. Earlier generations at least know Ronald Reagan.

Meanwhile the Hard Right has been taking over the Republican Party -- and squeezing out the moderates.

The Millennial Generation will become more conservative as time passes, especially as it gets something worth protecting from radical schemes of redistribution and international threats. Some will have lucrative practices in law, medicine, accountancy, and the like -- but they rarely have those yet. Some will own successful businesses that project them into the Economic Right. Some will have stable and well-paying careers in private industry. When such is true of their generation, more of it will drift toward the Right. Until then it has no obvious interest in the promotion of capitalism at its most rapacious and ruthless -- or the superstitions of the Religious Right.

Until the GOP rediscovers moderate conservatism and drops fear of high taxes, immigrants, and homosexuality, and abandons its contempt for the intellect, it will continue to shrink . Whether it survives until the Millennial Generation finds something to preserve from radical assault remains without obvious resolution.

[pbrower2a]

COming from a Teen, most teens are politically retarded. By retarded I mean brainwashed.

As you are a troll, such an observation from you doesn't surprise me.  Your social and economic values suggest a fascist, and somehow "Jewish fascist" seems an oxymoron.

Did you know that you misspelled "President"? You must be retarded in your language skills.

[pbrower2a]

The President that it best knows (at least until January 2009) is of course George W. Bush... and even with Bill Clinton it recognizes that the Republican-dominated Congress called the shots. Dubya was not the sort of President to serve as an introduction of American politics at the best. Earlier generations at least know Ronald Reagan.

I am of the infamous Gen X and I have thought that part of the reason for the Republican lean among Gen Xers was that we grew up observing Democratic failure (Carter) and Republican success (Reagan).  Not that I agree with Reagan's philosophy, but he was successful in advancing his agenda.

However, those of us who are younger Gen Xers (born in the mid and late 70s) grew up under Bush I and Clinton.  Those are the Presidents I mainly remember from my youth.

Given that today's generation grew up under Bush II, one of the worst Presidents in history, their Democratic lean is not surprising.

That is a huge difference. The elder Bush wasn't a bad President; he simply couldn't offer a Second Act. Clinton achieved what may have been one of the most genuinely-conservative of Administrations, at least in finances.  Dubya? Dreadful, indeed.

When I criticize Dubya I contrast him to conservatives. 

Infamous Generation X? Obama is sometimes considered part of it. 

[pbrower2a]

Infamous Generation X? Obama is sometimes considered part of it. 

During 1990-96 (my teenage years) there was a constant stream of stories about Gen X.  The slant of the coverage was largely that we were apathetic, shallow, self-centered, cynical, slackers, materialistic, nihilistic and generally losers.  Boomer commentators sneered at our supposed lack of idealism and motivation.  Gen Xers, in turn, blamed boomers for screwing everything up for them (Gen Xers are much more likely to come from divorced families than their parents). Ours was the first generation to confront AIDS, back when it was much more frightening than it is now.  Fortunately or unfortunately, Kurt Cobain became a symbol of Gen X. 

You might be interested in the Fourth Turning debate, some of which dovetails with politics (including elections).  The vices enumerated were true of much of Generation X in the 1980s and 1990s -- but that is past. Now your generation has its own concerns -- survival in an economy run on "All for the Few" guidelines, the survival of your children, and prevention of further decay of the American way of life -- a way that used to be better and more satisfying in many respects.

You will notice that Boomers do not get off without criticism. At their worst they are ruthless, arrogant, and selfish -- the perfect combination for despots, harsh bosses, and rapacious plutocrats. Boomers came up with a flawed President (Bill Clinton) and what may be the worst in anyone's memory (Dubya -- Herbert Hoover at least had a moral compass). Boom executives pushed the megabuck compensation for corporate executives; their right-wing politicians pushed income tax cuts that could aid only the super-rich in buying out or destroying small-business competition (even in farming) while forcing regressive taxes onto everyone else to fund basic services. Boom religious leaders pushed superstition as a substitute for science on the specious claim that religious faith is the only basis of human goodness. As executives they transformed manufacturing businesses into importers. They used legalized loansharking as a means of draining cash from the middle class and the working class while they gutted manufacturing.  I look at the Boomer Right and I see a dream of a return, if not to the plantation Tara, then to an aristocratic order in all but name in which most people exist solely to enrich and pamper elites -- something like pre-1917 Russia, only with more religious fervor as an anodyne and a control.




 

 

[pbrower2a]

Infamous Generation X? Obama is sometimes considered part of it. 

During 1990-96 (my teenage years) there was a constant stream of stories about Gen X.  The slant of the coverage was largely that we were apathetic, shallow, self-centered, cynical, slackers, materialistic, nihilistic and generally losers.  Boomer commentators sneered at our supposed lack of idealism and motivation.  Gen Xers, in turn, blamed boomers for screwing everything up for them (Gen Xers are much more likely to come from divorced families than their parents). Ours was the first generation to confront AIDS, back when it was much more frightening than it is now.  Fortunately or unfortunately, Kurt Cobain became a symbol of Gen X. 

You might be interested in the Fourth Turning debate, some of which dovetails with politics (including elections).  The vices enumerated were true of much of Generation X in the 1980s and 1990s -- but that is past. Now your generation has its own concerns -- survival in an economy run on "All for the Few" guidelines, the survival of your children, and prevention of further decay of the American way of life -- a way that used to be better and more satisfying in many respects.

You will notice that Boomers do not get off without criticism. At their worst they are ruthless, arrogant, and selfish -- the perfect combination for despots, harsh bosses, and rapacious plutocrats. Boomers came up with a flawed President (Bill Clinton) and what may be the worst in anyone's memory (Dubya -- Herbert Hoover at least had a moral compass). Boom executives pushed the megabuck compensation for corporate executives; their right-wing politicians pushed income tax cuts that could aid only the super-rich in buying out or destroying small-business competition (even in farming) while forcing regressive taxes onto everyone else to fund basic services. Boom religious leaders pushed superstition as a substitute for science on the specious claim that religious faith is the only basis of human goodness. As executives they transformed manufacturing businesses into importers. They used legalized loansharking as a means of draining cash from the middle class and the working class while they gutted manufacturing.  I look at the Boomer Right and I see a dream of a return, if not to the plantation Tara, then to an aristocratic order in all but name in which most people exist solely to enrich and pamper elites -- something like pre-1917 Russia, only with more religious fervor as an anodyne and a control.

Calm down. We're not even close to being 19th century Russia.

The best way of describing our economic capacity and our financial institutions in the 1990s and this decade is "pearls before swine". 

We were headed in a very bad direction in part because of the worst traits of the Boom generation. They haven't all been tossed to the curb, but the last act (of influence upon history)  is over for those who exemplify the vices. The Gini coefficient, a measure of economic inequality, resembled that of Mexico -- and it was even worse than the one of 1929. Think about it; in eighty years, the ethnic component of inequality has become less severe not only due to the rise of non-WASP white groups but also the formal repudiation of segregationist abuse of blacks. The rural-urban divide and the regional divide aren't as severe as they used to be. It's hard to believe that those with stewardship over our industrial resources could foul things up so badly -- but they did precisely that.

That bad phase of American history is all but over.

[pbrower2a]

Speaking as a teenager, and a staunch conservative, young voters aren't necessarily as liberal as everyone believes. Many of my friends supported Obama, but were also somewhat moderate on social issues; some were pro-life and others opposed to gay marriage. I agree with some of the comments on this thread that one of the main reasons Obama dominated among young voters was because of Bush's and the GOP's failures. After all, Reagan won young voters twice and Bush Sr. won them in 1988. Not to say that we only vote based on how well the incumbent party is doing, but we also tend not to follow politics as closely as older voters do, so more often than not make decisions based on how well we perceive the country is doing rather than on one specific issue.

What your buddies believe is no valid representation of America. Analogy: I have seen youth claim that "everyone uses drugs". The reality of such a claim is that everyone that those youth know uses drugs because if one is a drug user one is likely to congregate among those who also use drugs because such offers some comfort.  Alcoholics typically overestimate the number of alcoholics; gays and lesbians typically overestimate the incidence of homosexuality; church-goers overestimate the proportion of church-goers.

The young voters who supported Reagan and GHWB are now middle-aged or approaching it, and they had good cause to be more conservative in economics and social values (except sex, and youth are typically more permissive about sexuality than their elders) than America as a whole. They remembered Carter-era failure as a wishy-washy, eccentric liberal. Today's youngest voters -- not to mention those who will be voting for the first time in 2010 and 2012 -- remember Dubya-era failure that permeated not only the executive branch but also Congress.

They won't go conservative until they have a stake in the Establishment that now consists of the Religious Right (which they despise for superstition) and tycoons and executives whom they see as exploiters.  They see the potential for glass ceilings as their predecessors didn't, and those glass ceilings look much lower and more ominous because glass ceilings now imply poverty and economic insecurity.  They are likely to see government as a mediator between themselves and bureaucratic organizations and as originators of paid work on government projects intended to reduce unemployment. Until they pay high income taxes (few are yet in lucrative professions due to the length of the training-- yet) or successful businesses that they own and operate, they won't be concerned about taxes that others pay. 

[pbrower2a]

I guess what really gets to me is that people were discussing about how Obama had some sort of "special appeal" toward youths. Not me. I absolutely despised him during the campaign. Now I don't hate him like I used to but I feel no special connection to the man.

If America split 52-47, the youngest voters split about 60-40. There's nothing wrong in being among the 40. Maybe the Right side of the political spectrum will prove right in its assessment of America's needs. Maybe you are one of those who believes that because some executive's signature on your paycheck (or such is implied on the automatic transfer of your pay to a bank account) that you owe loyalty to your boss on politics. Maybe your family owns a business and you believe that a good business climate means one lenient toward the choices of business owners.

Some people think that Obama is still a dangerous demagogue,  loyalties suspect or misplaced. Some find his ability to attract young and enthusiastic voters scary.  Some think that he was grossly unqualified to lead America, having never run a business with the responsibility to meet a payroll. I have seen people compare him to Adolf Hitler (of all people, showing how hysterical people can get) in e-mails.

[pbrower2a]

If voters born between November 5, 1990 and November 6, 1994 are as liberal-leaning as voters between ages 18 and 29 were on Election Day 2008, then the Democratic trend should be strong in all states -- to the detriment of the GOP -- even if nothing else changes other than the usual attrition of older voters from the electorate due to death and senescence. That alone would be enough to swing Missouri, Montana, and Georgia to Obama in 2012, and it will be enough to solidify Democratic majorities in North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.

[pbrower2a]

But you are dismissing the fact that people get more conservative as they get older. Case in point, McCain won the 65+ group by a greater margin than Bush.

Not so fast! People generally become less radical and more cautious with age. They tend toward the political center and not across it.

The GI Generation (born in the first quarter of the 20th Century) was generally much more liberal at all stages of life than were its predecessors, the Lost Generation born late in the 19th. I saw a pattern for the GI Generation in the D-R split and that contingent born in 1914 was one of the most Democratic-leaning age groups ever. The most conservative (Republican-leaning) were generally born in the late 1930s. Such is a huge part of the elderly, and in 2000 it wasn't yet elderly. Another set of R-leaning voters was to be found born in the early 1960s, and they have readily voted for Republican candidates since Ronald Reagan -- and they were critical to the victories of Reagan and GHWB.  They voted for Clinton when the Radical Right posed a threat to personal freedom through the imposition of superstition and sexual repression, and voted for Dubya when such seemed less threatening.  Voters born in the late 1950s were comparatively D-leaning, and still are.

Should you wish to predict that adults born after 1980 will become more conservative through some rebound effect -- perhaps. But only when they find some cause to become conservatives will they become less liberal. They will have to advance through corporate bureaucracies instead of hitting glass ceilings and falling into piked pits as is now the norm for people not born into the "right families". Their businesses will have to show strong cash flow that makes them dread high taxes more than they now dread low revenue. They will have to start enjoying the Good Life through lucrative practices in the professions. They don't do so yet. Ten years from now? Maybe. Then there might be a conservative rebound as they try to protect the political reforms of their time.

It is more likely that today's young adults will trust Big Government for cradle-to-grave health care and subsidized education and labor unions as moderators of economic harshness than give unqualified faith to corporate bureaucrats. The core values that people establish by age 20 don't change. 

[pbrower2a]

I've always wondered why voters 30-44 tend to be so conservative.

1. They often have children and concerns about the culture in which their children live.

2. They are jockeying for positions within bureaucracies, and at times they know well the wisdom of having a "Bush/Cheney'04" bumper sticker on the bumper even if they hate the pair. Such just might impress the Boss.

[pbrower2a]

One narrative I keep hearing is that one of the reasons the GOP is in trouble is because it is doing poorly with young people who are more supportive of the liberal agenda.

As a "young person" myself, I really don't think the GOP has "turned a generation against them" as it is commonly said. I think Republican problems in this area can largely be linked to Bush's failures and the fact that the media protected Obama for many disengaged voters. As these voters grow up they will become more politically saavy and lest reactive.

In other words I don't think that young people are exceptionally liberal, and that some of this is a function of the fact that their are more minorities in this group.

Look at the numbers. The shift between how Al Gore carried the 18-29 group in 2000. Likewise John Kerry in 2004. And with Election 2008, the performance in that group with Barack Obama.

Look to elections of the past that were Realignment Elections. And take stock of who is constantly saying we're in a center-right country: Republicans, who won the previous seven of the previous ten elections (1968-2004). It cannot be considered center-right when Democrats also laid claim to seven of the ten elections that had preceded that period (1928-1964).

If one believes in the cycular, the news is horrible for the GOP: the demographics are in place for Democrats to prevail with more than the majority of the next generation or so (beginning with Election 2008).

Add to this -- they are going to be a huge number of the elected public officials beginning about ten years from now when they are aged 28-39. 

[pbrower2a]

Young voters are much less likely to be white than older voters. This is the most important factor.

They are also better educated for their age than young adults of similar age, and more rational.  They are more urban and suburban than older generations. They are far less likely than older adults to be members of the Religious Right, a constituency that fed millions of uncritical votes to the GOP .

They are likely to enter adulthood with both heavy debt (student loans) and economic insecurity and have seen story after story of executive incompetence, rapaciousness, corruption, and outright cruelty in business, so about the only thing that contemporary capitalism reliably offers is consumer choice.  Whatever their ethnicity they have less immediate stake in the usual "Sound Money" interests usually associated with the GOP.

They have yet to start getting huge incomes from professional practices, and such small businesses as they may have started have yet to become profitable enough that they concern themselves more with taxes than with revenue.   

But here's the big one: the only President that any of them can have known while adults before January 20, 2009 is George W. Bush. They did pay attention to their Civics and American history classes, and they contrast Dubya to earlier Presidents -- and he seems dreadful.