The Future Belongs to US
While the actual results seem razer-thin in this election, I'll be bold and argue that they are part of a significant move towards a more progressive future for America-- one foretold by the stolen 2000 election and only delayed by the hysteria of post-911 war fever. But when you look at shifts in voting patterns, especially among youth and latinos, it's clear the future belongs to progressives.
Kevin Drum, among others, is pooh-poohing the youth vote, arguing that youth turnout was nothing special this year. I think the key in looking at the youth vote, as well as the latino vote, is whatever the numbers year to year, these votes represent the future-- and we should all be wearing shades 'cause it looks so bright.
Young people may not be registering beyond belief turnout numbers, but their margins in favor of the Dems (60% in this election) means that we have a generation that, as they settle down and vote more consistently, are likely to futher reinforce progressive voting patterns. Similarly (and in some cases overlapping), the heavily Democratic latino voting patterns (69% in this election) means that you have a community that, as more gain the right to vote -- whether by legalization or just the children of undocumented turning eighteen, progressives will gain voting support.
Remember every four years, more progressive youth grow up to become voters and more immigrants are gaining citizenship -- whether through legalization or through the children of immigrants getting old enough to vote. The demographics are pretty relentless, as I've argued here in the past (I was wrong about it tipping the election in 2004 in the midst of terrorism fears, but the basic long-term trends hold, as evidenced by the election results Tuesday.)
What America is experiencing is what California experienced in the wake of the Prop 187 fight in that state back in 1994. The GOP won that year's election but a polarization of voting patterns, by both age and race, meant the future of California politics was lost for the rightwing -- Schwartzenegger's lunge for the center this year just emphasizing that point. In 1994, the Republican candidate received 67% of the vote of those over age 60, but only 42% of the vote of those under 30. That polarization was part of the dynamic that crushed the GOP is state legislative races and increasingly Congressional races throughout the state in the years to come.
Just for nostalgia, here's my 1994 analysis of that election and the youth vote posted to the pre-blogging Usenet world, an analysis that largely applies to the nation now:
http://tinyurl.com/ynh8yu
Any numerate person enjoys making a salad from freshly minced numbers. But what are th conclusions?
Is the conclusion that inexorable demographic force will bring us a string of victories for years and years?
Or we still believe that people actually change their minds from time to time, and part of the art of politics is to facilitate that change, or to use it?
For ezample, if we think that youth vote is a mine for votes, than we should think about ways of extracting more of it. My proposal: have a plank to legalize a slew of things that youngster would prefer to be legal and oldsters do not care about that much. Number one, music downloads (it can be done in various ways, cut the copyright down to 15 years, enact fair use guidelines, have some little tax, like one on cell phone connections, to pay the artists, but do it). Then I am a bit hazy, being an oldster (the right to keg parties shall not be abridged? or go for marijuana and meth (the latter seems to be the drug of choice for the "heartland").
Other way to mince numbers is to get upside down conclusions. For example, white born-again Christians actually were the most faithful part of Republican electorate, unlike, say, high income voters. Asa result, among votes cast for republicans in 2006, 37% were "white born-again and evangelical", while in 2004 it was 35. Do you think what I am thinking?
Democrats had -- and have -- to rely on Black vote, and they were tarred as a Black party. The actual parlance is special interest party, special interest being Blacks and gays, and perhaps the heathen, and if you think about it, Blacks, gays and no-religion folks add up to a percentage very similar to white evangelical, and they are actually more loyal to Democrats than evangelical are to Republicans. So the question is: whom the other folks dislike more?
Political ju-jitsu of the right is to invent issues about which the "middle" is lookwarm to positive and which drive the unpopular part of the opponents base to conniptions. Then the opponents HAVE to take a stand ("showing how far out of mainstream they are") etc. Can one create issues that would drive evangelicals to conniptions SELECTIVELY?
Actually, yes, education. Does the majority want the kids to be indoctrinated in false beliefs of evangelicals? Quite often, not. Now, a quiet drum roll please before I unveil my proposal: outlaw incorporating false claims in sexual education cirricula, and empanel a body of experts to determine them. For example, can AIDS be spread by kissing? Does abortion increase the risk of breast cancer?
Mind you, I would profess full support for the idea that a school program can recommend sexual abstinence to children. By all means. But without making false claims that undermine the message, authority of the school etc. "Do not lie to our kids".
Cautiously, one can add biology and geology, so perhaps science in general. "Why should we make our children doubt in theories used in successful explorations for oil and gas"? Is there a HUGE constituence demanding that national parks sell creationist books with counterfactual explanations of geological wonders that are seen in those parks? Targetted at our CHILDREN, no less!
And than we can have "the truth party" and "the party of lies and ignorance".
November 13, 2006 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think so.
Likewise the argument that REPUBLICANS will dominate in the future because they have more children, being anti-abortion and all that. www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
Actually, the idea of progressive youth becoming progressive adults is an old one:
"Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call ...
For the times they are a-changin'."
It turned out that 1965 was the PEAK of the liberal wave started in the 1930's, and the US has been getting arguably more conservative ever since. It is difficult to predict the future.
November 13, 2006 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The future is fascism. The only reason we don't realise it is because no one knows the definition. Look it up. There is nothing to suggest it will change. I did not hear any candidates campaigning on restoring privacy or civil rights. I don't think the democrats will control the corporate power that grips the government with an iron fist. Our currency is destroyed, our civil rights are being destoyed almost as quickly as the environment(when it is in the corporate interests to do so). The government rules through deception and fear, it is trying to force the citizens to adopt an ultra extremist christian morality... it goes on and on. I don't see anything positive out of this, and from what I have read, many democrats only succeeded because they "became" republicans. I know, we have one here in Kansas, elected every time, but he might as well be a republican, he votes with them anyway, and in response to my letters mimics the republican response.
Ask any young person to define fascism, they cannot.
November 13, 2006 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where exactly might one look up "fascism" if no one knows what it means?
As nearly as I can tell it denotes national socialism as opposed to international socialism with connotations of tyranny. It is a cussword that has lost nearly all precision in meaning.
Glory be. Apparently education of our young is not as abysmal as that given their elders.
Thank you for offering hope for the future that is sorely lacking.
Best, Terry
November 14, 2006 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO! Sorry, but the title of your posting just gave me a fit of the giggles. Y'see, whenever I read neo-prog prattle, what always pops first to mind is that scene from the film, The Boys From Brazil, where the choir of what looks like Hitler Youth sing a song with the refrain, 'Tomorrow belongs to me'
November 14, 2006 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep-- there's a bit of self-conscious echoing of that refrain in the title. But hey, better us than them :)
November 15, 2006 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink