The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
First the independents spurned him. Then the babies. Now, in a truly stunning development, Obama is losing the under-30 demographic:
The college vote is up for grabs this year — to an extent that would have seemed unlikely two years ago, when a generation of young people seemed to swoon over Barack Obama. Though many students are liberals on social issues, the economic reality of a weak job market has taken a toll on their loyalties: far fewer 18- to 29-year-olds now identify themselves as Democrats compared with 2008.
It's almost as if libertarians and conservatives still stand on a vast swath of common ground. What an irony that it would take a generation of college students to remind us of this fact, and that it would be Barack Obama himself who would awaken them to it. The long night of the Obama Zombies might come to an end at last.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
Maybe the young are finally starting to understand that the people in government, career and elected, spending money hand over fist, and arranging generous retirement benefits for themselves, are not the ones who'll be paying the bills. They will. They won't have the American Dream, but they'll pay for someone else's dream--someone in government.
Aug '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
Conservatives will only truly gain traction with young voters when they are no longer viewed as "anti-gay and anti-immigrant." Certainly, their are pro-gay marriage and pro-immigration conservatives, but the narrative is that there aren't and young voters are particularly susceptible to media effects.
The conservative focus on individual rights and individual responsibilities is a compelling one, particularly when combined with Classical Liberalism, but the populist conservative focus on traditional values -- as opposed to Classical Virtues -- is a weak spot when trying to recruit younger voters.
May '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
I previously made the argument that the under 30 crowd voted for Obama in large part simply because they wanted to elect the first black president. I see no reason to retract that. Now that that has been achieved, it's not surprising to see the percentages normalize given the state of the economy. I doubt you'll see a huge shift to the GOP. It's more likely the young will largely sit on their hands during the midterms, which they're prone to do anyway.
Edited on Sep 3, 2010 at 10:21amJun '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
Nathaniel Wright: Conservatives will only truly gain traction with young voters when they are no longer viewed as "anti-gay and anti-immigrant." Certainly, their are pro-gay marriage and pro-immigration conservatives, but the narrative is that there aren't and young voters are particularly susceptible to media effects.
The conservative focus on individual rights and individual responsibilities is a compelling one, particularly when combined with Classical Liberalism, but the populist conservative focus on traditional values -- as opposed to Classical Virtues -- is a weak spot when trying to recruit younger voters. ·
Nathaniel: I disagree. How is it that traditional marriage is merely a value but not a virtue? Given my religious bent, I believe a traditional marriage is the ultimate virtue. What do you mean by "anti-immigrant"? Should we scrap all immigration laws and declare our borders open? Should we pass immigration laws, then not enforce them? Shouldn't all persons who desire to immigrate to the U.S. be subject to the same rules? And where is it writ in stone that immigration is a huge issue for young voters--aren't young people competing with immigrants for jobs?
Edited on Sep 3, 2010 at 11:00amAug '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
This is their initiation and trial by fire into the cynical, craven, venal, and soulless nature of politics. They'll never forget it, and that's good. For many years to come they'll have disappointment and unemployment - or if they're lucky underemployment - which will mold their souls and temper their spirits.
It will be painful and many will fall. Our only hope - and it's a solid hope for all of us - is that we learn from our delusions and bad judgment.
Conservatism teaches the real world limits of life and nature; human as well as planetary nature. It's the surest anti-body for magical thinking and Utopianism, without which 'progressives' are dead.
May '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
I'm reminded of Tesla's song Mama's Fool: "mama, I ain't no fool / I've just been fooled again."
This is a temporary victory, though a significant one. Yes, many who voted for Obama have wisened up, and that's great. But you can be sure that mindless idealism and cults of personality will strike again.
When it happens again, we'll do well to remember that the way to fight an idol is not logical argument, but counteractive appeals to the other aspects of human nature (emotion and will). Republicans need to learn to adapt.
Edited on Sep 3, 2010 at 2:39pmRe: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
Aaron Miller: When it happens again, we'll do well to remember that the way to fight an idol is not logical argument, but counteractive appeals to the other aspects of human nature (emotion and will). Republicans need to learn to adapt. · Sep 3 at 2:37pm
Edited on Sep 03 at 02:39 pm
I'm curious, Aaron -- what do you have in mind? Some appeals to emotion and will that the West's parties of the right have relied on are pretty discredited; others are still pretty marginal. This gets us back in some ways to the question of civil religion. But I also think it gets us back to the idea of family policy, and the ambivalences folks on the right run into when they try to use government to promote family.
Aug '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
James Poulos, Ed.
But I also think it gets us back to the idea of family policy, and the ambivalences folks on the right run into when they try to use government to promote family.
Well, "policy that promotes families" has different meanings to different people. Is a policy promoting families one that doesn't actively interfere with families? Some people seem to think it is.
Is state recognition of the marriage bond and the family it forms an interference or is it merely acknowledging a fact of human nature that it's foolish for the state to ignore?
Is an income tax that gets lower as the ratio of household members to household income goes up artificially promoting families, or is it acknowledging the natural fact that the bigger the household, the less income per household member there is?
To what extent are families a natural fact of human life that the state is bound to recognize and to what extent is the family an artificial construct that the state may ignore or alter as it pleases?
May '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
James Poulos, Ed.
Some appeals to emotion and will that the West's parties of the right have relied on are pretty discredited; others are still pretty marginal. This gets us back in some ways to the question of civil religion.
It's funny you say that, because my immediate reaction to the first statement was to think of Glenn Beck, who is widely panned by conservative pundits for his style and criticized for "civil religion".
Three of the most popular conservative commentators right now of any medium are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. While I have problems with all three, I believe each is respectable. One core aspect all three have in common is personal appeal. They're not representative of only our logic. They're representative of our anger, our joys, our humor, etc. They're people first, believers second.
Compare the average Republican Congressman's persona while being interviewed or giving a speech on TV with one of those show hosts. Politicians don't need to be sensational (unless faced with a symbolic figure like Obama), but they need to be more than vending machines for political goals.
Emotional voters need to see emotion.
May '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
Now that I think about it, go back and look at the episodes of Uncommon Knowledge where Peter, Rob and Mark watch videos of Reagan speeches and talk about him. How much time did they spend talking about his personal character? How often do conservatives love to repeat his jokes and witticisms?
Political icons are more than ideological leaders. They're amiable and inspiring. Their speeches are moving. Their smiles are genuine. And their jokes are good.
Look at Sarah Palin. She might not be the proven conservative we're all hoping for, but she is the mirror image of Obama. She connects to people on a personal level.
Edited on Sep 3, 2010 at 3:22pmRe: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
So here we are talking about charisma again -- a topic worthy of a conversation to itself.
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: Well, "policy that promotes families" has different meanings to different people. Is a policy promoting families one that doesn't actively interfere with families? Some people seem to think it is.
Is state recognition of the marriage bond and the family it forms an interference or is it merely acknowledging a fact of human nature that it's foolish for the state to ignore?
Is an income tax that gets lower as the ratio of household members to household income goes up artificially promoting families, or is it acknowledging the natural fact that the bigger the household, the less income per household member there is?
To what extent are families a natural fact of human life that the state is bound to recognize and to what extent is the family an artificial construct that the state may ignore or alter as it pleases?
Those are among the right questions. What are your answers, MFR?
May '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
Rattlesnake (the Texan in me prefers that abbreviation to MFR), Republican candidates do need to be open about their specific views on specific issues. But that should not be their focus. Republicans are already in danger of diluting their message by trying to cram too much in. A strong promotion is a simple one.
At least for this November, the only message Republicans need to emphasize is the basic principle summed up on this old battle flag. Reduce government to secure individual freedom. Any policy point that can't be traced back to that maxim should not be in a political ad. Repeat it constantly. Hammer it into public perception of the Party. Big government makes small citizens. Tear D.C. down, dollar by dollar.
Aug '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
James Poulos, Ed.
Those are among the right questions. What are your answers, MFR?
I'm not sure I have good answers to those questions.
But I'd say a policy that doesn't go out of its way to interfere with families isn't the same as a policy that artificially promotes them.
I do think family is a fact of nature (much as I used to reflect on my own family and wish that it weren't) and the state can't treat us as entirely atomistic individuals. Families take differing forms in different cultures, showing that some aspects of "family life" can be "constructed", but I think it's unwise for the state to assume it can alter or ignore traditional family life at will. And I think the state has some role in enforcing parental and spousal obligations, as it enforces other contracts.
As for taxes, I have little understanding of our byzantine tax structure. It doesn't strike me as blatantly outrageous, however, for a family with less income per household member to pay less in taxes. Maybe that's a question of measurement. Do we measure income per household or income per household member?
Jul '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
I can agree with you on the "anti-gay" part. That argument is over.
But I'm curious about your take on "anti-immigrant". I've never come across any discussion about immigration being a swing issue for youth.
Quite the opposite, actually, as most kids self-segregate in schools and in their personal lives and I believe that the more aware young people are beginning to realize that immigrants drive down wages and compete for jobs.
May '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
Some of these discussions on youth voting habits credit the young with more depth than they actually have. George W. had been president for their entire adult lives. They were A) bored with him, as the young tend to quickly become, and B) vaguely aware that times were better under Clinton, a Democrat. Throw in the impulse to rebel, the black president thing, and the mild indoctrination from schooling, and "Change" had appeal. There was no deep examination of issues, and therefore their support was bound to be volatile.
They'll acquire more sense and solidity in their opinions as they age. It would therefore be a disaster to tailor our message to them: we have the wisdom, not them. Through experience, mostly, and with the help of our good arguments, a great many will soon enough discover that the facts of life are conservative.
May '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
Most have probably already heard it, but there's an expression about this:
If you're young and not a Democrat, you have no heart. If you're old and not a Republican, you have no head.
Aug '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
Aaron Miller: Most have probably already heard it, but there's an expression about this:
If you're young and not a Democrat, you have no heart. If you're old and not a Republican, you have no head. · Sep 3 at 9:51pm
Yabbut. Being young myself, it's hard for me to see Democrat policies towards the poor (minimum wage laws that create unemployment, bad incentives that punish poor people's good habits and degrade their humanity, and schools that damage their children) as having a heart. Love is not supposed to be only an emotion or intention, it's also supposed to be a kind of wisdom and action.
If the young vote with the heart rather than the head, perhaps it's wise to point out to them how heartless many good intentions turn out to be.
May '10
Re: The Youth Vote: Won't Get Fooled Again?
Rather than try to explain to young voters, perhaps it would be better to produce simple ads with Before and After pictures. Thomas Sowell says the Harlem he grew up in was worlds better than modern Harlem. Alright, so let's put those pictures side by side and pass them along.
"This is your brain on Democrats."