Young Folk
Greg Anrig posed the question, and over at his blog, Matt Yglesias offered an answer, about what progressives can do to politically engage twenty-somethings (Matt says: not much, other than focusing on young parents with a tangible stake in bread-and-butter policy issues).
As an old goat from the generation that originally spawned interest in The Youth Vote, I have a couple of thoughts about the general nature of young voters and what it might suggest to political analysts.
Matt's right in suggesting that the Big Themes which might galvanize young single voters carry a big down-side with other categories of the electorate. And there's a persistent and probably unavoidable intergenerational divide that not only affects issue perceptions, but also the proclivity to vote in the first place.
Nearly a decade ago, I asked Democratic pollster Mark Penn his opinion about the perennial question of why non-voters don't vote, and he responded that the best predictor of willingness to vote was not income, not race or gender, not educational attainments, and not ideology, but "rootedness." People with a stable, tangible stake in a particular community tend to become civically involved, and then politically engaged. Young single people, from both poor and middle-class backgrounds, tend to move around a lot; typically don't own homes; generally don't have the kind of incomes that produce large tax liabilities; and have interests that are remote from politics.
In other words, there's a rational basis for the cynical tendency of pols to write off the Youth Vote as too small and too complicated to harvest. Unfortunately, this tendency is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy that underestimates the potential value, however limited, of young voters.
There's another perennial characteristic of young voters--or at least those from backgrounds that enable them to legitimately aim at upward mobility--that should guide efforts to reach out to them.
One of the universal aspects of the American experience is the transition that most of us make over the course of our lives from unlimited horizons to experience-based limitations on our interests and expectations. At some point, most of us figure out that we are not going to play shortstop for the New York Yankees or compete in the Olympics; win a Nobel Prize or a Grammy; become the next Mother Teresa or Snoop Dog; or marry a Kennedy. That's when our political views, if we have them, begin to converge with our practical interests as people who are negotiating the best possible end-game for our lives, and for the future prospects of our progeny.
Twenty-somethings--or at least those among them who are not already burdened by children or parents, inadequate skills, discrimination, unemployment, deep poverty, or some combination of the above--are at a very different point on the hope/experience continuum. And that suggests the single most important element of politically appealing to these young single middle-class voters is optimism: an agenda of hope and aspiration that matches their own sense of unlimited opportunity and openness to change. Lord knows the GOP has already figured this out, but Democrats can easily match and trump their message to Young Folk, because we actually do have some ideas for expanding opportunity and changing our politics.
This is a very insightful snapshot of the generation.
I would add that no one has bothered to give them a reason to care:
--High school civics classes are a joke. How a bill becomes a law is a necessary tidbit of information, but it doesn't show students how the government affects their lives, nor does it give them any insight into the true nature and distribution of power in politics and society.
--Horse-race and strategic-frame news coverage of elections, and of politics in general, reduces citizens to spectators. If my students want to see a bunch of people call each other names, they'll watch The Real World.
While I agree with your argument as an empirical description of the generation's apathy, I believe that lack of rootedness only causes disengagement because no one bothers to show young, transient citizens why the government matters every bit as much to their lives as to families.
For example, I strongly disagree with the notion that young people "generally don't have the kind of incomes that produce large tax liabilities." If you mean federal income tax, yes. But lower- and middle-class workers pay a higher % of their income to FICA tax, and most notably to state and local taxes, than wealthy citizens. So they should care.
You note that they don't own homes. Fine. But has anyone bothered to tell them that renters subsidize the government services of home owners? They might care if they knew. And, for that matter, single workers subsidize families.
So there may be a "basis" for their apathy -- but it sure isn't rational.
June 30, 2005 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad you asked. I agree with Matt that it makes no sense for politicians to overly cater to young people for the three reasons he notes. The most counterproductive youth outreach strategies have to do with trying to counter our (supposed) electoral apathy. In the short term of an election year, this might be all well and could. And for election strategists trying to get their particular candidate to win, this might be fine as well.
But in terms of creating a new generation of public intellectuals who will craft the policy solutions to evolving challenges, talking about voting is a paper moon. The great success of the right-wing youth movement isn't the electorally-based College Republicans; it's the party-transcending public intellectual movement based in channelling smart young conservatives into the ranks of the punditocracy and think tank communities.
The point is this: in order to politically-engage young people, you have to talk to them about ideas, not elections. Matt's right that young people think way, way too much about the cultural issues that most people think have to de-emphasized by the party. This is because there's an assumption that nothing else will light a fire under them to get them to vote. But this isn't true- and the solution isn't talking about college loans, either. Talking about issues like social security, for example, in an effective way can galvanize us, because we're the ones who ultimately have the most at stake in these debates.
The thing to be building is a policy majority, not an electoral one. The first one will breed the second, but the second will be meaningless without the first.
June 30, 2005 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The future facing 20-somethings is pretty challenging:
- global warming
- peak oil
- competition for resources with the Chinese
- Baby boom's second childhood
- proliferation of nukes
- erosion of job market, outsourcing
to name a few.
In spite of the inevitable 'optimism' of youth, there's got to be some anxiety out there about this stuff. I know I'm glad I'll either be dead or firmly ensconced in my own 'second childhood' before most of the worst hits.
Instead of trying to find 'hot-button' issues maybe take a general approach -- call it 'Securing the Future.' A public/private sector coordinated effort to find solutions to these thorny problems. Contrast it to the current majority's head-in-the-sand approach on most of this. Or maybe it's a cross-your-fingers-and-hope-for-the-rapture strategy.
June 30, 2005 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
the issues need to be articulated in such a way that young people feel they have a stake in the outcome. That means talking about the impact of a privatized social security system on the retirement security of today's 20 somethings. It means talking about the need to develop a grand strategy that protects America for generations to come. It does <B>not</B> mean talking about how 'wonderful' it would be if young people voted. That's a very shallow, easy way of going about it, and does a whole lot more damage than good. When people have issues they care about, they'll vote. But they've got to take an interest in, and understand, the issues first.
(NB: I think this is beginning to happen, so I'm optimistic about a future progressive majority. But we should note that this meant getting far, far beyond Rock the Vote).
June 30, 2005 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a terrific idea.
June 30, 2005 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with your argument as an empirical description of the generation's apathy, I believe that lack of rootedness only causes disengagement because no one bothers to show young, transient citizens why the government matters every bit as much to their lives as to families.
I do think this is key. I grew up in a suburb of Hartford, CT. I was fortunate I was in a very well rooted family middle-class family in a progressive community of the 60's and 70's. It was drilled into me at school and at home how important it is to vote, at a very young age. In fact I remember in '68 waiting for my parents to vote and asking them who they voted for. My mom said Humphrey much to the dismay of my dad (and I turned out liberal like my mom, much to the dismay of my dad...again). But they were my role models. Once I turned 18 I have never failed to vote. So I can vouch first hand about. Too many people either think their vote doesn't matter or just don't care. I don't know if there is a higher level of those attitudes in the poorer urban centers. But I am guessing if half of the people in Florida, who wanted to see Gore win and who said "my vote doesn't make a difference", went to the polls Al Gore would have succeeded Bill Clinton.
It should be instilled at a young age the importance of voting. Especially in urban schools!!! I know it is being done in the 'burbs, but I don't know how much that is done in the schools of the bigger cities. I think the best way to combat the problem of apathy is reaching out to future voters at, hopefully through family and school. But if not both at least through school, stressing the importance of voting.
June 30, 2005 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a good discussion would be what got us interested in politics in conjunction with our backgrounds. Let's see if there is some kind of common strand that got us so interested in civics.
June 30, 2005 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have spoken with several college students about why, when they support the war, do they refuse to fight. Most answer that their parents are Republicans, and thusly they are, their parents would rather them stay in school.
While there is rebelling against parental control on most issues, voting doesn't seem to be one of them. People seem to vote for who their parents vote for, regardless of changing circumstances.
Sure, when you have so many broken homes and single-parents these days, the family voting dynamic breaks down a bit (although the child generally gravitates to one side or another), but it isn't the kids we should be working on. It's the parents.
The twenty-something vote Ed is talking about are those who care more about the next keg party than the next election. When they do vote, they tend to vote for their parent's traditional affiliation, or whatever is popular at the time.
Most of these kids have never worked in the real world. They have never had any responsibility. And they assume that whatever happens, their parents will pick up the bill.
I think this (partly, anyway) explains the enormous dissent on Social Security. The parent's are not looking at their best interest, they are looking at the kids who they will end up supporting, and/or who may not be able to support them, if Social Securiy is gone.
The youth vote is great, but here is my second point. 20-something young men are full of piss and vinegar. When a president/party/etc says f-em all, bomb 'em all, the testosterone starts flowing, especially in those who like to "fight" on the sidelines.
Let me close with an example. I recently spoke with a Republican pro-war college student, 22 years old. His grandfather, a WWII vet (and a Republican) had supported him in school. He actually felt that he would be doing a disservice to his grandfather if he joined the military. And I'll betcha the grandfather, who also supports the war, would agree.
Logic these days are out the window. It's statements more than actions. Anyone who challenges a statement is "taking it out of context." If anyone is called on anything, we "agree to disagree."
I applaud Ed's efforts, and feel he is on the right track. But these kids need something to stand behind. They need a bandwagon to jump on. They need a cause.
Right now, while Social Security is a cause for us, they have not yet developed forward-thinking skills to understand the future ramifications. The war, on the other hand, seems to resonate. Talk about a draft, or ask them to enlist, and they become automatically defensive.
Until we educate these kids on how their positions will affect their future, they will lok to their parents for guidance. And the "opt-out" families are already making in-roads into this position.
Call up a draft, this war ends tomorrow. Admit to wanting to end Social Security, private accounts end tomorrow.
But it starts with the parents, not the kids. The kids just wanna party, because they know they are in no danger and mommy and daddy will bail them out. Take out that safety net, and then they will appreciate what a safety net is all about.
June 30, 2005 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ed, in an earlier thread, a poster commented that his fear, during his 20s, which he still feels now, is "A life of drudgery." Is making that not an issue somehow beyond politics? I don't think it is... so long as we view the economy as something to be guided by politics, rather than something that guides it.
June 30, 2005 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, what are your views of what will move young voters based on? Polls of the group? your personal friends? People from Princeton or where? Everyone's talking about Social Security now, and it is a good indicator overall of what the Republican Party is about -- that is, as a 'big idea' issue not a calculation of interests.
I disagree that the issues that move 20 somethings would turn off other voters. You have the environment -- global warming etc. and health care coverage, and you have the attempt to eviscerate Social Security. It would be great to play back ads from previous elections about how "Democrats are trying to scare seniors" on Social Security, then cut to one of those demos you mentioned (or even someone like you describing it), and clips of rallies with hey hey ho ho Social Security has got to go, and some choice quotes from the major RW thinktanks along the same lines. The juxtaposition suggests both reactionary politics AND extreme duplicity. I'll bet a lot of young voters don't clearly remember the election campaigns of 1996 and 1992. Hey I remember that mantra repeated in 1984, if my mind isnt' too addled!
Then there's a war increasingly unpopular war for a constituency that voted in record numbers in 2004 since they had the franchise (18-21) and voted heavily leaning to Kerry. I think the problem is that turnout in off year Congressional elections is low, so turnout needs to be worked on. To get a canvass and list of students in each dorm or coop or frat house to canvass all their housemates on election day and get them to vote -- and MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE ENOUGH VOTING MACHINES ON THE CAMPUSES. If you can do the legwork that produces high turnout on the campuses and in 'youth ghettoes' that exist around universities and certain other places, you have a big edge.
I would be interested in your ideas about the posting I put up on the other thread about the youth vote. This one is more nuts and bolts, though there is some overlap.
June 30, 2005 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take a page from The Truth, the anti-tobacco campaign. Their short, MTV-like ads focus on the lies that tobacco companies have told and the tricks they've used to sucker in young smokers. The ads mention cancer in passing but the message isn't "Don't smoke; you'll get cancer." It's "Fight these greedy fat cat liars."
The same campaign could work for democrats. The current administration caters to the greediest, is remarkably dishonest, and uses sneaky tricks to sell their policies. Young people who don't immediately see why they should care about foreign policy or the economy will care more about being tricked by cynical older people in power.
June 30, 2005 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent observation.
Concept for an electoral ad. Vox pop street interviews with 18-25 year olds. How are you going to vote? Why?
Democrat interviewees (who look cool and smart) say that the Dems have their flaws but they have a better handle on the big medium to long term issues you listed.
Republican voters (who look dorky & dumb) "I was brought up that way" "Daddy says" "I trust the President" "my pastor says" "[extremist gibberish]"
And like Siddique says -- it's issues-based, not interest-based; except that the big issues - the long-term ones - ARE the interest issues of the young voter.
June 30, 2005 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to help create more progressives for the future, concentrate on your own kids. Teach them to be compassionate to others and to always imagine that the world can be improved, that just because something is shitty now doesn't mean it always has to be. Compassion and idealism are the cores of progressivism.
June 30, 2005 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buuut, for drawing in twenty-somethings all I can suggest is keep stepping up support and/or encouragement to college progressives to get bigger and stronger. That's for the future leaders and opinion makers. For just ordinary twenty-something 9-5ers it's anything that helps with getting the coveted "rootendness", like home ownership incentives, good wages, secure healtcare and so on.
June 30, 2005 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
From staleync's post:
"The twenty-something vote Ed is talking about are those who care more about the next keg party than the next election. When they do vote, they tend to vote for their parent's traditional affiliation, or whatever is popular at the time."
This is ridiculous. I personally have never been to a keg party. Even if this were a ubiquitous phenomenon, it would not help to explain why the youth don't vote in the numbers political strategists wish they would. There may be an group of people who drive minivans and care more about keeping their lawn in pristine shape than I do-- but I wouldn't use such a stereotype to explain why they do or don't vote. What's the connection? That "young people" are too drunk to vote? That those who drink sometimes can't hold coherent thoughts about policy?
Even more, this keg metaphor seems to best describes the stereotypical freshman frat boy. Not a twentysomething. People in their twenties are college graduates. They are doctors, lawyers, MBAs, musicians, parents, uncles, PhDs, and all the rest. We are fully adult, though our lives have not yet settled in ways that make us easy to pigeonhole.That we would all be lumped in with a fratboy club is ridiculous and offensive. Moreover, it completely misses the point of the original post- to suggest that there are understandable reasons for the statistical fact that young people vote less often than older people.
I am also suspicious of the other conclusion drawn, that young people just vote in whichever way their parents do regardless of circumstance. Surely this is somewhat true, but most thirtysomething vote the way their parents do too, and for good reasons (shared values, background, etc). In any case, going after the "parents" is not a viable strategy for changing the youth vote. I have never met someone who would change their vote simply because their parents changed theirs. A better bet would be to try to convince the youth that you are up to something positive, and perhaps get them to raise their kids with these ideals in mind.
I spent some time trying to decide why staceyny's post was so offensive. Its not just that its a blatant stereotype, and a completely false one at that. Its that its a stereotype combined with the argument that somehow the voices of twentysomethings aren't worth catering to. And this is ridiculous. First, the democratic party shouldn't be throwing away any votes. Second, these are people who will be voting for several decades. And third, we twentysomethings are a group who, I suspect, have reason to feel that our voices are never catered to in an honest way, and I know personally that I would like it to be.
I won't pretend to speak for everyone who was born within 5 years of me. But I will say that I am more than a little fed up with being sold false messages- not least from Bush and Co. But what is the conclusion of staceync's post? that we are too stupid to know the difference:
"Logic these days are out the window. It's statements more than actions....But these kids need something to stand behind. They need a bandwagon to jump on. They need a cause. "
This is the worst message anyone could give me if they want my vote. Even a 5 year old knows when they are being marketed to- we learn that concept early. If you want to keep my vote for decades to come, you had best not wash it down into marketing techniques and phony "causes" and ideological "bandwagons". Come on. I expect a compelling case could be made that twentysomething are more attuned and skeptical of marketing and politicians than anyone else. And I for one feel strongly the disappointment in how these things have let us down: terrible job markets, even for highly educated people, a complete dearth of jobs that can last us a lifetime (as opposed to temporary contracts), the very reasonable fear of "a life of drudgery" (enforced by poor opportunities, lack of corporate mobility, and enormous student loans). Those of you here who despise Bush and recognize how much he has manipulated the media and misled the public-- imagine how that would feel if Bush was your *first* president.
You old folks can ask all you want "why we don't care" and suggest educating us early on in the principles of democracy, or in waving tax statistics in our face. But this is not the way you make someone care. You ask why we don't vote in the numbers you would like: you should instead tell me why we should, tell us how and why we belong, then leave the door open so we know we are welcome to participate.
So lets have less of this condescending attitude:
"Right now, while Social Security is a cause for us, [young people] have not yet developed forward-thinking skills to understand the future ramifications"
and more of what should be a politician's, and a political scientist's, bread and butter: talking with people, getting to know them, actually trying to see what they are concerned about. I think many of us would appreciate the effort.
July 1, 2005 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post and, of course, if any of us had the actual answer to this question we would probably not be answering it here!
I like a lot of the ideas that people had, especially the suggestion to utilize the "TRUTH" anti-tobacco ads.
Ultimately, though the real answer lies in Libertine's post above: she remembers growing up and being taught that it was always important to vote - she describes waiting for her parents in 68. I understand perfectly. I grew up in Connecticut too - about 60 miles west of Libertine and I remember the 76 election. I barely remember the Watergate hearings (mostly what I remember is a bunch of old men preempting Sesame Street on PBS!) I remember asking my parents who they were voting for and they told me Carter and why.
The best way to motivate young people to vote is to teach them young. My parents made sure my sister and I knew you had to vote EVERY time you have an opportunity. Too busy is not an excuse. Its a right and a privilege that we you cannot disregard.
Of course it is difficult to motivate young people when their parents don't vote either. Ultimately the problem of the young not voting joins with the problem of people in general not voting either. We need to work on over all turnout and focus on increasing the number of your people who vote.
July 1, 2005 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Much of what has been said here is to the point and important but a crucial element of this rests upon the individual notion of acknowledging and accepting ownership to some manner of responsibility or duty to this country in return for the freedoms we enjoy.
The general disconnect between Washington and the voters doesn't do a thing to impart an association on the part of citizens with the greater circumstances of the country. The centralization of power in Washington, incorrectly, overwhelms most people. Certainly we have only a small voice individually, but collectively we speak very loudly. If, however, we don't exercise our individual right to remain informed and in touch with our elected representatives our collective voice will never be heard or responded to.
It is of the utmost importance to make certain the youth of this country understand how this works and let them know they have both a stake in this and an obligation to participate. Knowing they need to participate so that people of unscrupulous character don't usurp the power of public office is a lesson they must know beyond all doubt. They musy know that, not only will their interests not be served, but that it is likely their interests will be secondary to the private agenda of our public officials. After all, we know the oath of office has little meaning for many public officials in governments all across the globe and the U.S is no exception to that condition.
thepeoplechoose
July 1, 2005 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
first, let me start by saying....
someone is sounding a bit like John Edwards (a personal favorite of mine).
I'm 25. A graduate student. Single. I vote, I pay attention to politics, but most of my friends don't. They'll vote in the presidential election, maybe for senator if they know that the election is happening... but the reality is that they just are not concerned about politics. They feel that it doesn't really matter for them. They know one day it may matter, but they are too busy with other things to care right now.... school, finding a job, figuring out what the next cool thing is...
--in other words, the choose not to get involved.
I should point out that my friends tend to be well-educated. I can't imagine the difficulties in trying to get someone who is a high school drop out to go and vote. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything bad about anyone... but people who vote tend to have more at stake in the voting process... people who feel down-trodden (as sir Kilgore points out) don't participate in democracy because they don't think it matters...
We need to find a "cause" for young people... Iraq could be something that gets young people mobilized... but will they actually go out and vote, I don't know...
-Zen Blade
July 1, 2005 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, one more time, this is not about marketing. It is not about message. It is about being. The reason that "Truth" style ads won't work is because, when it comes right down to it, the people in the Democratic party who end up getting into office, as well as the people who call the shots at the highest levels and determine who the candidates will be are also the pawns of fatcats. Cronyism, good ol' boy-ness, wealthy entitlement, all of these things are embodied by the folks at the top of the party. There may well be a dedicated progressive base, but in the end, the base is just what the top sits on.
Politicians and legislators, party strategists and organizers must be the people whose votes they want. Want to get the votes of young 20-somethings? Promote leaders, not just members but leaders, who embody what the young people are or aspire to become. That's not so tough, is it?
prairiepopulist.blogspot.com
July 1, 2005 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this effect fades out over time as people age and time and events shape them differently. And for that matter, as the parties themselves gradually mutate into different entities than what their parents knew. My father and step-mother (my real mother died when I was nine and hence had little political influence on me) were both Republicans, but of a quasi-libertarian/liberal sort. Through my teen years I was accordingly a Reagan fan (though disliking the Moral Majority just as the parents did) and I cast my first presidential vote for Bush the First in 1988, and in 1990 I voted for John Engler as governor of Michigan. By 1992 (just out of college and looking for my first real job in a not very good economy) I was “over” the GOP, flirted with the Perot movement and voted for Clinton. In 1996 I voted for Clinton without a second thought—the 90s had been good to me and I saw no reason to rock the boat. And in 1998, utterly disgusted with the Monica porn show going on in Congress, I pulled the straight Democrat lever. Today, with the GOP vastly different from my father’s GOP, I would have a hard time voting for any Republican above the local level.
On the large scale if people simply duplicate their parents’ voting patterns throughout their lives it would be very dfficult to explain any sort of political change in this country. Certainly the 60s (for that matter the 1860s too) would be unintelligible.
July 1, 2005 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Offer them health insurance that doesn't cost more than 4 or 5% of their income. Sock it to thr older and richer. That's a good deal now that would make it easier for a lot of people to pursue their dreams without quite so much fear, but it has to be absolutely universal.
Single Payer Now!
July 1, 2005 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we don't start sending a positive message of hope soon, say hello to President McCain or some such nonsense.
And to those who think it isn't about marketing, I couldn't disagree with you more. Our values are rock solid and generally unchanging -- help for those who need it, defense of freedom and democracy here and abroad, respect for every individual. Now, we've done a piss-poor job of translating those values into concrete policy actions, and maybe this is or is not marketing. But all of our communications, from Kerry on down, start from a defensive, policy-wonking, ultimately condescending place. And we could quit doing that tomorrow and do ourselves a world of good.
One poster wanted to rally around single-payer health care costing no more than 4-5% of your income. That basic idea is terribly defensive -- why not, "health care for all." Not defensive at all. The first formulation negotiates against itself: "we'll never get people to agree to free universal health care, so how about we settle for something else?" No. To my progressive mind, all people have a basic right to medical necessities. Full stop. How we acheive it, how we distribute the burden, etc., are all interesting points that have to be worked out. But those things are not the main thing. The main thing is health care (and note I'm not saying "insurance" or "coverage") for all.
July 1, 2005 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The larger problem is that it's difficult for transient populations of any sort to become invested in politics. Although politics are covered by the media as a national issue, most opportunities for involvement with politics is local. Gerrymandered districts and incumbency make the problem worse because someone moving in to a place has little hope of making a difference in their new home.
The long-term solution is too make local races more competitive and, eventually, try to abolish the Senate as we know it (if population growth follows current census projections, I can't imagine the people in Florida, Texas and California putting up with a body that gives them such poor representation). If young people and other transient populations could vote for national offices wherever they live, it would be much easier for them to engage in politics.
Other ideas: make voter registration compulsory at 18, like the Selective Service (for men). Increase early voting (which not only gives you more time to vote, but means that you're more likely to vote at a place that's easier to find.) Allow Internet voting so transients can vote in their home district, not where they are going to school or working for a brief time period. Develop national standards for registration and voting so that there's less bureaucracy to deal with.
Reaching transient populations is crucial for Democrats, as these populations are more likely to vote for them. Young people are just one part of this group.
July 1, 2005 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're onto something with the value of college progressives groups. In my college years (nearly 10 years ago now!) the liberals were more busy identifying as counterculturalists and a panoply of other identities than being liberals. Those who did care and identify as liberals were (probably as consequence) kind of dorky. The conservatives, on the other always identified much more strongly with conservativeness. Sure, plenty of em were squares (not quite the same as dorky), but the squareness of being a Republican at age 20 didn't really stop them. That's was and is a recipe for electoral rout for liberals. As many here have pointed out, people vote at least as much on identity and sense of philosophical kinship as on reasoned notions about issues and policies. If there's no pull to identify as a liberal in college, we start way behind as people's political and life philosophies coalesce later on. I think we need to figure out why people develop identity around conservativeness, but much less so around being liberal. If they can do it, we can too, and we must.
July 1, 2005 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, I apologize if you found my post offensive. That was not my intent.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. The "keggers" I was referring to were an ever-growing group of college kids (and the last I checked, 20-22 year old are undergrads, 22-24 are grad students, and 25-28 year olds are med/law students, under conventional circumstances- all twenty-somethings), who vote Republican, support the war, yet also loathe anyone who calls for them to enlist and love financial aid. The one's who are not open to ideas at all, who never read or watch the news, yet discuss politics from a one-sided perspective and believe any dissent, regardless of viability, must be wrong on its face.
I was speaking about the group of college Republicans that I know (and I know a lot of them in many different areas) and that I research.
Also, in NO WAY was I suggesting ignoring these voters. My point was to woo these voters with a message they can get behind, while also focusing on the parents, many of whom support the war yet would discourage their kids from enlisting in the military, who support Social Security privatization but do not want the burden of having to provide for not only their own retirement, but their kid's education and their kid's retirement as well.
My point was to use a two-pronged approach rather than focusing solely on GOP-leaning college voters. The contention was that many of these students would be easier to sway if we swayed their parents as well.
Believe me, the majority of college students rational, intelligent, and capable of making their own decisions. But a majority of college Republicans do not or will not understand how voting Republican is voting against their best interests.
That's all I was saying.
July 2, 2005 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that better candidates is always the goal. And better leadership can, almost, always be had. As far as the point on the Truth ad: that was a suggestion for effective marketing about ideas. To say the progressive left has no ideas is absurd, does a disservice, and, ultimately, does little more than repeat right wing talking points. One problem the left does have is communicating its ideas. Whether through fear, caution, or bad phraseology - Democrats haven't been doing a good job communicating their ideas - this was merely an example of one way to taylor the expression of those ideas to an audience who does not tend to vote in a form that might have an impact.
July 3, 2005 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink