The Orphans of Defeat (and other reflections)
Republican Recriminations: Among the most important ramifications of Obama's resounding victory is the debate now underway on the American right. When Bush was elected, all factions of the Grand Old Party were eager to claim success for their visions of conservatism. His victory enjoyed the proverbial thousand fathers. But his disastrous reign has left the party in disarray. Some find in it evidence that he tacked too far to the center, abandoning his principles. Others, that he didn't go far enough. Versions of that debate are playing out along multiple axes. But on one point, all agree - whatever Bush may have been, he was emphatically not their kind of conservative.
The problem with the modern conservative movement is that it was built around a trenchant and compelling critique of liberal excess. That was the message Reagan rode to office. Heck, a version of that message elected Clinton, too. But the movement always had an easier time agreeing on what it opposed - taxes, regulation, government - than what it supported, other than a strong national defense. As it rolled back the excesses it identified (and, in many cases, went quite a bit further) the party found itself bereft of a positive agenda. On the issues most important to the base, it went ever further to the right; on those most significant to the public at large, it moved to the center. The result was the worst of both worlds: cutting taxes while increasing spending; appointing conservative judges while expanding executive authority; cutting social welfare for the poor while expanding or preserving broader benefit programs. Both left and right were appalled, but for a while, the balancing act was sufficient.
But parties fundamentally skeptical of the ability of government to do good tend not to be effective stewards of the ship of state. And so it has proven again. What's striking to me, on this morning after, is how little appreciation there seems to be on the right for the meaning of Obama's victory. Sure, a few voices - Obamacons like Sullivan, reformers like Reihan and Douthat - seem to understand what has just happened. But there's a vast number out there who seem to have actually convinced themselves that Obama is a closet radical, or at the very least, an unreformed liberal. The best this bunch can manage is a devout prayer that the new resident of the White House turns out to be the Obama of their foes, and not of their fears.
So let me offer them this observation. Barack Obama is a temperamental conservative. He is cautious in his approach, measured in his rhetoric, and consensual in his style. Perhaps even more strikingly, he holds tenaciously to his positions in the face of the vicissitudes of politics. The hallmark of his campaign has been his consistency. These are Burkean virtues. But he applies these personal traits to the furtherance of a decidedly liberal agenda. His goals - expanding healthcare, caring for the environment, widening educational and economic opportunity - are of a piece with the Democratic agenda of the past century. His methods - focused on markets, individual responsibility, and economic growth - might be more aptly labeled conservative.
The Republican Party has, for decades, exploited a gap between the public's support for Democratic goals and its distaste for Democratic methods. Obama's election signals the end of that opportunity. Without addressing that point, plans for a Republican revival necessarily fall short.
A Democratic Generation: There are more than 40 million Americans under the age of 30. This morning, you'll see a lot of focus on the fact that there was no disproportionate surge in youth turnout this election - it was up from 17% to 18% of the electorate. Exit polls are notoriously bad at pegging the percentage of young voters, and even the one-point increase in their percentage of the total may prove illusory.
But that's only half the story. The voting behavior of those aged 18-29 ought to be one of the banner headlines of the cycle. That's because they appear to have favored the Democratic nominee, 66-32%. I don't think it's possible to overstate the significance of that margin. It's unprecedented. Young voters have typically looked a lot like the rest of the electorate, perhaps diverging by a few points. In 2004, when Kerry took 54% of these voters and just 48% of the electorate, that six-point gap was rightly viewed as stunning, and as something of a high-water mark. So the surge of young, Democratic voters was every bit as big a factor as anticipated - accounting for roughly four points of Obama's gains over Kerry.
So what does this mean? There's abundant research that confirms that partisan habits tend to be established early in life. Cast your first ballot for a Republican, and the odds are pretty good that every other presidential ballot you cast will be for the GOP. For now, it looks like the GOP has lost the largest American generation, a group of voters who will swell as a proportion of the electorate over the next few cycles as they grow and mature. If this proves to be a watershed election, that will be an important part of the reason.
The Joshua Generation: If you haven't read or watched the speech Obama delivered in Selma, at the commemoration of the voting rights march - go read it now. It will likely be reprinted in anthologies of oratory for years to come. In the speech, Obama paid tribute to the aging lions of the Civil Rights movement: "It is because they marched that I stand before you here today." But he also identified a Joshua Generation, a cohort that would benefit their advances and take up the struggle, a "generation that finds our way across the river."
It's a beautiful speech, but it packs a hidden punch. In the Biblical narrative, the generation that exits slavery in Egypt constantly doubts and rebels. They are so conditioned by their servitude that they are unable to believe God's promise that they will be victorious. And so they are sentenced to perish in the desert - they "shall not come into the land" - it is their children who will take possession of the dream.
The speech addresses itself to the African-American community; it was Obama's tactful and poetic way of announcing that the old generation of leaders must give way to the new. But its central insight is profound, and applies more broadly. White voters under the age of 30 favored Obama 54-44%, Hispanics of the same age went 76-19%. These voters came of age in a changed world - one in which a Cablinasian golfer is the spokesperson for the official luxury car of old white people. They don't view race the way their parents did. There's only so far that some attitudes can change; ultimately, they must wait for the passage of generations. That's what we witnessed last night - the Joshua Generation crossing the river, their parents unable to follow.
If you've enjoyed this, please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend this' link. You can find more analysis on my blog, or subscribe by clicking "Follow Me" on the right. As always, I welcome your comments and corrections, and thank you for your feedback.
Advertisement
Good food for thought here, thanks.
Very true. As loathe as I am to cite Begala, he made nearly the identical point last night.
Was not aware of that. Any pointers to data? Thanks.
November 5, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know I'm getting a little wonky for some readers, but I prefer the Census' Current Population Survey estimates to the exit polls. Both rely on self-reporting, but there's some evidence of response bias in the exit polls, which CPS's methodology works to minimize. The upshot is that in 2004, the exit poll pegged it at 17% and CPS put it at 16%. There's a discussion of some of this stuff here; I don't have other sources right at hand). So I'm waiting for the new CPS numbers, which'll be out, if memory serves, sometime in 2010. If they show an increase to 17%, I'll be persuaded that we actually had another bump this year.
But all of that's the fine print. The essential point stands - the big news isn't any increase in the percentage of the electorate comprised by young voters, but the way in which the partisan alignment of young voters has now sharply diverged from that of the electorate as a whole.
November 5, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many thanks. Not too wonky at all, and to the contrary quite interesting!
Of note, one of my best friends works at Census and he regularly mentions that minimizing response bias is one of his top concerns.
With respect to youth voter turnout, I suppose that instinctively one of the more frustrating dynamics to capture is simply the fact that it is not a static population - as these voters transition out to the 30+ age range with each new election cycle, we get a new batch of individuals representing the youth vote, along with all of their respective idiosyncrasies. Would be a really interesting study to attempt to quantify the affects of nominally static youth vote indicators versus those that might be considered more transient, no?!
Will check out the PDF shortly. Thanks.
November 5, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly, thanks. Would the exit polls accurately account for the youth vote if a lot of them voted early? are there any differences in the youth vote per exit polls between states with early voting and states without? If youth did not show up at the polls, it would be harder to account for them in totals than for African Americans, who are often trackable by census tract in a way that youth obviously are not. (I hate giving up on the idea that youth turned out in unusual numbers unless I absolutely have to!) Now, another question-- is there any previous precedent for the youth vote skewing so strongly one way -- 1968 or 1972 for example? Did they skew Republican at one point?
November 5, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether exit polls accurately account for anything is, in some sense, an unanswerable question. In theory, they use pre-electoral surveys to account for early voters. Since all of their results are adjusted to reflect the actual returns, that should work reasonably well. Does it? It'd be tough to say for sure. But I'd urge you to let go of the idea that young people turned out in unusual numbers, and to embrace a different notion, instead. What distinguished the election of 2008 was young people turning out to support the Democratic candidate in unprecedented numbers. (And, for what it's worth, the numbers were themselves extraordinary - it's just that the increase wasn't proportionately larger than the increase in other demographic groups.)
As I understand it, the National Exit Polls have only been recording voters' age since 1976. So it's possible that there's been something like this before - the Vietnam era would be a good candidate, nothing like a draft to create political engagement - and it's just undocumented. And yes, they can skew Republican; in 1980, for example, young people supported Reagan at slightly higher rates than the population at large.
November 5, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just speaking from my own experience, even if you never really voted for your first presidential choice, if you felt a strong commitment, as I did at 15 for JFK, enough to argue with my repub father, enough that my 13 year old brother apparently listened and watched and was similarly influenced - it's enough to last for a lifetime. The same ideals that motivated me then and also during the 60's civil rights and peace movements are the ideals that motivate me now. Being your brother's and sister's keeper is so much in my bones, ethically and politically. And it all began in my youth. There's also something to be said for that "cohort effect," being part of a generation where many people aspired to the same ideals. Yes, some tuned out and others turned on, and some were very conservative. But if you have enough of a culture and a peer-group that surrounds you when you make those choices, it lasts. And it forms something lasting. Like a touchstone. So when I heard Obama, in 2004, speaking "my language," well, all it took was a speech! He had me - right then.
Thanks for this thoughtful post, Fly.
November 5, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enormous thanks for this, Fly. Esp. the Numbers & the March 4 speech. (March 4th also being my birthday & 'March Forth' my motto.) I've felt for 25 years that this story had much to teach us, and hoped that rather than needing quite so much sword, we might find ourselves also assisted by the hornet.
Back in June, I posted a piece of my usual multiplex-mind-swirl, which thanks to your post feels somewhat less so: "A generational story. Only this time, a story that doesn't start with totally bogus "labels" like Boomer and X etc. Let's start somewhere sensible. With a myth (i.e. "big story," not a "bald lie" for those of you not paying attention in Theology class.)... I'm gonna float this one, cos I was raised Baptist - The Exodus.... The children of Egypt, enslaved, rebel & make a run for it. Face 40 years in the wilderness. There were sacrifices & whole new dreams back there in '68. But these wilderness years... well, they've thrown up a lotta grumbling. A lot of people turned back to the fleshpots, or over to the Golden Calf. Too damned AFRAID to enter into anywhere new.
And so a whole new generation of children had to be born, and raised up under new conditions, to get rid of the fear that blocked us from "entering in." But as a people, they learned to reject the old idols, old models of "Kings." They made up new agreements, new understandings. A dozen "tribes" formed, movements, engaging with other slaves, exiles, wanderers... even women! Tis a grand story....
I guess I'm hoping we get to hear, see & maybe even live more of it in the coming years. Be a shame to keel over in the desert, after coming this far, eh? And thanks again.
November 5, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely put. It looks like most of the right is in denial right now, unsure how to read the election results.
As to exit polls for providing demographic breakdowns, you're right that exit polling has trouble because of issues of response bias and other factors. The very large numbers of early voters this year may also skew age statistics if you only interviewed in-person voters on election day (although as I understand it, exit polls did do phone sampling to try to survey early voters as well).
Wonk on, Fly!
November 5, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
He may not be a wild eyed radical of the GOP dream, but I suggest to you that he is a revolutionary in the same tenor as Reagan. Not like or in anyway akin to Reagan, mind you, but the split with Bush, in history, is not unlike Reagan with Carter. And I get that just from the history books. Not sure what the lived experience felt like.
Having said that, I'd also like to suggest that the real regional party has finally been unmasked --- the GOP. Their base is in the Old South and they appear to be unable to let each other go. A veritable love fest. Ewww! Let them have each other, I say. And let the Dems and us sappy, wild-eyed pragmatists carry on.
But to brand Obama a "conservative," albeit a Burkean, is too far for my thinking. He certainly was proficient in identifying Repub motives with the fear agenda they have established as an ongoing hard truth of some imagined reality of the last 8 years, but Burkean because he is not opposed to free trade and the market? Such a limiting and limited definition? Say it ain't so, Fly!!!!
November 5, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yva:
I accused him, if you will, of possessing Burkean virtues. Among the more amusing aspects of this campaign has been the insistence, by some on the right, that he is a closet radical, and the hope, among some on the left, that he will prove revolutionary. For better or worse, that is not who he is. All of his signature policy proposals take as their basis the way things are, and then seek to improve them as far as is possible. Radicals seek to sweep away the detritus of the past and build anew on sound foundations. Obama is conservative in disposition insofar as he seeks to reform rather than replace, to renew rather than reconceive. (Other writers have called him empirically-driven, pragmatically inclined, or non-ideological. All of these labels drive at the same aspect of his character; choose whichever you like best.)
But I do not mean to suggest that that he, himself, is a conservative. Most emphatically, he is not. He sees a tremendous role for government in establishing and preserving equality of opportunity. He believes in its potential to do good, and indeed, that there are tasks that it can perform that no market can master.
What your response highlights, for me, is that our political vocabulary lacks the words to describe Obama, a figure who blends traditions that have often been in tension, and rarely in harmony. So if I say he has a conservative disposition and a liberal agenda, I offend both sides of the aisle. Cass Sunstein has called him a visionary minimalist. In a nutshell, he argues that Obama is a minimalist, in that he does not "believe that long-standing practices should be altered lightly or without a careful analysis that includes many voices." But at the same time, he is visionary in his rejection of easy categories and bifurcations, and in his embrace of an ambitious agenda. Taken together, this amounts to a belief that "reconciliation is change, and it is also what makes change possible."
For Obama, it's a weakness as well as a strength. As Sunstein put it in a recent panel discussion (about 1/4 of the way through): "[minimalists] like to proceed in a way that takes on board, rather than repudiating, the deepest commitments of their fellow citizens." That's limiting, in some ways. Obama doesn't want to tell his fellow citizens that what they think is wrong. Again, Sunstein: "He would prefer to say - what you think most deeply is compatible with the direction we can share." But, he adds, Obama believes in both the need for and the possibility of large-scale change. That's very different than most minimalists; it's what makes him a visionary.
That, at any rate, is close to what I was attempting to articulate. I think Obama, in office, is going to surprise a great many people. His programs will be more pragmatic than many on the right fear; his approach will be less confrontational than many on the left hope; and his achievements are likely to be more substantive and sweeping than most on either side expect. When it's over, we'll coin a term for this. Until then, we'll have to continue to pair paradoxical phrases.
November 6, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that in the same way the right has demonized the word "liberal", many on the left have a Pavlovian response to the word "conservative". I often try to explain to my liberal friends that I'm a "natural conservative" in that I believe that, all else being equal, change is bad. (This comes from years of experience in the software industry where many seem to hold to the mantra that change is necessarily good.) They then point out all the places where change is necessary, and I feel that they've completely missed my point. Certain changes can be good, but the fact that they are a change necessarily implies a cost. In many cases the cost is easily out-weighed by the benefits, but that doesn't mean the cost isn't there. There are also reasons why change can be inherently good (e.g., the ability to try out new things and learn from what doesn't work), but it seems that all too often many of us neglect to include the basic cost of change in our calculations. (Speaking of which, has anyone used Word 2007 yet? WTF?!?)
November 6, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Natural Conservative?" Heh, nice, Ben. Conservatism "natural" to whom? And how does one arrive at this "natural" conservatism? Naturally? ;)
November 6, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Natural as opposed to political. I don't hold what many consider "typically" conservative political views as to how things should be. But, all else being equal (very important qualifier), I'll take the option that leaves things unchanged over the option that changes things. To me (another qualifier), that's the definition of "conservative". Again, I'll stress that this rule is a modifier and not a be-all, end-all. Obviously, I'll take change that improves things, but when trying to determine whether or not the changes actually improve things, I factor in the innate cost of the change itself.
As an example, consider the whole "fair tax" idea. Whether or not it would've been a good idea back before we had an income tax, the change involved means there would be a significant cost involved in implementing it. A "natural conservative" (by my definition) would oppose such a change unless s/he was certain that the benefits would outweigh the cost of that change.
Being a conservationist follows from being a "natural conservative", if you want to look for a secondary connotation of the word natural there.
November 6, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly,
thanks for your response. Mostly, thanks for your explanation via Cass Sunstein. I'm no wild eyed Liberal. I am a liberal with a strong pragmatic bent, however. And to me, Obama is a revolutionary in the sense that his vision is so far reaching in the kind of change he wants. Yes, he may have to be incremental, but his vision is quite bold. To me, his expectations of his presidency represents a total change of outlook for America. Frankly, I cannot wait to see what this will look like or feel like.
Bringing people on board to the degree he does, will be a vast change from the last 8 years. Almost a different world. His views, as he has expressed them himself throughout this election, and in his first book, reveals a man who has thought through the issues with deep sensitivity. This is most apparent in his first book, where he does something vaguely Nietzschean in the way he goes about not only stripping himself of layers, but then to reassemble himself back for the reader. I thought him inspiring.
He is inspirational in that he calls us all to join him, and look at how many people have? It is a call to service and participation in ways I've not seen. Revolutionary.
His ideas about "community" are so very different than what his predecessors have had. Revolutionary.
His style is that of a thinking feeler. Sure, Clinton had a similar style, inversely, but this still feels revolutionary to me. And by revolutionary, I don't mean Che or Lenin. I don't think we've seen this style yet but it's roots are deep in all things American. Of course, for me the key word to examine there is the word "American."
Again, thanks for the explanation. And yes, I still reject "conservative" as a term applicable to this soon-to-be President. But only time will tell, no?
November 6, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yva,
I share this much with Obama - I like to search out the common ground. So let me take another crack at this.
I think we may be using 'revolutionary' in different senses. To me, it relates not to the degree of change, but to its nature. Revolutionary changes are those which begin, in essence, ex nihilo; those which aim to build something entirely new. Contrast that with evolutionary change, which seizes upon the extant and reforms it as necessary.
Obama is not a revolutionary. Not one of his policies seeks to discard an entire system, no matter how dysfunctional it may be at present, and to replace it with something entirely different. He is skeptical of panaceas, of utopian systems, of perfectly worked-out schemes that have not been tested. But I do not mean to suggest that the transformations he seeks to implement are any less profound. The degree of change, you see, is not directly tied to the manner of change. The hawk less resembles the dinosaur than, say, the asian carp looks like a trout. But dinosaurs turned to hawks via evolutionary change, whereas the asian carp simply displaces the trout - a ecological revolution, if you will.
So I expect him to embark upon an ambitious program of profound, and transformational change. And I expect him to pursue that agenda with the same quiet constancy and resolve that has marked his campaign - seeking and assembling allies, rallying supporters, and always extending an invitation to his adversaries. But those changes will involve adapting, enhancing or enlarging existing systems and programs wherever possible. The change will be profound, but it will be achieved by enlarging the consensus and remaining steadfast in pursuit of the goal - not, as in the early Clinton years, by seeking to create the best program and ram it through congress, or later on, by locating the consensus and tailoring the programs to match it.
November 6, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fly,
thanks for responding. Yes, we are disagreeing on the term "revolutionary." I agree that Obama is not a revolutionary in the true definition of it as in ex nihilo. And yes, I am playing fast and loose with the term in the way I have appropriated it, reconstructed it and and defined it by excising that aspect from the term. And you are right in picking up on that. To me, the excised version of my creation does not have that aspect of ex nihilo even as an immanent presence. But that word (Revolutionary) scares the GOP and Conservatives because they are afraid of an impavid Obama.
That excised version fits with how I see him, and in this we disagree. To agree further with you, however, yes, I too think he is distrustful of panaceas and utopias and will most assuredly begin with what is vs what is figment. He's a grounded pragmatic. Just look at his approach to FISA.
So you are right. However, I still like my excised definition of Revolutionary and it still fits with his approach and outlook as far as I can surmise and apprehend. And what's more, it fits, in my excised reconstruction of that word, everything you've said about what potentials will be fulfill by a President Obama.
So by and large, we agree. We quibble upon how and which word. Right? Revolution or evolution? So let me proffer terms then -- how about punctuated equilibrium? Or symbiosis? In which case we need Lynn Margulis' theory of symbiosis as the driver of this evolution? Sorry to seem so inchoate, but you've just opened another door for me to consider and think through. Thanks! :)
November 6, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Though I came out of a lot of Poli Sci & Economics, I found evolutionary studies - concepts like punctuated equilibrium, the story of the transformation of dinosaurs into birds - to be much more useful than most common political terms & comparators. Reform vs Revolution, Conservative/Liberal/Marxist, FDR or Lincoln - while all these were instructive, they didn't capture what the change we were actually caught up in (and working for) looked like, much less how to go about it.
So I shifted to "transformation" as my shorthand, 20 years ago. Part of what I meant was change that KEEPS all the body parts - no lopping off or "turning on its head." Maybe the parts eventually die off, but more often they get "re-wired" to serve other purposes. e.g. Many early utilities, whose 1st job was to supply "town gas" for street lighting and such, but which are now massive electricity or public transport corporations.
Punctuated equilibrium was a useful concept in thinking about political/social change, just because often you get dozens of small, incremental changes taking place - but it's not until they form a complete, self-reinforcing loop that they really begin to surge into the mainstream. The Learning (or Experience) Curve was the most useful economic tool I found here. Costs falling by 20% each time new technologies doubled their installed market share don't seem important when they're in their tiny early stages. But once prices fall into the competitive cost zone, the output/sales curve absolutely soars sky-high.
Which gives you real, major, practical change, from seemingly small, quiet beginnings. Give that 10-20 years, and you've got Transformation. The world looks very different, but no "revolution" in the older political sense. Thanks for the PE trigger, Yva!
November 6, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your posts just get more interesting and informative.
Of course, even to the over-achiever-type viewers at TPM, "Burkean" is likely to be an unfamiliar description with uncertain connotation.
May I suggest the logical label, if we have to have one, which might well describe those qualities in Obama which you discuss: Lincolnian.
I realize that Abraham Lincoln is the great Rorschach figure in US history. But he had those qualities of innate conservatism (having been a Whig and admirer of Henry Clay, etc.) combined with a core set of convictions that we recognize as humanistic and small-d democratic. And he was a skillful politician---much more so than his contemporaries realized . . . although perhaps that assessment is muc enhanced by hindsight.
What Obama has had that Lincoln didn't, to the same extent, is pure good luck. Lincoln in his pre-presidential career faced political adversity and defeat much more than Obama has. And Lincoln had luck when it counted, as the Democratic Party split in 1860, allowing Abe's election by 40% of the votes. Of course, "luck" is wasted on those who don't have the brains and ability to capitalize on it.
(The last Illinois nominee, Adlai Stevenson, had the good fortune to resemble Lincoln in his gift of wit and humorous story-telling. Obama hasn't got that . . . but otherwise the parallels are, to me, quite evocative.)
Obama, like Lincoln, holds out the hand of reconciliation to those who hate him and what they think he stands for. Lincoln's ultimate "radicalism," as Gary Wills has explicated, was what he was forced to not by his own instincts or inclinations, but by his enemies' intransigence.
Lincoln believed that threats of secession were a bluff. Obama may believe that the ultra-right will respect his election and share his goal of solving the problems our nation and planet face.
I wonder what will it take for President Obama (oh my that sounds great!) to truly grasp that the doctrine and intent of the forces of American fascism is, quite simply, rule or ruin.
November 6, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lincoln may not be a bad analogy and it certainly appears to be an analogy Obama uses, to great affect. Not long ago, TPM poster NCSteve did a post on lawyers and their love for Lincoln and Lincoln's words. I know a few lawyers and across the board, they express a deep and abiding affection for Lincoln and the ones I know, support Obama unreservedly. They hear the Gettysburg address on a whole different plane than average people like me.
November 6, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly, as much as I enjoy your usually data-laden contributions, this one is every bit as salient if not more so. I especially love the way you've extracted the metaphor from Obama's Selma speech for all to see. This is the best treatment that I've read of the generational significance herein. It identifies an observation that I've attempted to share with many of my friends and family, but so does so with incredible clarity.
November 6, 2008 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
My thanks to DF, TheraP, Quinn, Fosberry and the others to whom I haven't had the chance to respond in depth. This has been one of the more thoughtful and stimulating discussions I've had here at TPM, and I thank you all for that. I hope others will chime in, and as well, before this thread slips off the list.
November 6, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I also say, that you are fun to talk to. Thanks for coming back. I've missed you.
November 6, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
One point regarding this:
"This morning, you'll see a lot of focus on the fact that there was no disproportionate surge in youth turnout this election - it was up from 17% to 18% of the electorate."
This is similar to a lot of statements I heard in 2004. The problem is that it is a percentage of the total electorate, which on the whole had a surge in turnout (which you sort of addressed with the word "disproportionate"). So the fact that the youth vote made up any ground at all is, I think, evidence of a greater youth turnout than we've seen.
Instead of 17% of 122 million we see 18% of 133 million. That's an increase of almost 3.5 million voters in that age group.
I think this helps support your overall point. I am in this demographic and, anecdotally, I think this election was very different. I certainly saw a large increase in turnout in my age group. More importantly, the increase in enthusiasm will help the Dems for years. These facts, along with America's rapidly changing demographics away from strong-Republican groups, should worry Republicans immensely.
November 6, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's where I'm at. I've looked closely at the man and his character. On the basis of his character I believe I see a man who truly wants to be a public servant, who will try to seek the greatest good for all, not only in our country, but within the world. So I've simply decided to trust him. I may have my preferences and predilections, but I'm not sitting where he is, and I haven't the ability or the groups of experts to see all the alternatives and consequences he'll need to keep in mind. Nevertheless, I see him as a man who will consult with the experts and consult with his conscience. He doesn't seem motivated by greed or status, so much as by his willingness to serve the country at this perilous time. I find in him a man I can trust. And while I'll stand on the sidelines, offering assistance or even critiquing if necessary, given his remarkable intellectual, moral, and ethical skills, I'm going to try and trust his choices, critique him when I feel I must - with love, and pray for the best.
I'm getting older. I can't follow everything. I'm not really a policy wonk. But I think I can judge character. I think I know ethics when I see it. The Constitution and the Rule of Law have been my great concerns this election season. I believe he will uphold his oath. And I already feel safer, just knowing the kind of man he's proven himself to be through this long grueling campaign.
I hope we come together. I hope critiques are done with love. Because he bears an enormous burden for us. We're not in his shoes. But he needs us as foot-soldiers. I believe he appreciates our role. And we need to do the same for him. Please, let's not let go of our best chance in decades to set things on a better path - for our country and for the world.
This may sound naive. It may sound idealistic. But I've made a pragmatic decision on the basis of his character. The only leader I've ever done this for. But I step up to the plate and say: He's a man I'm willing to trust. A man of character. Worthy of my trust.
November 6, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this, Fly.
November 6, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm.... FISA 2007 vs. FISA 2008?
November 9, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink