Skip to main content

Columbia University Journalism Professor Thomas Edsall’s column in Wednesday’s NY Times should be required reading for every Daily Kos community member; and, for that matter, for everyone in this country that’s in any way, shape or form following the historical metamorphosis of the Democratic Party over the past three decades.

For someone who’s been a huge fan of Edsall’s work over the years, four words sum up my initial reaction to today's NYT op-ed: it’s both “fascinating” and, in many ways, it clearly explains the “philosophical/political contradictions” of Gen Y'ers/Millennials, if for no other reason than the fact that Edsall’s analysis of Pew’s polling (and many other sources) underscores how the status quo’s center-right, economic leadership of the Democratic Party has affected this country’s latest generation of voters.

As you’ll read it in the Times’ piece, today’s younger Democrats are socially liberal, but, while they’re somewhat more comfortable than their parents with some of the politically taboo philosophical tenets of socialism, they contradict those sentiments by endorsing many trickle-down, laissez faire and Libertarian economic policies.

Edsall’s column--both comprehensively and concisely--explains the self-evident, center-right economic (yes, the word “corporatist” does apply here, too) trajectory of the Democratic Party, today.

Ironically, my second, shoot-from-the-hip sentiment, after giving Edsall’s column a once-over, is that my gut response to it would pretty much echo a piece I featured in my last post here, on Monday, by Austin Chronicle columnist Michael Ventura: “Letters at 3AM: That Word 'Oligarchy.'

Edsall’s column is an absolute must-read…


The Coming Democratic Schism

Thomas Edsall
New York Times
JULY 15, 2014

There is a striking generational split in the Democratic electorate.

This deepening division is apparent in a June Pew Research Center survey of more than 10,000 people, “Beyond Red vs. Blue.” The Pew survey points up the emergence of a cohort of younger voters who are loyal to the Democratic Party, but much less focused on economic redistribution than on issues of personal and sexual autonomy.

Back in April, Pew researchers wrote that “huge generation gaps have opened up in our political and social values, our economic well-being, our family structure, our racial and ethnic identity, our gender norms, our religious affiliation, and our technology use.” These trends, Pew noted, point “toward a future marked by the most striking social, racial, and economic shifts the country has seen in a century.”

I asked Andrew Kohut, the founding director of the Pew Center, what he made of these results. He emailed me his thoughts: “There is a libertarian streak that is apparent among these left-of-center young people. Socially liberal but very wary of government. Why? They came of age in an anti- government era when government doesn’t work. They are very liberal on interpersonal racial dimension, but reject classic liberal notions about ways of achieving social progress for minorities.”

One reflection of the confused state of generational politics today is that an earlier Pew poll, which I wrote about during the last presidential election, revealed that younger voters were less hostile to socialism than their elders.

Two other studies document the broad trends that the most recent Pew survey identified. A research paper, “Generational Difference in Perception of Tax Equity and Attitudes Towards Compliance,” by three professors of accounting — Susan Jurney, Tim Rupert and Martha Wartick — found that “the Millennial generation was less likely to recommend progressive taxation than” older generations…

Edsall interrupts his analysis of the Pew data to reference a a July 10 YouGov poll of young adults (aged 18 to 29), sponsored by the Reason Foundation, a libertarian research organization – ‘Millennials: The Politically Unclaimed Generation’ — did not directly compare younger and older voters but does shed light on the views of younger voters generally. ‘Social and cultural issues are currently more central to millennials’ political judgments than economic policy,’ the report says. ‘When asked to explain the reasons for their ideological identifications, social and cultural concerns largely defined their labels.’”

Returning to the Pew stats, Edsall notes with obvious hope: “…even though younger Democrats are less committed to the central tenets of traditional economic liberalism, there is a strong body of evidence suggesting that the partisan commitment these voters made to the Democratic Party when they first came of political age will endure.”

Edsall then documents, via reference to a paper published last month, ‘The Great Society, Reagan’s Revolution, and Generations of Presidential Voting’ by Yair Ghitza, a doctoral candidate at Columbia, and Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political science at Columbia,” which explains how “long-term partisan preferences are formed” during a “voter’s teenage and early adult years.”

He then points readers to a NY Times’ interactive graphic which accompanies his column, produced over at the Upshot, which demonstrates “…the lasting power of the partisan loyalties that men and women establish in their late teens and early twenties.”

Edsall continues…

…Although a majority of younger voters today are reliably Democratic, there are key issues on which they differ notably from their elders within the center-left coalition. The July Pew survey identifies two predominately white core Democratic constituencies: the “solid liberals” of the traditional left, which is 69 percent white, with an average age of 46, who exhibit deep progressive commitments on both economic and social issues; and younger voters, 68 percent white, with an average age of 38, which Pew calls the “next generation left.”

The two groups were asked to choose whether “most people can get ahead if they’re willing to work hard” or whether “hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people.” A decisive majority of the older “solid liberal” group, 67 percent, responded that hard work is no guarantee of success, while an even larger majority, 77 percent, of the younger “next generation left” believes that you can get ahead if you are willing to work hard.

According to Pew, the older group believes, 73-20, that “government should do more to solve problems.” Only 44 percent of the younger group agrees — and of younger respondents, 50 percent believe that “government is trying to do too much.”…

I’m going to stop here, in terms of conveying today’s analysis from Thomas Edsall to readers, and strongly reiterate that you should checkout the balance of his much lengthier piece. Again, HERE’S THE LINK.

It’s an education unto itself!

One last sentiment from yours truly, and it’s the obvious reality that “The Coming Democratic Schism” that Edsall describes in great detail in today’s Times has been vividly on display in this community for many years.


#            #            #

UPDATE (7/16/14  3:45PM EDT): I would STRONGLY recommend that any people with questions regarding the age breakouts of the variously labelled groups in this Pew study from June take a look at THE FOLLOWING AGE BREAKOUTS provided with their latest report. Furthermore, I would concur with some of the comments, down below, in that some of the basic premises regarding age are belied by the fact that the various, labelled segment names utilized by the Pew folks are, indeed, a bit confusing (if not outright misleading).

That being said, there's much to be gleaned from the Pew study. And, the overall premises concerning the "younger" skewed categories/"typologies"/labels--while not really all that "young"--are, in fact, technically accurate.

As another reminder of the semi-obvious, with an average age of 38 for the youngest group categorized, this means they've only been voting since 1994. (FYI: The very definition of a "millennial voter" is someone who reached the age of 18 on or after 2000. [i.e.: Those <33 years of age; born in 1982 and later.])


#            #            #
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (247+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    benamery21, too many people, mbayrob, Leo Flinnwood, Brecht, roseeriter, Lepanto, Teknocore, bahaba, Ishmaelbychoice, camlbacker, NonnyO, DeadHead, run around, tovan, Auriandra, The Lone Apple, Dood Abides, DrFaustus, rapala, Mostel26, BenderRodriguez, Free Jazz at High Noon, Sandino, ban48, Kingsmeg, gulfgal98, cybrestrike, DerAmi, jbob, banjolele, d3clark, Ageing Hippie, eyo, sodalis, maryabein, leeleedee, GoGoGoEverton, absdoggy, Habitat Vic, kurt, tampaedski, yoduuuh do or do not, Meteor Blades, mconvente, bigrivergal, NoMoreLies, HeyMikey, hlsmlane, Pat K California, kharma, Only Needs a Beat, TomP, BoiseBlue, penguins4peace, No one gets out alive, LSmith, avsp, dsb, cv lurking gf, joedemocrat, Lily O Lady, jobu, Thinking Fella, LiberalLoner, Stude Dude, jfromga, biggiefries, jazzizbest, Dallasdoc, pat bunny, FarWestGirl, countwebb, The Jester, RFK Lives, JayRaye, ban nock, johanus, Raggedy Ann, Betty Pinson, Johnny the Conqueroo, 3rdOption, temptxan, unclejohn, MGross, CroneWit, PrahaPartizan, ChemBob, MartyM, bbctooman, Jon Sitzman, philipmerrill, Joieau, mkor7, David54, aaraujo, unfangus, elwior, jasan, northerntier, psnyder, dmhlt 66, gooderservice, La Gitane, LillithMc, Egalitare, ignoranceSlayer, Preston S, Words In Action, commonmass, Just Bob, GreenMother, Demeter Rising, StrayCat, zerelda, Publius2008, blackhand, TracieLynn, CenPhx, jessical, socalmonk, quagmiremonkey, Pescadero Bill, Sun Tzu, MKinTN, susakinovember, Sunspots, mcstowy, basquebob, ruscle, Nisi Prius, Catte Nappe, shaharazade, leonard145b, TKO333, SeaTurtle, JDWolverton, Paul Ferguson, 3rock, geordie, Byron from Denver, IndieGuy, thomask, FindingMyVoice, thirty three and a third, CenFlaDem, New Rule, evander, cpresley, Mimikatz, trumpeter, orlbucfan, offgrid, spunhard, NJpeach, anshmishra, Josiah Bartlett, puakev, quill, LucyTooners, petral, JVolvo, ColoTim, no way lack of brain, Dolphin99, emal, cville townie, Undomestic Goddess, wasatch, Andrew F Cockburn, BlueInARedState, Laurel in CA, hwy70scientist, Fox Ringo, Patate, pvasileff, psyched, YucatanMan, maybeeso in michigan, aliasalias, Gay CA Democrat, groupw, histOries Marko, peacestpete, retLT, Take a Hard Left, Mr MadAsHell, CA Nana, diomedes77, fumie, WB Reeves, Rogneid, ivote2004, Jim R, joe shikspack, oafling, Unbozo, kjmclark, One Pissed Off Liberal, USHomeopath, historys mysteries, wildweasels, cyncynical, Chaddiwicker, kurious, Wolf10, Pluto, pgm 01, windsong01, oofer, livjack, El Mito, BYw, Johnny Q, Ice Blue, Terry S, decisivemoment, lostinamerica, Azazello, AverageJoe42, SpecialKinFlag, Sarahsaturn, Alumbrados, tofumagoo, dalef77, amparo fan, niteskolar, rmonroe, kevinpdx, Tony Situ, NearlyNormal, outragedinSF, Jeff Y, jadt65, wolf advocate, Iron Spider, SherrieLudwig, Teiresias70, QBee59, RUNDOWN, NewRomeIsBurning, bobcat41702, gharlane, ArthurPoet, Prickly Pam, ickamaus, penelope pnortney

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:29:01 AM PDT

  •  Life experience (119+ / 0-)

    We need to look carefully at the following (emphasis mine):

    The two groups were asked to choose whether “most people can get ahead if they’re willing to work hard” or whether “hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people.” A decisive majority of the older “solid liberal” group, 67 percent, responded that hard work is no guarantee of success, while an even larger majority, 77 percent, of the younger “next generation left” believes that you can get ahead if you are willing to work hard.
    It's worth remembering that the younger part of this cohort has had a hell of a time getting employment commensurate with their education.  The economy since 2007 isn't typical for most of the sample, but younger millennials will likely not look at the system as particularly fair or rewarding of effort.  But this generation also has not seen effective public policy to alleviate their lack of opportunity.  The market has failed many young people.  But government, at the same time, has failed them as well.

    It's incumbent on Democratic office holders and the policy makers to show younger voters that government can make a difference.   We owe that to people who have recently finished their education, or have finished high school to enter a bleak economic situation.  And if we want their engagement and loyalty, we need to start delivering for them.

    To be on the wrong side of Dick Cheney is to be on the right side of history.

    by mbayrob on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:54:12 AM PDT

      •  Por favor lea su kosmail mi amigo izquierdo (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobswern

        :o)

        "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition /= GTFO" Dr. Bernice Johnson Reagon + JVolvo

        by JVolvo on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:33:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  i remember being that young (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        QBee59, Prickly Pam

        I was much as described...liberal on social issues and libertarian before I knew that term existed. I thought the best politician would be one who promised to get rid of laws (great resentment on seat belt and Helmut laws.)
        We need to reach these young adults or they will vote for the next Reagan and live to regret it. Just as I and many of my friends did.

        When economies prosper racism and other isms go down. When we can prove to them the accomplishments of governments that work toward the social justices they find admirable we will reach them. My biggest ignorance back then was how one was so intertwined with the other.

    •  Shorter version: young people are naive. (257+ / 0-)

      Since when have young people not been libertarian?  Look at their lives: everyone they know is about the same age and same health, they all go to the same school and see the same teachers, they all get the same tests, and they all know if they study they score higher and if the screw around the score low.  Every game of monopoly they've played starts everyone in the same place with the same money on an empty board with a full bank.  Every video game they've played allows them to restart if they fail.  The maximum reward is a star on the forehead and the maximum punishment is summer-school.  

      Their entire existence is a veneer of libertarian wonder-world painted over a solid base of socialism.  It takes ten years or so of realizing that 'the rules are the same' but you are at start with an empty wallet but the board is full and the bank is empty.  You can't go out west and shoot buffalo or chop down redwoods, you can't go 100 yards offshore and scoop up endless fish - those easy opportunities of when capitalism was being established are gone.  Even the family farm is mostly gone.  Now you hop on a treadmill and the faster you run, the faster the treadmill goes.  Yeah, some get ahead, but is that really the life you want?

      And some 20 yr old is supposed to figure this out?

      "Wrong, Do it again!" "If you don't learn to compete, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't learn to compete?" "You! Yes, you occupying the bikesheds, stand still laddy!"

      by ban48 on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 04:01:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're right. That's why Rand Paul is strong. (36+ / 0-)

        Excellent comment. Right on target.

        Rand Paul is much less of a crank than his dad. They both live in naive fantasyland, but the younger Paul is much closer to the border of reality--close enough that some of his ideas really do make sense, and he can make the rest sound plausible to the naive.

        Contrast that with the rest of the GOP 2016 field, who are all either boring as hell or crazy as hell.

        I expect Rand Paul to be the 2016 GOP nominee, and I would not at all be surprised for him to be the next Prez.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:17:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nominee? Maybe (24+ / 0-)

          President?  Never.

          Not just because I don't want it.  Rand hasn't got the serious pushback that a national campaign would deliver.  People mistakenly think that "kids" like Rand because he'll make pot legal and doesn't want any wars.  Shed some light on the REST of his platform, and let him keep it up in the face of the real establishment that runs the GOP....you'll see him shrink like a block of ice in Death Valley.

          In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

          by Bring the Lions on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:16:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I hope you're right. But history isn't kind. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            QBee59, Prickly Pam

            How is Rand Paul's vision any crazier than Ronald Reagan's? Yet Reagan was elected by two landslides, and is still revered as a hero by a lot of idiots.

            Don't think that just because it would be monumentally stupid, it can't happen.

            "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

            by HeyMikey on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 08:55:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Big Difference (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jbsoul, Gentle Giant

              Ronald Reagan was a political figure for nearly 2 decades when he ran in 1980.

              He had been Governor of California, a pretty high profile gig.  First term Senator from Kentucky?  Not the same.

              Reagan had already run in 1976 and came very close.  All of this led to the "gravitas" of his 1980 run, along with the it's-his-turn aspect.

              Also, as wrong as Reagan was, he had been saying the same crap since the late 1950s.  That meant he stood up and delivered his shtick when it was way out of fashion, and kept at it as the zeitgeist turned.  Hey, I hate his policies, but it meant he was more serious, was taken more seriously, and people had a lot of exposure to what he stood for.

              None of that applies to Rand Paul.  A bunch of people who like to think they're smarter than they are think that because Rand is actually under 50 and talks about legalizing pot that he has some "in" with people under 40.  No.  Low information potheads will like hearing about legalizing marijuana, but shine a spotlight on the guy watch the crazy come out.  And then everyone will go "Oh...he's just as nuts as the other guys."

              In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

              by Bring the Lions on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 07:16:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Same deal with 2008 Obama, but he won. NT (0+ / 0-)

                "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                by HeyMikey on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:12:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again, Completely Different (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  penelope pnortney

                  Need I say it on DailyKos?

                  Obama was the vehicle for the anti-war crowd, unlike the other front runner (Hillary Clinton).  That gave him an edge with the Democratic base.  Rand Paul is going to be at a disadvantage with at least part of the base if he sticks to his isolationist stance.

                  After 8 years of Bush the Democratic base was eager to take back the White House.  With the full suckiness of the Bush Administration becoming clear from 2006-2008, they had ample evidence to sell independents and disaffected Republicans on how the GOP was horrific.  Rand Paul and his fans think they're in the same spot, but they're not.

                  More importantly Obama was able to reach the 45% of the populace who usually don't vote.  Frankly, just by not being another old white guy.  Rand Paul does NOT have that in his corner, needless to say.

                  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

                  by Bring the Lions on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 04:48:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Paul is clever enough... (8+ / 0-)

          ...to scope out issues with which young voters can connect, and I'm sure he can seem very appealing to them at first glance. But my guess is that as they learn more about him, most will come to realize he has too much "crank" baggage for them to consider him viable.

        •  You are absolutely right. And MSNBC has noticed. (17+ / 0-)

          One only has to look at the multiple (!) stories on The Last Word W/ Lawrence O'Donnell that gave positive coverage to recent political statements by Rand Paul. O'Donnell has been savvy enough to note that much of these statements are crafted by Paul's staff and not Paul himself. But nonetheless, O'Donnell has noted repeatedly how politically adroit and smart-sounding Paul has been coming across lately.

          Paul's strategy is, in my humble opinion, this decade's take on Dubya's infamously successful refashioning of a GOP politician as a "compassionate" conservative (an oxymoron if there ever was one).  Paul is striking all the right notes on things like foreign policy, sentencing for drug offenders and, even worse, reinventing himself as pro-voting rights for African-Americans.

          Are there enough American voters naive and unsophisticated enough to buy into the Trojan Horse political strategy? Yes, absolutely. Those on DK and elsewhere who keep writing off Paul and keep insisting that Hillary is both unbeatable and inevitable are setting themselves up for a truly disastrous rude awakening in 2016.

          Paul has hit on a way to fool some of the people enough of the time and get away with it just long enough that he could indeed win the Presidency.

          Those here who continue to underrate him and not take him seriously do so at their and our peril. Rand Paul is not the rigid firebrand his father was. Unlike his dad, he's more sophisticated than that and he will have no problem saying or doing anything to win.

          He's got a real shot at winning in 2016. God help us all if he does.

        •  Totally wrong.. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JJustin, drdarkeny, Dbug, aitchdee

          ..Rand Paul is actually more extreme than his "cranky" ol Dad.

        •  I have to say I am surprised (5+ / 0-)

          that a world in which college-educated kids are graduating with high debt and decreased job opportunities and kids who don't or can't go to college are doomed to dead-end jobs think they can get ahead with hard work, which is kind of a joke. I assume they all think they themselves are to blame for dismal economic prospects? Weird.

          Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

          by anastasia p on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:06:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  There is another kind of naivete... (14+ / 0-)

        ...in trusting government to solve our "problems".   It starts with whether government's definition of your "problem" is consistent with your own.

        Ask Justina Pelletier what she thinks about paternalistic government policies.

        •  Or that government is competent to fix the problem (11+ / 0-)

          Sometimes and in some places it is, but that seems to be less and less true at the federal level whether it's snafus over healthcare, the VA, the CDC or the over reach at NSA. and billion dollar bungling in DoD.

        •  We the people. (19+ / 0-)

          We are the government. To the extent that that's not true, we need to fix it.
          In a modern, rapidly changing country of 300+million people that's not easy to define, but we have the institutions to make it work. School boards municipalities, regions, states, federal, etc.
          Citizens can never "relax" in a true free democracy. They must maintain vigilance.

          To the extent that voter apathy soared in recent decades, passivity set in, etc, we find ourself now in this place where the pols don't listen to the public but to the lobbyists.
          Everything follows from that.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:23:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Precisely. Calling for "smaller government" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sarenth, aitchdee, David54

            is in fact a call for stripping US of our power and voice and handing it to someone else. Where there is weak government something else — something more domineering and dictatorial — takes it place. In Afghanistan it's warlords; in Somalia pirates and murderous rebels. In the U.S. it's corporations.

            The more we want "less government," the more we disengage, the more we become cynical, the more we are handing control of our lives to something we have no say in.

            Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

            by anastasia p on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:15:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  True, it can go both ways. That's why a balance is (13+ / 0-)

          needed between government powers and personal rights and freedoms.

          And that balance doesn't exist right now thanks to our new kleptocracy/oligarchy/surveillance state.

          And sadly these kids have grown up, and been conditioned to accept that just like some kids grow up in abusive households.

          You live like that long enough and it seems normal.

          "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

          by GreenMother on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:04:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It starts with the def. of government (9+ / 0-)

          If you conceive of government as coercive force, then you are doomed to create coercive governance. If you conceive of government as democratic empowerment or as community achievement, then you can achieve something different.

          Cop power is not exactly "the government." Defining government that way is as false as defining "government" as the DMV wait in Los Angeles California in 1975 in a comedian's stand up routine. Government is both regulation and rule, coercive and normative power.

          "for all the murders, rapes, and thefts,/ Committed in the horrid lust of war,/ He that unjustly caus'd it first proceed,/ Shall find it in his grave and in his seed." -- Webster, "The White Devil," IV i 8-12.

          by The Geogre on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:05:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Culture of coercion (0+ / 0-)

            Our culture is coercive, even in our desire to "help" others, it is a custom or tradition to force help on people who decline it.    

            Just think of how many times you've seen this scene.  

            "Here, let me help you."    
            "On, no.  Thank you.   I'm fine."
            "No, no, no I INSIST."

            We are taught to engage in coercion at a very young age.  It is so pervasive in our culture that people don't even realize what they're doing.   They think it is right and proper to force their "help" on the unwilling, because they were taught that at an early age.  

            In trying to "help" people not get addicted to drugs, we've started a huge war that has raged across the face of the world.   This is a very aggressive culture.

            •  You are now getting into a fine line (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JerryNA, aitchdee

              With respect, you've passed from a broad definition of coercion to an extremely fine one. I would regard the definition you're using as licensed. It would require a separate argument to tease out, and it wouldn't be appropriate to engage in here.

              (Miscommunication is not coercion. There are occasions when it is ethical to coerce. There are times when persons are insufficient in giving rational consent. These things can only be defined communally and hopefully consensually, but that cannot include full consensus. Because of this, there is always going to be an area where there are potential mistakes that do not include "bad culture" and "teaching oppression." That's not the starting point. It's a perceived effect.)
              (And now you feel like arguing back.)
              (Sorry. Like I said, this would need a separate cover and probably wouldn't reach an end, except in, "I disagree with your definition profoundly.")

              "for all the murders, rapes, and thefts,/ Committed in the horrid lust of war,/ He that unjustly caus'd it first proceed,/ Shall find it in his grave and in his seed." -- Webster, "The White Devil," IV i 8-12.

              by The Geogre on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:23:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'll agree that it's perception. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oafling, snwflk, blueoasis

                But, then, this whole discussion is about perception.  I shared my perception.   You say yours is different.    I can live with that.  

                My perception is that Christianity as it is often practiced reinforces a message of interference in other people's lives, and coercion.   Perhaps I experience it more because I live in the South.   Where religion influences politics, it often seems to be involved in crafting legislation designed to coerce me, as a  woman, to conform to their view of the life I should lead such as   not having sex outside of marriage, not marrying same sex, not divorcing, not using birth control, not having abortions, etc.    The methods used include such tactics as trying influence laws to make it impossible marry same sex, harder to divorce, eliminating abortion clinics so as to leave me no option to use one, eliminating access to birth control through health care plans, eliminating funding for birth control or women's services so it is not available to me, etc.     Coercion, in other words.

                It appears very much to me that these people are TAUGHT that interfering in people's lives and coercing people's personal choices is "doing God's work", that the focus of their religion is to impose themselves on other people's lives, otherwise known as "helping" them.  

                It looks like teaching oppression to me.

                 

                •  Excuse me, but I think this sort of coercion (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aitchdee

                  is pretty much characteristic of all human social groupings to one degree or another. All social groups attempt to enforce norms of behavior. The means as well as the norms may vary but the element of coercion is constant, whether it be criminal penalty or shunning. This appears true regardless of whether the norms be secular or religious.

                  It sounds to as though you'd like to identify some variety of altruism as the motive force in social coercion. That is, the impulse to do "good" for others. If so, I have to disagree.

                  Social coercion is motivated by self interest; the preservation of a shared identity based on shared norms of behavior. It could hardly be otherwise, since without shared norms of some kind human social organization would be impossible other than by direct, physical coercion.

                  Human diversity being what it is, such norms are in near constant contention. Differing groups will fight over what the norms should be. Whatever the outcome, there will be social mechanisms for enforcement and some degree of coercion.

                  The substantive question is what the material content of the norms is and the character of the values they reflect.

                  If we believe in the dignity and unalienable rights of the individual human being, it follows that we must believe it for all human beings collectively, irrespective of Gender, et al.

                  In this context, it is a question of what norms would match the values expressed above.

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:08:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, much better to let (23+ / 0-)

          unelected corporate bureaucrats,whose only motivation is to suck your wallet dry, make all of the collective decisions for you.

          Because that is what the BULLSHIT right wing option is: No "government" (with big air quotes), just a de-facto government of un-elected businessmen telling you how you shall be required to live every micro-moment of your life in order to make THEM richer. (Think hobby Lobby, only more-so).

          There WILL be government. Society is far to complex to live a stupid libertarian fantasy of me, me, me.

          The only question is whether it will be OUR government, of the people, by the people, for the people (that would be US) or THEIR government, of the corporations, for the corporations, and (ONLY) by the corporations.

          Go ahead, get rid of the evil "government" and within 24 hours the nice man in the business suit, along with the black-clad, extremely well-armed security guards, will be at your door explaining very nicely that he now owns you, under new corporate law 0001. Oh and he also owns your family and everything you thought you owned (sucker). You will now report to your new job, at no pay, where you WILL work 7 days a week, 20 hours a day with a bathroom break every 10 hours. But cheer up, the benevolent corporation will be providing you with bread and water and a bed. You will now pray to the CEO.

          Welcome to libertarian utopia.

          •  THIS (14+ / 0-)

            As Philip E Agre said back in 2004

                Q: What is conservatism?
                A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

                Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
                A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

            These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history.

            Pick your form of aristocracy - Corporate elites, Military junta, Theocrats, Politburo, Five Families, Poobahs, etc.  

            The net effect is concentrated power and resources for few, and limited power and resources for many.

            "..The political class cannot solve the problems it created. " - Jay Rosen

            by New Rule on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:48:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you. Soooo much patronizing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sarenth

          horseshit on this thread.

          The NYT writer ignored the fact that young people support more government intervention to protect the environment. But, the poll also shows that young people understand giving more power to the federal government for ineffective bureaucracies isn't the only way to enact progressive goals. The old folks in this thread giving lectures on how to educate young people should rethink their habit of equating liberalism with big government. The two are not synonymous.

        •  Or maybe the naivete is thinking that just because (5+ / 0-)

          you are in a democracy you are entitled to good government, that you can vote for the best one-liner then tune out for four years and expect a decent outcome.  How can a democracy be maintained in an environment where it is considered rude to talk about politics in public?

          Do americans in-general even know how to do democracy?  I wonder, simply based on one simple popular precept: 'we should run government like a business'.  What happens when a business fails?  People lose their incomes and some get thrown into the street.  What happens when a government fails?  The lucky people get occupied by a neighboring power, the unlucky ones get sucked into endless civil wars as everyone vies to fill the power vacuum.  

          It took europe 600 years to get their collective asses back together after the roman empire collapsed.* And their first big bright idea was to wage the crusades, which should be called World War Zero considering their scope and relative carnage.  A government failing is a massive disaster, and to even utter that we should run the government as a type of entity that fails regularly is folly.

          *Don't confuse this statement with an endorsement of the empire.  It failed because everyone hated it and no one would fight for it.  But both its leadership and its citizens  thought they could tune out and let it drift further and further into oligarchy and dictatorship, and failure was then end result.

          "Wrong, Do it again!" "If you don't learn to compete, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't learn to compete?" "You! Yes, you occupying the bikesheds, stand still laddy!"

          by ban48 on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:05:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Pelletier's could no doubt speak well for... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snwflk

          ...themselves, and with considerable truth.

          I think that your point of more than one kind of naivete is precisely on target.  It is equally silly to expect government to solve everything and to expect government to solve nothing.  Government is quite good at many things: building the interstate highways, creating NASA & putting up the satellites we all now depend on (among other things,) creating banks of resources that are available for public use.

          Now consider this: I've seen decrepit housing completely rehabilitated and then torn down immediately...because it was actually cheaper to allow the rehab contracts to be completed than to break the contract!  Stupid, yes, but weirdly more cost effective when you run the numbers.

          I find the generational aspect interesting.  I recall (being the merest babe) sitting and watching the Nixon-Kennedy debates and my grandfather saying, "You & me Republicans, kid, in this room full of Democrats!"  He would no more tolerate what the Republican party has become than grow another head.  My parents, in the meantime, have become not-quite-Tea-Partiers, and really can NOT understand why their military children are all progressive Democrats.  I tell them it comes of travelling a lot.

        •  What is "naive" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sarenth, aitchdee

          about believing that we ourselves (who ARE "government") can do a better job of solving our problems than corporations to whom we cede our own power when we weaken "government" (our own voice).

          I guess you would rather have a "paternalistic" policies of big corporations than policies we craft ourselves through our representatives. They may not always do the best job of representing us, but corporations won't pretend to do any job at all.

          Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

          by anastasia p on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:10:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This could be a great diary, ban48. (72+ / 0-)

        I'd also add that young people today have grown up in a near-total atmosphere of Right Wing propaganda.  They've had almost no exposure to liberal ideas of hope, generosity, or working together, except as ridiculed by the Repubs or downplayed by corpo-Dems.

      •  "Libertarians rationally pursuing their... (42+ / 0-)

        own self-interests" would seem to be in direct conflict with socialism.  The belief that social justice can somehow thrive in a culture where individuals are busily pursuing their own self-interests does seem to be a wee bit naive:

        One problem with this (utopian) model is we now have overwhelming evidence that the individualistic, acquisitive, selfish-gene model of human nature is seriously deficient; it is simplistic, one-sided and in reality resembles the pathological extremes among the personality traits that we find in our society.  The evidence about human evolution indicates that our species evolved in small, close-knit social groups in which cooperation and sharing overrode our individual, competitive self-interests for the sake of the common good...

        Indeed, libertarians generally have no model of society as an interdependent group with a common purpose and common interests...

        ...A more serious concern is that the libertarian fixation with individual freedom distracts us from the underlying biological purpose of a society...

        ...So why is libertarianism unfair?  It rejects any responsibility for our mutual right to life, where we are all created approximately equal.  It would put freedom and property rights ahead of our basic needs, rather than the other way around. It is also oblivious to the claims for reciprocity, an obligation to contribute a fair share to support the collective survival...  

        •  This is good (31+ / 0-)
          Indeed, libertarians generally have no model of society as an interdependent group with a common purpose and common interests...
          What this means in terms of psychological development is that libertarians are stuck at the emerging ego phase of a two year old child.

          "Things are not as they appear to be, nor are they otherwise." - Buddha

          by US Blues on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:42:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thats why they tend to be young or in the least, (26+ / 0-)

            suffering from arrested development. It's not that they have absolutely NO good ideas or good intentions, but it appears that without a basic comprehension about how the world really is, how difficult life can become, that they are willing to create a sort of anarchistic model of a pseudo-society.

            You are free to help anyone you want. But you are also free to not help anyone. And everyone is free to help or not help you.

            That is not a stable society, only they don't know it. They think it's fair because if you are popular enough, and work hard enough that between whatever you have hoarded in terms of favors or goods, it can get you through the rough times.

            This speaks of a very young person who has never been seriously ill or cared for an elderly parent who lived a long long time and struggled with how to care for that person while feeding themselves and working and providing.

            This is a person who has never been without work long, and doesn't know what its like to get a job that pays so low, that it costs more to work in terms of resources expended, than it does to just be unemployed (even without govt assistance).

            They are fucking clueless. And honestly, I have no intention of letting some snot nosed kid flush my life down the toilet just because they haven't learned the big lessons yet. Because they aren't gambling with their lives yet--they are too young.

            They are gambling with mine, or my parents and setting my children up for the cycle of poverty as a result and I say To Hell With That Shit!

            "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

            by GreenMother on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:13:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you. This is the comment I wish i made. (5+ / 0-)
            •  Actually, they are gambling with their own (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              snwflk, blueoasis

              lives too, but they don't yet understand the terms of the bet they're making.

              We build on foundations we did not lay. We warm ourselves by fires we did not light. We sit in the shade of trees we did not plant... We are ever bound in community.-Peter Raible

              by SilentBrook on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 03:18:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not yet they aren't. They are gambling with (0+ / 0-)

                40+ year old folks lives. The very elderly right down to those unemployable 40 yr olds.

                Their lives won't be  "at risk" til about 35. That's when it will start to hit home as a percentage develop serious chronic diseases, or are in accidents, or have some other life changing event that significantly impairs their ability to boot strap by any means other than crime.

                Then it will hit.

                Their brains won't be able to comprehend that until after the age or 26, and then it will be unlikely til they have been alive long enough to have faced the kind of adversity that can make a person have to face their own physical frailty. Thats something that younger people do not cope with very well at all.

                "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                by GreenMother on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 04:31:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Re (4+ / 0-)
            What this means in terms of psychological development is that libertarians are stuck at the emerging ego phase of a two year old child.
            I'm sure the millennials referred to by this diary will appreciate being talked down to in this manner and will vote for people who do so.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:24:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  nobody (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oafling, snwflk

              is going to vote based on the comments in this diary

              Shout golden shouts!

              by itsbenj on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:51:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well ya know what? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oofer, snwflk

              if the shoe fits, wear it.  Most of them are still naive - how can they not be when many still live at home, maybe working part time, maybe not.  And while I'm sure they WOULD rather be working, they won't starve if they do not.

              What this means is get educated - realize the world does not revolve around only social issues and wake up.  If you've not made your own damned living yet, then how do you have the intellectual capacity to understand the reality of that?

              And being Libertarian just because you don't want to fight a war or want to smoke pot?  That IS infantile, just like that willful two year old.

            •  The only thing you prove is that it's not limit... (0+ / 0-)

              The only thing you prove is that it's not limited to millennials.

        •  Do you think giving more power (0+ / 0-)

          to the federal government is the only way to build community?

          Most young people answer that question correctly. No! We have to move beyond the habit of equating liberalism with big government. That's Republican framing.

          •  Of course not--but "Small Government"... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oofer, snwflk, blueoasis

            ...has been a phrase often used by the GOP to justify cutting social programs.  Someone will always have "power" to control policies affecting us all, whether it's a democratically elected government, or corporations, or wealthy individuals--or some combination of all of the above.

            Can the government be run more efficiently? Of course, its a no-brainer that this should be an ongoing effort.  

            But--when it come to determining which programs to cut, and which to keep, and who suffers when cuts are made--therein lies the rub.

            One of the GOP's pet programs for the chopping block is "Welfare" programs.  But the people eager to cut those programs are quick to prevent cuts to "welfare" programs that benefit the wealthy:  Here are five public welfare programs that are wasteful and turning us into a nation of “takers.”

            ...First, welfare subsidies for private planes...and use of air traffic control paid for by chumps flying commercial...

            ...Second, welfare subsidies for yachts...

            ...Third, welfare subsidies for hedge funds and private equity...

            ...Fourth, welfare subsidies for America’s biggest banks...this amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion to our 10 biggest banks annually...

            ...Fifth, large welfare subsidies for American corporations from cities, counties and states...more than $80 billion a year in subsidies to companies

            We talk about the unsustainability of government benefit programs and the deleterious effects these can have on human behavior, and these are real issues...

            Let’s acknowledge that helping people is a complex, uncertain and imperfect struggle.

            But, perhaps because we now have the wealthiest Congress in history, the first in which a majority of members are millionaires, we have a one-sided discussion demanding cuts only in public assistance to the poor, while ignoring public assistance to the rich. And a one-sided discussion leads to a one-sided and myopic policy...

          •  Then what would your alternative be? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SilentBrook, snwflk, blueoasis

            More power to the Corporations?  More power to Wall Street?  More power to the profit motive ONLY?  Are those 'ways to build a community'?

            Maybe go back and read a little history, and not even that far back into history - look into the history of labor unions and just why they were so necessary, look into the repeal of Glass-Steagall and then tell me government isn't the answer to regulatory issues, look at things like the EPA and why those things were implemented.

            You know, one of my biggest peeves is that we in dumbed down Murika are being forced to re-learn all those lessons all over again.  Do we think all those laws and regulations were put in place for mere 'shits and grins' so to speak?  My God.

            •  Read a little more history. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              thirty three and a third

              Look at the labor movement before the Taft-Hartley Act and try to tell me the federal government didn't make it harder to organize a union with that law.

              Look at the history of Midwestern progressive-populist achievements that didn't take federal management, like cooperatives and pretty much everything in socialist North Dakota.

              Look at the factory reclamation movement in south America that's finally spreading to the U.S. if you want to see what actual progress looks like without big brother trying doing it for us and screwing it up.

              Expanding credit unions and companies that are majority owned by employees will do more to fairly distribute wealth and democratize the economy without top-down management by a federal government that's captured by industry.

              And look at how young people are revolting from industrial agriculture by supporting local food systems. A few federal incentives would help that grow. Too much federal management and oversight would probably destroy it.

              These are the types of community-based solutions liberals will have to embrace to appeal to millenials who don't believe the federal government can solve their problems for them. And frankly, it's a much better form of liberalism. The authoritarian approach has reached the end of its useful lifespan.

        •  libertarianism (0+ / 0-)

          recommended x1000.  it is a frightening thing to consider, hope rand [named after ayn rand] is called out on this at the top of our lungs.

      •  While nothing you say is exactly wrong, (42+ / 0-)

        there was less of this sort of thinking among young people 20 years ago I'd bet, and very little of it 40 years ago.

        "Libertarian"-ish ideas started to infect the consciousness of young people around the time that I was in school in the 80s, with the rise of Reagan and the Young Republicans.  They've only gotten more credence since then, as centrist Democrats embraced the same ideals, unions and anything remotely to do with the government were happily bad-mouthed by all and sundry, and the media happily reinforced it all.  What we are seeing now is the outcome of 30 years of relentless propagandizing for that particular kind of right-wing viewpoint and against the social contract -- we're supposed to be shocked that the young people who have grown up in that morass have soaked it in?

        It's not an inevitability of youth or a product of subconscious cues produced by stars on foreheads or whatever.  It's what they've been taught by their entire culture.  You're on your damn own.  Nobody's going to help you.  Might as well make the best of it and grab what you can get, even if that means the guy next to you gets fucked even worse.

        I dont' know how to fix it.

        •  Agree, today's brand of libertarianism = Reaganism (9+ / 0-)

          ...with a little Wild, Wild, West mythology thrown in.

          •  Oh GROAN! * sadly true though. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JVolvo, snwflk

            "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

            by GreenMother on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:15:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  'libertarians are like Republicans with a bong' (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SilentBrook, snwflk

            and while I don't know when or where that phrase started out but it stuck with me when I thought of a friend of mine in Tx. .
             Absolutely everything is about what is best for him, and as long as anyone else doesn't interfere with that he doesn't care at all about what they do or what they are, gay or straight, Black or White (I have yet to meet any Black friends of his), or concern himself with their standard of living.
            It is selfishness and being oblivious to the world around him upon which he needs to survive, he feels taxes are a curse that take away from him, but he hates potholes on streets and is angry if any govt. agency does not respond to his requests or needs.
            BUT! He loves his bong.

            without the ants the rainforest dies

            by aliasalias on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:51:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  And perhaps at the worse possible time in (10+ / 0-)

          human history - climate change.

          It appears, if one projects the trend of 'politics, population and pollution' (the three P's if you will), that humanity is in for a cataclysmic end to this century.

          Who's left standing and what's left to stand on going into the 22nd century is the greatest question facing us.


          "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandeis

          by Pescadero Bill on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:56:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I will say (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snwflk

          I too voted for St Ronnie the Dim in 1980 and was indeed taken in by the propaganda of that moment.  But I learned long ago just how naive and dumb a decision that was.  

          That said, I have hope for the young - even if they're ignorant libertarians at this point in their lives, they too WILL learn.

          And boy, when they figure it out are they gonna look back at all that stupid and cringe...  Not their own stupid necessarily, but the stupid of a generation that told them to vote this way.

      •  Income inequality will shift attitudes (40+ / 0-)

        The poll findings among young people tell me that 40 years of conservative propaganda about free-market wonders has had its effect.  Reaganite nonsense is now conventional wisdom among a lot of young people, who grew up hearing nothing but.  

        Growing income inequality and decreasing social mobility is putting the lie to the neoliberal worldview, however, and young people are the main victims of decreasing economic opportunity.  The 30-somethings Edsall is talking about may not realize their economic attitudes are false, but I'd bet younger people are getting wise to it.  

        Political messaging around economic fairness and social justice has been largely absent in our debate until very recently, with the rise to prominence of Elizabeth Warren and a few others.  Democrats have not made the case, in large part, so many young people haven't heard it.  That's beginning to change.  Warren's message has such an obvious ring of truth that it will change a lot of minds, especially among the young.  

        The schism between Wall Street Dems and economic populist Dems is already cracking open.  People who preach the inevitability of Hillary Clinton are going to be on the losing side, ultimately.  The proprietor of this establishment thinks he's a tactical genius, but in reality he's preaching yesterday's tired conventional wisdom.  Events in time will prove that's a losing strategy.

        I stand with triv33. Shame on her attackers.

        by Dallasdoc on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:22:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is spot-on. (8+ / 0-)

          "The schism between Wall Street Dems and economic populist Dems is already cracking open.  People who preach the inevitability of Hillary Clinton are going to be on the losing side, ultimately.  The proprietor of this establishment thinks he's a tactical genius, but in reality he's preaching yesterday's tired conventional wisdom.  Events in time will prove that's a losing strategy."

          It is my 27 year old opinion that Hillary Clinton is more of the same. I have a feeling this is a widely shared sentiment among Millennials. Give us warren/sanders. Hillary is going to put a huge damper on "get out the vote".

        •  I know you don't want to, but you have to include (5+ / 0-)

          Obama in that. Breakaway from the libertarian screed that
          claims Obama is a warmonger, criminal  etc. Obama has fought for social justice and income equality. Warren supports Obama and the  party.  Recognize his accomplishments and stop mouthing puerile libertarian bullshit.

          •  Obama is no Warren. (6+ / 0-)

            He deserves a lot of credit, he has pointed to the problem and acknowledged it exists and needs to be addressed. He was too late in changing his strategy-had trickle-down economics not been a farce-everyone would be better off right now. However, as everyone can see, the recovery and increased profits go to the already well-off-perpetuating the decline of the middle class.

            •  Obama is no Warren? No, he is the president. (12+ / 0-)

              The stimulus was not trickle down and it staved off a depression. Could his Wall Street strategy have been better? Yes. But Warren states that Obama has down good things with Dodd Frank and Consumer Credit Protection. Again, it is not all about Wall Street. It is about social justice, gay rights,minority rights, ACA.  I don't know that we would all be better off because of  an infusion of mortgage dollars, which is what Warren was talking about. Your talking points are libertarian. Warren and the president are in the same party and support each other and other democrats. There is no divide there.

              •  ...done good things with Dodd Frank... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                shrike
              •  Yes, we can be gay married while unemployed (10+ / 0-)

                and without food, clothing and shelter because of the Wall Street revolving door directly into the White House.

                And if we aren't gay (which I am and appreciative that Obama finally "evolved" after the rest of the country was ready to pass him by), then what has happened?  

                If we were among the couple hundred million Americans who already had health insurance of some form, all we've basically gotten is more weakening of the middle class in favor of the richest of the rich, who Obama has defended time and again. ("Jamie Dimon is a very smart man" kind of talk, except that he's perpetuated falsehoods and frauds, that's all).  Jack Lew, direct from Citibank to White House Chief of Staff, Obama's right-hand-man.  There's a nice example for you.

                Between the political hacks from Chicago - Arne Duncan, anyone - the neoliberal "free trade" approach of this administration, and the Wall Street revolving door, this presidency has been right up the financiers'.... alley.

                And screw the rest of us.

                No divide between Warren and the president?  He repeatedly tried to intimidate her and shut her down. I don't think he ever thought she'd become senator. Ooops.  And his administration continues to diss her in various ways. Someone's not paying much attention.

                "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

                by YucatanMan on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:21:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  He backed her on the recent student loan push. (0+ / 0-)

                  He never dogged her. They have had different points of view but they remain friends and support each other.

                •  It is not all about Wall Street. I am not going to (0+ / 0-)

                  unpack all of your talking points, it has been done again and again. One example, Jamie Diamond feels betrayed by Obama and one rhetorical remark is not time and time again.

                  The reason there has not been much movement in the jobs market is because the republicans have obstructed every plan to get the economy into higher gear. Jobs programs, wage increase, infrastructure, high speed rail, student loan reform to name a few have all been obstructed. They tell you it is Obama's fault hoping you are dumb enough to fall for it. Most of us see thru it. Why don't you?

                  Just a note. We survived the depression where the EU did not. I remember when Obama was first elected and met with Merkal and Sarkosky. They demanded Obama not do a stimulus package. They were the trickle down hawks. Obama ignored them. They were wrong. Now you people have given her an out by blaming Obama for Bush's wire taps. You are doing the republicans and the libertarians work for them.

                  Any discussion on this site is derailed by the repetition of the same talking points. They have been discussed and debunked.   Many don't agree wit you or your talking points. They simply don't mesh with the site's mission.

              •  Gay, abortiony Reaganists (5+ / 0-)

                are just as dangerous as straight, non-abortiony Reaganists.

                I am beyond sick and tired of the "Fiscal conservative/social liberal" BS that has been taken up as the default "reasonable" approach to politics. This mindset has eviscerated the middle class.

                Fiscal "conservativism" is morally unacceptable in all circumstances.

                I am an economic Keynesian, a social libertarian, a foreign policy internationalist, and militantly anti-authoritarian in every way shape and form.

                by zemongoose on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 04:50:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What Reaganists? Stop name calling and (0+ / 0-)

                  give examples. Jobs programs, infrastructure,pushing for student loan reform just to name a few are in no way Reganism. Obama has been blocked by an obstructionist house. You ought to know that.

            •  Obama wins MA by 23 pts over MA governor Romney. (0+ / 0-)

              Warren struggles to win that same state in the same year by 7 points.  So, yeah, Obama is no Warren.  Obama is a much stronger national candidate, and indeed, a much stronger candidate in Warren's own state.

          •  Obama's record is decidedly mixed (4+ / 0-)

            If you look at what his economic policies have done, whom they've favored, and what's happened on his watch, he's been income inequality's best friend.  He didn't have to bail out the banks with no meaningful consequences.  He didn't have to agree to keep a lot of the Bush tax cuts for the rich in place.  He didn't have to offer chained CPI over and over and over and over again.  He didn't have to give up a public option in health care negotiations from the start.

            Obama's "fighting" for income equality has mostly been empty campaign rhetoric.  If you look at what his administration has actually done, a very different picture emerges.

            I stand with triv33. Shame on her attackers.

            by Dallasdoc on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 04:39:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is redundant. All of these same talking (0+ / 0-)

              points have been debunked. He agreed to keep tax increases for incomes over $400,000(?). That is called whipping the votes. It is naive to think legislation hasn't always been so. He offered chain CPI for tax increases, didn't happen. Public option was a non starter, no blue dog would vote for it. This site is supposed to be reality based, not Never Never Land.

        •  The focus on elections ends up losing elections (4+ / 0-)

          For forty years Democrats have abandoned this fight in the name of electablilty.  Now unsurprisingly we reap that bitter crop of a generation that seemingly places little value on social responsibility.  By failing to advocate for liberal values Democrats have won a few battles but ultimately lost the war

      •  Which is why our responsibility to educate and (6+ / 0-)

        awaken the electorate is so important. We have to penetrate beyond our own silo of like minded people and especially reach the  youth.

        "Schism" could be a problem for Dems and progressives, but we could also turn it into a dynamic plus.

        The gop/tea party have milked their "schism" for years, hogging the news cycle, driving the narrative, etc. and it  hasn't really mattered that it's all nutty bullshit because it gives the impression that the gop is dynamic, changing, responding to the grass roots, etc., when in fact it's doing just the opposite.

        The "schism" is exactly the hammer and anvil we need to continue educating and enlightening voters.

        For all of the problems, the ACA fight in 2009 and later totally transformed the knowledge base and awareness of the American public about health care and the insurance industry.
        The Great Recession likewise opened a lot of eyes.
        We need to keep this in context and keep forging ahead to change things.
        Use the "schism" to suck the wind out of the gop/centrist narrative machine.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:16:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Also these polls are biased (12+ / 0-)

        The questions in the article above are all generic enough that even I would come out libertarian:

        “most people can get ahead if they’re willing to work hard”

        is quite different from asking

        "will American society prosper if everyone just works harder"

        or the even better

        "can America end oil dependence, achieve better health coverage or fix its educational system if everyone just works harder"

        Its absolutely true that there is some marginal increase in wealth for anyone that can work harder. Its absolutely wrong that everyone working harder would necessarily accomplish anything beyond more bubbles, wars and environmental degradation.

        •  All those questions (5+ / 0-)

          also skip over a basic fact: there are millions of people who are not being allowed to work, because the system has been perverted to put padding accounts in the Caymans over basic human dignity.

          "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

          by nosleep4u on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:57:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  i also had issues with the questions (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snwflk, blueoasis

          i took the survey.  i tested as "solid liberal".  i didn't like the wording of some of the statements.  there were no either/or answers for some of the scenarios.  in some cases i would have agreed or disagreed with both statements.

          my partner told me that our son tested as "New Left" (?) and sounds like he falls into the category that this diary is describing.  i agree with another comment above that notes young people are naive.  i believe that to be the case for answering the questions in the manner they did.  they simply haven't lived long enough yet to realize what this country and 30 years of Reaganism has crafted for them.

          I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

          by blue drop on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:49:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The issue is not over how "hard" the worker works (0+ / 0-)

          the issue is the level of compensation for the work.

          American corporations have decided that only the upper tiers get the money. The CEOs scoop up all the available compensation dollars for themselves and the rest of the workers scrabble for the ever decreasing crumbs.

          Current wages do not cover todays living expenses period. Soon we will see everyone in the freaking country taking in boarders, sharing their housing, moving in with family, selling off their last possessions on Craigs List, etc. As middle class disposable income disappears, so will all the industries based around it - travel ,tourism, restaurants, etc. There will be a ripple effect into housing which is one of the major supports of the entire economy. The whole thing is a house of cards.

          I doubt I'll ever live to see it, but all workers everywhere in every field need to demand that the money stops being embezzled and siphoned off by those at the top.

          “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

          by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:38:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Rap or Punk. . . . (13+ / 0-)

        My 20's had punk, with a very strong subcurrent of socialism and Marxism. As we battered our heads bloody on low wage jobs and temp positions, even as we got more education, we had Billy Bragg saying, "The system has failed you/ Don't fail yourself," or just Gang of Four singing "To Hell with Poverty" or Dead Kennedys or Fugazi or. . . .

        It was candied with youthful cynicism or nostalgic idealism, but it taught and reassured.

        The so-called Millenials, if they have found a musical culture in an age so fragmented after the death of radio get a more ephemeral, less lyrically oriented phenomenon. Rap music is great, but its brief window of political awareness and community empowerment was largely missed, or cauterized by the labels. Even where someone like Michael Faranti has been working, and he's amazing, there hasn't been a really good or consistent left underground.

        Or maybe I'm just old and uncool and unaware. It sure seems, though, that there aren't any standing room only concerts for socialist bands anymore.

        "for all the murders, rapes, and thefts,/ Committed in the horrid lust of war,/ He that unjustly caus'd it first proceed,/ Shall find it in his grave and in his seed." -- Webster, "The White Devil," IV i 8-12.

        by The Geogre on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:01:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I loved Gang of Four. I saw them in Paris. I was (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Geogre, ozsea1

          close to thirty. I don't know what to say but 'Yes! Yes! Yes!

        •  Yup, the punk movement of the late 70s early 80... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Geogre

          Yup, the punk movement of the late 70s early 80s was much more political than the music now or the heavy metal of the earlier years or the hair rock then grunge that followed. ... And it was very socialist

          A return to political music of the folk years but with a serious volume level. .....I loved it and still have more than one Pandora channel set to various bands from the Sex. Pistols to DK to Bad Religion heck Sublime Had a few too though that was later.......

          •  "Y'allternative" (4+ / 0-)

            The "alt country" or "No Depression" acts that started after post-punk were punk by another means. Uncle Tupelo and Son Volt have continued extremely strong left music. That ties into a large, large group of groups, though, that alike can be called "folk revival" or "alternative folk" or "singer songwriter" or whatever the heck one wants.

            Take Steve Earle, add in the smarties of country, toss in Golden Smog and Jayhawks and the other Americana acts of the midwest, and you can see the shadow of Woody Guthrie cast long and strong. (I always thought the real key to the "alt.country" groups was The Band. The Band showed what American music could have been without The Beatles, and it was as if a whole bunch of people intent on reinventing rock and roll then thought, "Yeah, The Band were right. I can play more than one instrument.")

            "for all the murders, rapes, and thefts,/ Committed in the horrid lust of war,/ He that unjustly caus'd it first proceed,/ Shall find it in his grave and in his seed." -- Webster, "The White Devil," IV i 8-12.

            by The Geogre on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:20:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  True, Libertarianism would appeal to the 20--- (4+ / 0-)

        somethings still kicking up their heals out of mom and dad's house for the first time.

        Rules are bad, til you experience why they exist.

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:02:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So true, ban48 (5+ / 0-)

        Couldn't have said it better myself.
          My 24-year old niece just sent me a libertarian message.

         The thing is, where are they going to pick up any socialist ideas? The MM is corporatist.

        "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

        by gjohnsit on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:22:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Young adults do think and analyze (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ivote2004, oafling, sebastianguy99

        but resent - to varying degrees - old people telling them what to think and what to do.

        Same as it ever was.

        "As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce." - Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations

        by ozsea1 on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:24:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They aren't all 20 year olds (6+ / 0-)
        One of the two youngest groups, the average age is 41 and a third (33%) are younger than 30.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:41:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks, Catte Nappe. (6+ / 0-)

          Odd for us to be on the same side, but Pew's presentation of the data is either disingenuous or clutzy. Either way, it doesn't lend itself to any kind of sensible generational analysis. Actually I don't think it lends itself to any kind of sensible demographic analysis at all. Not the way they've categorized it.

          There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:55:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They weren't after "generational" conclusions (10+ / 0-)

            The Pew work was more about "mind set" and "attitude". They could have come up with some other cutesy category names that didn't so strongly suggest an age cohort.  The problem is people taking the data and trying to make it a story about generations (or religion, or race, or any other single demographic). It's a model, and anytime you start trying to get too specific about the significance of a model you run into the outliers and exceptions.

            But some generational point is, in fact, in there. Despite the existence of people in their 50's and 60's in a category called "Next Generation Left", 69% are under 50, and 33% under 30.  The other categories with a significant chunk of younger people are their Young Outsiders, and the Bystanders. Compare to Steadfast Conservatives and you can see the generational shift in attitudes and priorities,

            I think the Pew study is a useful piece of work taken as it was intended, and for what it is. The problems are arising from the many people opining on it, and trying to make it "the answer to life, the universe and everything".

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:27:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't like their questions (4+ / 0-)

              Way, way too simplistic and false choices. So I'm not sure I would take too much out of the likely fairly minor generational differences in responses anyway.

              But, this community is not fond of people under 50 so no big surprise there.

              •  Too bad we can't bookmark comments (0+ / 0-)

                Sometimes I'll come across one that is more informative and useful than whole diaries. In one of the many diaries on this study someone with apparent professional knowledge of the process had a very constructive explanation about how they actually can accurately sort people into "buckets" with such broad questions on leaning.

                “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                by Catte Nappe on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:12:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Maybe... (3+ / 0-)

                  I work in survey statistical research so this is an area in which I have some experience, so I don't question that it is possible to do. But I am pretty skeptical of this particular set of questions. I would like to see their qualitative testing results with particular attention to generational variability in question interpretation if they are going to put so much emphasis on the generational differences.

                  •  Again - *they* weren't focusing on generations (1+ / 0-)
                    The typology divides the public into seven politically engaged groups, along with an eighth group
                    of politically disengaged Bystanders. These groups are defined by their social and political values
                    using 23 survey questions that address attitudes about government, business, privacy, foreign
                    policy, the social safety net, individualism, religion, homosexuality, the environment, immigration
                    and race. These measures are based on broadly oriented values designed to measure a person’s
                    underlying belief
                    about what is right and wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, or what the
                    government should or should not be involved in. The political typology is not based on opinions
                    about political leaders, parties or current issues, nor are demographic characteristics used in its
                    creation
                    .
                    A detailed explanation of their approach is here:
                    http://www.people-press.org/...

                    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                    by Catte Nappe on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:27:12 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Okay (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Catte Nappe, blueoasis

                      I still am quite skeptical of the questions and feel they were oversimplified and presented false choices, but if someone is going to use it to make these generational distinctions, they should provide a little evidence that the question is working the same way for all the different groups being surveyed. Often questions are interpreted somewhat differently by different demographic groups. For example, younger people are a lot more likely to be immigrants themselves or the children of immigrants and people of color than are older people. What have they been told by their families about how they can get ahead? How is that question seen differently by someone who is 60 and looking back over their work life? I just don't think fundamentally that you are really eliciting the same information from those two groups with that question.

                      •  What answer, vs why the answer? (1+ / 0-)

                        As I said in an earlier comment:
                        The problems are arising from the many people opining on it, and trying to make it "the answer to life, the universe and everything".  
                        Several of the discussions about this whole study have likened it to a map. On one kind of map you might see the locations of roads, and their names; as well as rivers. You won't see trees, changes in elevation, or information that a certain neighborhood is locally considered to be very high income. Some maps, though, are designed to show those things, instead of roads and rivers.

                        If it's a matter of which potential voters would support immigration reform say, it isn't directly material whether they responded as an elderly child of immigrants or a young teacher of immigrants or a middle aged lawyer from some mid-western town with few contacts with immigrants. All we know is that X% favor immigration reform.  We can expand our understanding in terms of messaging if we know that half of those people supporting immigration reform also support government help for the poor, believe big business has too much power, and are regular church goers. Obviously, a message of compassion is going to be useful. If the other half supporting reform think Wall St. is a force for good, and that working hard assures one can get ahead we would want our message to speak to business needs and how hard working and productive immigrant groups are.

                        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                        by Catte Nappe on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:13:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Agree, (0+ / 0-)

                          but is the question really telling us what we think it is telling us? Some polling questions are pretty straightforward (if the election were held today, would you vote for Obama or McCain?). Then there are other ones that are a whole lot vaguer and that are hard to draw a lot of definitive conclusions from. I'm sticking a lot of these ones in the vague category.

                          The immigration ones are not as bad as the one about work (or the one about business profit which IMO also sucks - as though you can put businesses into one basket. Does my mom & pop corner store make "too much" profit? What about the oil companies?), but if you want to know who actually supports various tenets of immigration reform and who supports Wall Street reform or what have you, you're likely to get a lot closer to the truth just by asking directly about them.

                          •  Just a few (0+ / 0-)

                            other examples, Is government usually wasteful and inefficient? - well, that really depends a lot on which part of the government you are thinking of when you are answering the question. Or, "The government should do whatever it takes to protect the environment." What does that even mean, "whatever it takes" - ban cars and institute a one child policy? A carbon tax? Allowing the EPA to regulate emissions? People's responses might change a lot depending on how they personally interpret the question. I am just not a fan of questions like this. If you want to know how people feel about X, ask them about X, not Y.

                          •  I have to LOL over "it depends" (1+ / 0-)

                            That was my late mother's problem with any multiple choice test or survey, She was all about the nuance.
                            Do you prefer to get up early a)always, b)often c)rarely d) never?  And she would be, well it depends. Do I have an appointment in the morning? Was I reading a really good book last night? Are they televising the Prince of Wales' wedding at 2 AM our time>

                            Several student projects in our family were all but ruined by trying to use her as a guinea pig respondent. My dad had to get someone to fill out some psychological type thing for an education class lab.  When my mom kept hitting the "it depends" brick wall, and completion deadline neared, he had my brother finish it.

                            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                            by Catte Nappe on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:05:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  If they call a category "Next Generation" (2+ / 0-)

                      or keep referring to one group as "the younger group" it sure seems to me like they're emphasizing generations and divisions by age.

                      Professional social scientists, like professional scholars, need to be careful of their words.

                      There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:07:39 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        SouthernLiberalinMD, gosoxataboy

                        While those they've tagged as "youthful" groups have a higher percentage of young people than the other groups, there is obviously a much wider range of ages.  34% of those "young outsiders" are over 50.
                        And likewise with the "conservative" groupings. They tilt older, but still, 13% of "business conservatives" are under 30, and 7% of  "steadfast conservatives" are. Thus, we can't say that all young people are in any one category.

                        There are probably better ways they could have named the groups - but any naming other than "group A", "group B" etc would be subject to some misinterpretation or other.

                        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                        by Catte Nappe on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:25:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Category names from 2011 (0+ / 0-)

                          They did a similar typology report in 2011

                          Staunch Conservatives
                          Highly engaged Tea Party supporters

                          Main Street Republicans
                          Conservative on most issues

                          Libertarians
                          Free market, small gov’t seculars

                          Disaffecteds
                          Downscale and cynical

                          Post-Moderns
                          Moderates, but liberal on social issues

                          New Coalition Democrats
                          Upbeat, majority-minority

                          Hard-Pressed Democrats  
                          Religious, financially struggling

                          Solid Liberals
                          Across-the-board liberal positions

                          Bystanders
                          Young, politically disengaged _ _

                          As far as I can find, prior to that one they were analyzing based strictly on party affiliation - dem, rep, ind.

                          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                          by Catte Nappe on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:42:38 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  I used to really respect Pew a lot (2+ / 0-)

                and I've noticed, albeit somewhat vaguely, that I'm liking the quality of their work less over the past few years. It feels less scholarly and more like popularized social science, and I'm not sure that's good for a pollster.

                There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:06:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Have you read the full report? (0+ / 0-)

                  With all the methodology details and such? I think some of what you are finding off-putting is presentation - and not all of that being their presentation. From DKos to USA Today, everybody is trying to take a model (which by virtue of being a model is only a snapshot of a few specific aspects, anyway) and present a short, punchy analysis that thins the content even more.

                   

                  “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                  by Catte Nappe on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:40:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It *is* presentation, and that's the point (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Catte Nappe

                    Most of the people who absorb their data will be doing so, not by doing what I or you do (digging through the full report), but by reading the summaries and labels Pew attaches to that full report--the gloss, as it were. Even policymakers--maybe, these days, especially them--will look at the gloss, the summary, rather than digging through the data. And as for the other people spinning this stuff, most of them with no bad motives as far as I can tell, what they're doing is taking Pew's gloss, along with whatever additional spin journalists and the media put on it, and then talking as if Pew's gloss and the media spin of it are facts determined to be real by social science, backed up by evidence. And entire belief systems are constructed, and huge debates held, over beliefs that are not backed up by the data at all.

                    Pew has a responsibility to understand that when it disperses data, it's not just talking to academics.  The words they use in their summary, or gloss, which they give to reporters, need to be chosen with great care. In other words, they need to be aware of the social context into which they release their data, which should be expected from people who are, after all, practicing social science.

                    I was that careful back when I was writing literary criticism--and my words were never going to be potentially used to support political choices and policy positions which could affect the lives of millions.

                    So yeah, I hold Pew responsible for how they present their information, and for not understanding that how they present it is at least as important as the info itself.

                    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

                    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:59:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  True, that (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      snwflk, SouthernLiberalinMD
                      taking Pew's gloss, along with whatever additional spin journalists and the media put on it, and then talking as if Pew's gloss and the media spin of it are facts determined to be real by social science, backed up by evidence. And entire belief systems are constructed, and huge debates held, over beliefs that are not backed up by the data at all.
                      And this is only one demonstration of that phenomenon. Whether it be voter polls, or some new research on climate, or education or health it's going to get  spun and massaged by multiple presenters, and end up being asserted as "scientists say.....!" and "Research shows....!"

                      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                      by Catte Nappe on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:12:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Why make that remark? (0+ / 0-)

                Do you feel a need to be confrontational here?  I am over 50 and would welcome more young people - but that snark we can ALL do without.

                Some of us have made livings, raised kids, been there, done that.  So while you'd like to think you can merely disregard "people telling you what to think" maybe you should look at it as people asking you to THINK?  And quit with the 'generational warfare' you seem willing to engage in here.

                You can hate your parents all you want - but best keep in mind that they are most likely the people who've fed you, clothed you, and maybe even gone into 'irresponsible debt' for you, so you'll have the latest computer, latest phone, latest shoes....  Those damned selfish old Boomers.....

                •  This entire thread (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueoasis

                  is full of remarks about Millennials and Gen-Xers being naive, reactionary, etc, etc. - which is not uncommon at this site. Look up at the top of the thread. I didn't start any generational warfare, I was commenting on what is already here.

                  Shorter version: young people are naive.
                  Too many young people now think of "history"... as events that occurred the previous month.
                  They seem incapable of thinking in terms of generations or centuries or eras which are only one or two generations "old."  Anything farther back than that never existed and didn't happen, as far as they are concerned.
                  I'm assuming you'll call out their "generational warfare"?

                  I'm in my mid 40s by the way.

            •  People in their 40s, in my opinion, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Catte Nappe, blueoasis

              don't belong in a category called "Next Generation Anything" with people who are in their 20s.

              And I'm saying that as one of them.

              I don't think any useful point can be made linking me, who grew up during the Cold War and before the existence of the World Wide Web, with people who grew up in the 90s and oughts.

              There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:04:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It was their positions that linked them (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gosoxataboy

                Not their ages. A certain cluster of people had very similar responses to multiple issues and questions. Then, they looked at the demographics of who was in each cluster - race, gender, age. If there are more older folks in one cluster, and more younger ones in another, there's no reason not to point it out. "People who think these things skew younger..."

                “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                by Catte Nappe on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:57:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Even shorter version: (5+ / 0-)

        an average age of 38 ain't young.

        There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:44:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Great Comment! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban

        Then there are also those who already have their lives lined up for them straight out of college.

        Those who admittedly bookmark online comments of various people in order to use it against them in the future are creepy fucking losers.

        by kefauver on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:45:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Elders have experienced triumph of reality over (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobswern, snwflk

        Hope.  They know life doesn't always turn out as planned, and even if it does for you, it won't for at least a few people you really care about.  Young people are still filled with hope.

        What I find disturbing (though not surprising) is the degree to which young people have given up on government, a consequence of 30+ years of anti-gov't rhetoric and then complete dysfunction for the past 22 years.  This is the entire lifetime of Millenials.  Contrast that with when I went to college in 1960--JFK was about to be elected, things were moving and changing, for the better we assumed, and there was economic expansion that provided opportunities.  

        And then young people were the real victims of the transformation from citizens to consumers.  No wonder they think the way they do.  I just hope that as they have families they can learn the benefits of community.

        Don't bet your future on 97% of climate scientists being wrong. Take action on climate now!

        by Mimikatz on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:00:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You make a really good point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bobswern, snwflk

          and that is that the overall, long term goal here of "libertarian Repugnants" is to discredit government so much that we will reject it completely.  What comes after that is Corporatocracy I imagine.  

          That right there - making government ineffectual, ineffective, blatantly corrupt, inept, etc, etc, etc - is the perfect recipe for abolishing it all together.  

          Just like the Tea Baggers - once they get what they think they want now, they will not want to live here anymore.  Then the destruction will be complete and there will be no escape from it.  Add in a little global warming, and voila - the American experiment die a long slow death back to feudalism.

      •  Young Americans always believe the fantasies (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobswern

        of "American Exceptionalism," where the hardworking always gets ahead because that's the BS they've taught. Of course they deliver that answer when they do not have enough life experience to give a learned answer.

        Also though, this gen gap IS different because these kids HAVE grown up in a time of dysfunctional government. All they know, save for the BS messaging, is that our government can't get out of its own way, but loves itself some war. This generation only knows local law enforcement as a near terrorist organization to be feared. Were I young and impressionable, I'd  poll the same way.

        Everything good a man can be, a dog already is. - pajoly

        by pajoly on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:08:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Please re-read. Ave age of "younger" voters is 38 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        shaharazade
      •  Perfectly said (2+ / 0-)

        Of course when I was younger I thought if I worked hard I'd be rewarded.  How could I face 50 years of working hard for almost no reward other than the sheer joy of working hard?  I think the poll results based on those two questions are silly.  What about all the things between those two answers?

        “If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.”  -Stephen Colbert

      •  Where Are the Trendlines? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snwflk

        I don't believe that any of the differences between young and old Democrats are more pronounced now than they ever were.

        Younger people have long typically believed that government does too much, because all they've heard about is that - while they've mostly personally experienced very little, being young. They likewise believe that working hard is more a guarantee of success than old people learned from actual experience.

        Show me the trendlines in these polls that show a "schism". Or accept that there's always been a "schism" between youth and experience.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:58:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So agree with this (0+ / 0-)

        When I was getting out of high school and starting college, I thought the same - hard work equals reward.  That's the bill of goods we were sold then, and apparently are still selling kids now.  Because you do have to work hard to get ahead, it's just not likely to be enough.

        I used to be a bit disappointed that none of my nephews and nieces pursued a college education, because this has always seemed to me the surest way to financial security.  Now, with debt-laden college grads not finding decent jobs, I have to wonder if they didn't make the wiser choice.  They seem to  balance work and personal life much differently than my generation did.  They aren't willing to make too many sacrifices in the latter and maybe that will turn out to be a good thing.

        What the people want is very simple. They want an America as good as its promise. - Barbara Jordan

        by penelope pnortney on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 10:59:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Necessary and sufficient (7+ / 0-)

      It would seem that the "solid liberal" group thinks working hard (different from hard work :) ) is necessary and not sufficient for success; while "next generation left" thinks working hard is both necessary and sufficient.  

      The next generation left

      About two -thirds (68%) are non-Hispanic whites and 15% are Hispanic. One of the two youngest groups, the average age is 41 and a third (33%) are younger than 30. Roughly three-quarters (74%) have some college experience and 62% are financially satisfied.
      The solid liberal
      The most highly educated of the typology groups, 52% have college degrees and 21% have graduate degrees. They also are the most urban group (47% live in urban areas), and are generally satisfied with their financial situation. A majority of Solid Liberals (56%) are women. Nearly half (46%) seldom or never attend religious services.
      They don't tell us the average age of the solid liberal.
      •  My feeling is that the "work-reward" (9+ / 0-)

        attitudes described would change substantially if the average age of the Next Generation Left were lower. Its still somewhat confusing to me that someone who is 38 (or thereabouts) could honestly think that getting ahead has anything to do in most circumstances with application of hard work.

        The vast majority of young liberals (30 and younger), in my experience, are well aware of the chasm between available reward for labor, and the value of labor. Although they might not put it in these terms, most of those whom I know (and even young conservatives -although to a lesser extent) are disgusted with the current economic climate.

        They're aware that they are achieving higher levels of education than their parents, they're perturbed by being forced to work unpaid internships at a higher rate (in more professional fields -often in clear violation of federal labor law), and despite this effort they are then relegated to jobs which pay significantly less than their parents' generation made in a similar position decades ago.  

        The notion that Next Generation Left believes hard work will get them ahead is, well, really confusing to me (particularly when you consider that all things being equal -which is to say, entirely unequal, and absent fortuitous circumstances -such a belief is patently false in this economy). Perhaps enough of those people just barely escaped the economic catastrophe of the Great Recession to pad the numbers upward; however, knowing that even older liberals didn't respond with such optimism makes it hard to peg.

        Needless to say, young millennials are not as sanguine as these numbers would suggest from what I've seen.

        •  Lot's of highly educated (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ignoranceSlayer

          young'uns who are liberals are working as barrista's in my city. What is the definition of a liberal these days? Perhaps 'the next generation left' in many cases are not libertarian in the right wing Ayn Rand Libertarian mode but with good reason feel that it is up to them to create a run around the totally corrupt government corporately owned system.

          The questions in this survey are pigeonholing people using models of liberalism and the left that assume the present establishment Democratic party is 'left' or liberal. They may like most of us have to pick between the lesser evils offered our current political system but that doesn't make them Libertarians. Perhaps they have more faith in their own ability to work hard and get ahead. for that matter what in the hell does it mean to get ahead?

          They turned out en-mass to elect Obama because what he offered was liberalism. He appealed to them with the you are the change you have been waiting for bottom up, yes we can message.  What they got was not what they thought they were buying. Perhaps the motivation message/movement that got them all fired up is still in place but they are painfully aware that they are on their own.

          It's hard to measure left, center, right political leanings and ideology these days as the definitions are skewed to fit the political fictions created by the marketing and selling of pols and power who are themselves disconnected form any values or principles other then greed and power. Might just be that these younger people have their bs. meters on full tilt and realize that they are going to have to do it themselves. To me they are not selfish or naive, they are connected globally and have enough information to know that Axelrod's 'world as we find it' isn't going to get them anywhere they want to go.  

                               

          •  Yes, very true (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shaharazade

            the pigeonholing based on assumptions that the current democratic party is "left" in any real objective sense (rather than simply as a comparative left-of-the-republicans sense) would seem to skew the results.

            The dynamic I am seeing among young voter political affiliation or self-identification, at least, is what you've noted in your opening paragraph. I don't see the kids (not many) becoming dystopian Ayn Rand acolytes -but I do see them expressing deep distrust in the governing system, regardless of which party maintains power. So in that sense I think you are correct. They aren't abandoning government as an institution all together, but they're certainly much more critical of its ability to effect the "yes we can" kind of change advocated by Obama.

            When you couple this disillusionment with the  unrelenting barrage of conservative propaganda and add in occasional government dysfunction (government shut down etc...), its not hard to see why the youth are becoming more distrustful and cynical. They certainly have their bs meters on full tilt as you say, and are coming to the realization that the success achieved by their parents may not be realized by them, even if they study longer and work harder.

      •  heh (0+ / 0-)

        So you are saying that for the "next generation" success does not exist without hard work?  I suspect you're right about how many think, but I don't know if the formal language of iff is appropriate to the realm of ideology or social analysis.

        I realized reading your comment that I have also misused the phrase, and recently.  It's a funny phrase in that it is useful taken at face value, using the meaning of the words(as you do above) but it is also one of those things borrowed from mathematics for social discussion, and it seems especially pernicious to me because it goes right to the heart of how math is different from social analysis or even physics -- an if and only if, "necessary and sufficient" allows for proof by counterexample in a formal and internally consistent system, and the real world -- and our study of it -- does not.

        But have done exactly this myself and am not without sin here, just an observation.

        ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

        by jessical on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:28:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You have completely left out black americans who (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joe Hill PDX

        are the most dependable democratic voters.  We are deeply involved in this country's struggle for a more perfect union. From the revolution,thru the Civil War until now and we know how long it takes and that the struggle continues. We are educated and have been for a couple of centuries. Our upper, middle class and poor are solid liberals and fierce democrats. Our civil rights legacy and struggle are the Johnson/Kennedy democrat's backbone. Our youth are GOTV. I think we deserve a mention.

        •  FYI (0+ / 0-)

          Pew has
          HARD-PRESSED SKEPTICS

          "About six-in-ten (61%) are non-Hispanic whites; 20% are black, while 9% are Hispanic. Hard-Pressed Skeptics have the highest share of women (58%) of any typology group. Just 9% are college graduates, by far the lowest percentage of all the groups; 60% have no more than a high school education. More than half (56%) have annual family incomes less than $30,000. About half (51%) are 50 or older, which is somewhat higher than the share of older Americans in the public (44%)."

          FAITH AND FAMILY LEFT

          "The Faith and Family Left includes the highest share of African Americans (30%) and Hispanics (19%) of any typology group; they also have the largest share of foreign-born (18%). One of the least educated (54% have no more than a high school education), and lowest income groups (45% make less than $30,000 a year). Roughly half (51%) are 50 and older."

          BYSTANDERS

          Nearly four-in-ten Bystanders (38%) are under 30. About a third (32%) are Hispanic, 10% are black and 48% are non-Hispanic whites. A third were born outside the United States. Bystanders have low levels of education and household income. Two-thirds (67%) have no college experience; just 11% are college graduates. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) have family incomes of $30,000 or less.

          and so on.

    •  The dawn of adulthood. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tikkun, GreenMother, NCJan, New Rule

      "I can take care of myself! I don't need no grownup or no government taking care of me and bossing me all around!"

      Although I would fret about them souring into "I've got mine, too bad about yours!" that lots of grownups before them have soured into.

      "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

      by Stude Dude on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:16:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the optimism of youth (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      New Rule

      A lot of the millenials surveyed still have this.Therefore,they buy that hard work gets them ahead. That might change once corporate America gets its hands around their necks.

      •  But that optimism fades when they find out it only (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sunspots, snwflk, Phoebe Loosinhouse

        lasts maybe 20 years. If things stay as they are, I wouldn't want to be over 40 and unemployed. Even with a degree, it sucks, with all the ageism out there.

        20 years isn't that long, not long enough to build a retirement that is for sure and certainly not long enough if one works in world where there is no loyalty to the worker at all. No or few or crappy "benefits" .

        Have your first baby or two and then watch out!

        Our work force is starting to look a lot like Logan's Run.

        Only without all the good parts.

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:22:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, and how can obe think favorably of socialism (4+ / 0-)

      and be libertarian, especially on economics?

      I am wondering if either the survey language, its execution or analysis are off.

      I see lots of evidence of young people wanting government assistance for things like jobs, better wages and college cost / debt relief.

      Also, the Occupy movement, loaded with young people, aimed directly at Wall St. and the wealthy and specifically clamored for jailing the banksters and serving the 99% with policies that are economically populist.

      Confusing at best. Suspect?

      I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

      Trust, but verify. - Reagan
      Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

      by Words In Action on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:49:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The naivety of the Millennials shouldn't be (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming

        underestimated. Libertarian views picked up a large group of Millennials with the idea that pot should be legal because it's not the government's business, as well as the idea that we shouldn't have been in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

        Libertarians voiced these opinions before they were cool, we'll call it "hipster syndrome". After that, it's not necessary to understand the rest of the libertarian platform-you can make it as you go because that's what it allows for.

        Also, all we've ever known is propaganda. Democrats lie, republicans lie a hell of a lot more-but who's actually keeping count? There is a false equivalency between Democrats/Republicans- so the outlet is Libertarianism.

    •  The post-2007 economy (4+ / 0-)

      is precisely why I find that particular quotation so fascinating and maddening.

      "You can get ahead if you're willing to work hard..." to what extent is that anyone's experience during the last couple of "jobless recoveries" that we've had? And if it isn't (and I clearly doubt that it is), then how do the Millenials in the survey convince themselves that their situation is fair?

      I understand the "government doesn't work" bit: the fact that Congress has trouble even passing a budget does not bode well for the public's attitudes towards government. And as Thomas Frank has argued, this is all part of the plan: when Republicans throw their wrenches into the gears of the government machine, the message people take away from it is not that Republicans govern badly, but that government doesnt' work. When government does work -- like in FDR's "first 100 days," or in successfully extending health coverage to a greater range of people, those things are usually bad for the Republican worldview.

      But this Horatio Alger stuff coming from the surveys of Millenials is difficult to wrap my head around. How could you go on the job market in 2008 and come to the conclusion that "you can get ahead if you're willing to work hard?"

      Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

      by Dale on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:14:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Spot on (0+ / 0-)

      On a personal level, if you're struggling, but have faith in your own talents, how can you go through life not believing that "you can get ahead if you are willing to work hard"?  As an over educated millennial, I really struggle with a poll question like that, because I believe both, typically I'll respond with the "no guarantee" response, but while these are phrased as mutually exclusive options they really aren't.  One appeals to a personal belief that things will get better for me because I know I have the education and work ethic to be successful even if I have a law degree and am working part time at Starbucks, my break is around the corner, and I'm going to make it.  The alternative to that outlook is depression.  So do people think politically or personally about that poll question?  An older person is much more capable of thinking politically because they can look back on their life experience without hopes of a dramatic personal change in fortune and think objectively about the question.

      Furthermore, I think they're blending samples in confusing ways, the Gen X generation came of age politically during the Reagan years and has very right of center views, young voters went narrowly for Bush in 2000, the rise of the millennial is reflected in the 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2012 elections where young voters went strongly to the Democrats, reflecting a "sweet spot" of being born between 1981 and 1987, these are very different groups.  Yet Pew's "average age" of the younger group is 38, indicating that a lot of Gen Xers are in that "group" which dilutes any coherent analysis of younger voters.  I wouldn't call any 38 year old a millennial or even "young" the Gen Xers are middle aged, libertarian leaning conservatives (to badly overgeneralize), while the millenials are young, economically disadvantaged, social liberals who haven't necessarily developed a strong economic consciousness yet at all.  To say "young voters have an average age of 38" to me removes all meaning from the phrase "young voters," I don't think my generation really has anything at all common with 40 year olds politically on aggregate.

      "You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free."-Clarence Darrow

      by cwech on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:01:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  spot on (0+ / 0-)
        As an over educated millennial, I really struggle with a poll question like that, because I believe both, typically I'll respond with the "no guarantee" response, but while these are phrased as mutually exclusive options they really aren't.
        I also had issues with the wording of the statements.  Some of them couldn't be answered as only one or the other.  You might get ahead if you work hard but there is no guarantee that you will.

        I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

        by blue drop on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:59:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We have a chicken-and-egg problem here. (0+ / 0-)

      The only way to

      show younger voters that government can make a difference
      is to make government start working again.  To do that, we would need in DC what it took decades of struggle finally to achieve in Sacramento:  Democratic administration together with Democratic control of both the House/Legislature and the Senate.  So long as Republicans have any ability whatsoever to cripple government and make it fail, they'll do so, because "government is the problem" is central to their belief systems.  It's what the various segments of the GOP have in common.

      But how do we get that all-Demo panorama in DC without suffering through another 8 years of someone as disastrous as George W. Bush?  If we can't get the millennials' loyalty without delivering for them, and can't deliver because they're not loyal to the only party (apart from the Greens) which believes government actually has something to deliver, we're stuck.

  •  Sounds like we need to make the case... (60+ / 0-)

    to young people that embracing social equality is the key to prosperity. And when the less wealthy do better financially  -- everyone does better.

    In short, government can work.

    "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - 17th-century French clergyman and statesman Cardinal Richelieu.

    by markthshark on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:55:47 AM PDT

    •  In a word: Stiglitz... n/t (34+ / 0-)

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:02:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, and Warren. (16+ / 0-)

        Stiglitz is just right but too wonky for many, imo.  

        A new capitalism based on ending rents and other forms of market power -- which Stiglitz highlights -- might appeal to next generation left.  

        And Warren's the only pol my kids and their friends don't despise.  She makes the economic case to them in ways they get enthusiastic about.

        •  Yeah, right.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AlexDrew

          no young person I know has even heard of Warren.  But push your ideal candidate, and give the presidency to Rand Paul.  You'll teach 'em.

          •  There seems to be a new level of resentment (12+ / 0-)

            arising towards Warren supporters.  And here I didn't mention (or even think of) Hillary.  What's up, folks?

            Warren is well-known to those who follow politics, even a little.  She's not at celebrity-level so I'm sure that other candidate has much better name recognition.  So what, it's not even 2015?

            Who do you think will bring young people the message of populist economics or economic fairness?  Or does this not matter?

            •  I think it's a combination of factors (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oofer, hooper

              For one Warren is not well liked by neoliberals.  She obviously is not going to embrace the general d.c idea of putting corporations first.
              Secondly, Hillary supporters are out in full force attempting to ensure there is no real opposition this time.  As last time the major argument as highlighted by the above poster is only a recognized name can win the presidency.  Vote for the established candidate or else crazy GOP candidate x will automatically win.  
              They'll talk about our "ideal" candidate being unknown, not previously tested, our desire for rainbows and unicorns.  We've all heard it before.  They attacked Obama in much the same way.

          •  That's hilarious. All college students know (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hooper, maryabein, chicago dad, oofer

            about her advocacy on their behalf on student loans, since loans are now so crucial to education.

            Someone is out of touch, but it isn't young people.  They know Elizabeth Warren has been fighting on their behalf.

            "give the presidency to Rand Paul"   What a laugh.  If it came to a Warren vs Paul race, she'd beat the pants off him day after day.  Hell, she has been going into red states right now and getting uproarious applause.

            Someone is out of touch all right.  Someone who's deeply intertwined with Wall Street and fond of telling tall tales about herself. Just waiting for her to dodge more machine gun fire as she leaves the White House "flat broke" and needs to look for houses (with an "s") while millions have been foreclosed upon and still more are struggling.

             Yeah, that's in touch with the American people all right.

            "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

            by YucatanMan on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:27:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'm s millennial (0+ / 0-)

            and quite a few of my friends my age hate her. They just don't know why, just that people around them hate her and thus so do they.

    •  By "less wealthy" I suspect you mean (15+ / 0-)

      the impoverished.

      When I was working my way out of poverty I was young and strong. But I knew that people like me rarely made it out of the social-economic status in which I was born. The people doing so much better off than me weren't working harder, but they were getting a much better reward for their efforts.

      A government of The People, by The People, and for The People should never tolerate an immoral and unjust class system.

      This better be good. Because it is not going away.

      by DerAmi on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 04:07:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  problem is, their whole lives have been spent (15+ / 0-)

      in the "government can't work" era.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 04:23:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And young people (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc, CroneWit, tikkun, mightymouse

        are easier to bamboozle via lack of experience than the ever popular out-of-the-mouths-of-babes myth would suggest.  I seem to remember a generation (my own) with members who thought that all problems would be solved if the Vietnam War was ended.

        •  i don't buy that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse

          from what i have seen over the past several decades, older people and middle aged people are the ones who bought most of the irrational crap that the GOP and fox news has thrown at them, to the point of being willing to change what they believe nearly daily when the talking points changed.

          young people have nothing on the old in this country when it comes to gullibility and self-delusion.

          •  Very true (0+ / 0-)

            But many have been taught that government 'does not work' and with that attitude then the question kinda becomes what's the alternative?  And that IS where it gets really scary for those of us who prefer a government that can make and enforce laws, make and enforce regulations, etc.

            But right now we do have a corrupted government and a revolving door that spins fast enough to give one whiplash if not careful.

      •  A contrived era of the Govt can't work (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        markthshark, mightymouse, maryabein

        That is key.

        And we should show that to them every time.

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:24:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So many have bought into the vague trope that (0+ / 0-)

        "government bureaucracy" and "excessive regulation" have killed the economy, the American Dream, entrepreneurship, Mom and Apple Pie.

        That trope then further transformed into "Government is Bad" period, end of story. Everyone is running around with buckets of enthusiasm to fill Grover's bathtub to drown the government.

        So many of our problems can be laid at the foot of poorly educated people listening to our pathetic media. And yes, the downfall of society, the downward spiral began with the government loathing espoused by Reagan which then became an entrenched part of our society.

        It makes sense to dislike bad governance, corrupt governance, inefficient governance, but it is asinine to translate that into a hatred of governance in general.

        “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

        by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:57:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What is "social equality"? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hmi

      Advocating equal opportunity is key.  But socialist programs comes at the cost of authoritarianism.    That does not mean that we should not have any socialist programs.   It just means that we should consider the price very carefully.   We have to be careful how far we walk down that path.   To put it another way, he who pays the piper names the tune.    We must find ways for people to seek help, without shoving "help" down their throats, and denying help under the guise of "helping" by helpfully telling people what we think their problem is.     At the point that people don't have the freedom to decide what their problem is and what their solution will be, is the point at which socialism has gone too far.    I have lately come to recognize how our social programs create an avenue for government intrusion into people's lives in such a way that government tramples on human rights.

      Kurt Vonnegut, in his story Harrison Bergeron, explored one version of "social equality".     He raised an interesting question with his ridiculous version of equality.  Who decides what "equality" is, who measures it, who enforces it, and how do you enforce it?  

      I am grateful, for instance, that I was still able to pull my child out of public school and go to a charter school.     Does that make my child less "equal"?   There are some countries that will take a child from her parents for the act of home-schooling.    They rip a child from her parents, and a parent from his or her child, and claim it is for the child's "welfare".  There is a problem in many nations, right now, including the United States, of government influenced medical programs forcing diagnoses on patients, denying them second opinions,  depriving of their liberty, denying them care for their real conditions, and forcing them to undergo involuntary treatment which is inappropriate for their conditions.  This is an example of socialism run amok.

      It seems that the guise of "giving" in these programs often involves significant "taking".

      It costs money to run a socialist program.  And, so socialist programs must try to save money, and they do that by making rules.   And, that is the driving force for what happens next, which is imposing those rules on the people they are purporting to "help".    Sometimes, it seems benign and common sense.   But, sometimes, like in the case of Justina Pelletier, it becomes far more sinister.

      Don't get me wrong.  I support Obamacare.   However, the more that our medical programs try to merge into one solid mass of conformity, equality, the more shivers run down my spine.    Because, when it gobbles up everything else, and you don't find your answer there, there will be no place left for you to go, and there is likely to be a law that stops you from going anywhere else, anyway.  

       

    •  I doubt young people (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CroneWit, New Rule, gulfgal98

      can be made to believe government CAN work, if they've never seen it do so. It would help a lot if Dems were able to effectively counter today's certifiably insane right, actually do something to promote their purported position on a working government. Alas, I don't see that as a strong possibility of late.

      If it's all just propaganda and lip service, the right has it all over the left by virtue of owning the media. Besides, if it's all just propaganda and lip service, Dems are just the 'also-rans'. If the millenials really do care about social issues, they'll gravitate to Dems because the right certainly doesn't have anything to offer on those, while Dems have made a few strides.

      There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

      by Joieau on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:21:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We really do care about... (7+ / 0-)

        ...social issues.  We've just never seen government do anything but tear apart the social safety net, so why is it surprising when we don't look to government as a panacea for social ills?

        Everyday Magic
        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
        -- Clarke's Third Law

        by The Technomancer on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:31:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How, in your imagination, (4+ / 0-)

          would the civil rights of LGBT, women and minorities be forwarded and respected in this country if the government wasn't granting and/or guarding them? Yes, I know that actual 'rights' aren't something government or anyone else must grant. I'm just saying that until government does recognize and define them legislatively, they pretty much don't exist.

          It's not like the people of Mississippi or South Carolina or Kansas (etc., etc., etc.) are particularly tolerant of LGBTs or of women and brown people having equal compensation and benefits for their hard work, commensurate with the compensation and benefits white guys enjoy.

          There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

          by Joieau on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:31:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not like the elected... (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk, wu ming, buddabelly, New Rule, BYw

            ...portion of the government is actually doing any of that.  Outside of too few state legislatures, all that is being won through the court system, not via the passage or repeal of standing law.

            You're absolutely correct that human rights are a realm where elected government should be active.  Elected government, by and large, has completely abdicated their responsibilities there -- the opposition might run...wait for it...ADS against them if they fucking do the right thing.

            Everyday Magic
            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
            -- Clarke's Third Law

            by The Technomancer on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:38:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Obama fought hard DADT repeal. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban, The Technomancer, snwflk

              What about DOMA. These are firsts.

              •  DOMA... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                melanctha, YucatanMan

                ...overturned by the courts.  I don't see a reason why it wouldn't have been even if the government put up a stiffer defense of it.

                They sure weren't going to do anything legislatively about it.

                DADT's worthy of praise.  Took a lot more arm twisting than I'd expect a Democratic President to need.  Mind you, that's far less a statement about Mr. Obama himself, and much more a statement about how far right the Democratic party has traveled as they've absorbed what used to be moderate Republicans that are fleeing the crazy wingnuts that are taking over the GOP.

                Everyday Magic
                Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                -- Clarke's Third Law

                by The Technomancer on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:25:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  and the Obama Justice Department argued that it (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  The Technomancer, melanctha

                  should be so.

                  Der Weg ist das Ziel

                  by duhban on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:40:53 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So we have one member of the Democratic... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ozsea1, YucatanMan, snwflk

                    ...party with a spine in DC, heading up a party that refused to fight for a legislative change and delegated their responsibility to the branch that doesn't have to face election, because governing is hard and the government is designed to make snails look like they're breaking the land speed record.

                    I'm not making an indictment of Mr. Obama with my displeasure.  I think he's done a damn fine job given the shit show he was handed.  I think he's has one of the savviest political minds my generation will see -- and look at how much even the force of his will is unable to overcome.

                    And a lot of that resistance comes from within his own party.  I expect it out of the GOP -- after all, that's what they ran on and won districts on (that they drew, but I digress).  I don't expect it from the President's own party.

                    Remember, I vote Democratic because despite how shitty that is, that's the best we've got.  You'll have to excuse me if I'm not inspired.

                    Exceptions tend to prove the rule.

                    Everyday Magic
                    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                    -- Clarke's Third Law

                    by The Technomancer on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:53:50 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Techno: that doesn't necessarily follow from (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Technomancer, YucatanMan

          the data.

          Just look at the goddamned data, it's ridiculous; the average age of the "younger" group is 38. LibertyEqualityFraternityandTrees says that 30% of the "younger" group is over 50!

          This study, in its current form, can't tell us jack or shit about what Millenials think or what Gen Y thinks. Because they shoved my generation in with yours and acted like we're the same (in other words, you and your parents are just alike.) And I'm young. Somehow.

          Hey, techno, let's go down to the bar and do some Jello shots! If I'm lucky, maybe they won't card me. LOL

          There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:58:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not really talking about the study... (3+ / 0-)

            ...which by and large is crap.

            I'm skeptical of government's ability to do good.  Not because I take the conservative viewpoint that it isn't possible for government to outperform the private market, but because it's so easily brought to a crawl and rendered ineffective.  This allows only the most milquetoast of "reforms" to get through the system.

            I continue to vote Democratic because they're the only major party willing to even attempt having government, you know, govern and ensure the general welfare of the population, but I also see that we're not taking the House prior to 2022 thanks to gerrymandering.

            On the GOP side, I see them happy to settle in and do nothing but complain about government and prevent government from working all while collecting a six figure paycheck from the government.  On the Democratic side, I see Democratic power brokers being happy to trade power to the GOP in exchange for a handful of safe seats of their own, and politicians too quickly trading corporate welfare and soft treatment for a brimming campaign war chest.

            This is a fairly common viewpoint among people in my age group, and across economic and racial lines.  We, by and large, care very much about social justice.  Even the conservative ones, believe it or not.  We're just all very skeptical of a system designed to move as slow as humanly possible rather than one designed to move as quickly as humanly possible.

            Shit, I've already made it known in the other thread that the only reason I'm still voting in general elections is out of civic guilt.  I'm not surprised at all when my peers are less willing to waste an hour or more of a work day to play in a rigged game where they win on heads and we lose on tails.

            Everyday Magic
            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
            -- Clarke's Third Law

            by The Technomancer on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:46:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Three kinds of distrust of gov't are being (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              The Technomancer, delver

              lumped together culturally every time people discuss trust and distrust of government. Said lumpage serves a right-wing agenda, so IMO it's good to tease it apart:

              First, there's the people who have a philosophical opposition to government, which demonstrates itself most clearly in the people who follow Ayn Rand and other libertarian thinkers. The Pauls exemplify this.

              Second, there's the people who use the word "government" as code for the New Deal and Great Society. They don't hate all government, or even all gov't spending. In fact, they love to lavish government money on the MIC both domestically (spying, DHS) and in war. But they hate the idea that the gov't could have the power to regulate the rich, and they hate taxes going to help poor people or middle-class people in any way. Neoconservatives are found here in droves. These are the Bushes and Cheneys of the world.

              Third, there's the people who distrust government because government sucks big green incandescent donkey (or elephant) dicks at present, and has for years, mainly because a bunch of sociopaths have gotten hold of the government and made it so the only people getting representation are very very wealthy.

              It's kind of like having a car that's up on blocks in your yard. You may know, theoretically, that cars work to get you places, but since the only car you have access to won't get you anywhere, you start to become a little irritated and critical on the subject of cars generally, especially since the parts it would take to get the car running cost anywhere from millions to over a billion dollars, and you know you'll never be able to get hold of that much money in a million years. So you get a little disillusioned on the subject of cars, and if somebody shows up bitching at you about how useless cars are, you'll likely listen to him with more sympathy than you would if your car were reliably getting you to work every day.

              There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:21:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  And yet (10+ / 0-)

        Every poll I've seen when the question is asked has the majority of young folks continuing to support Social Security. This kind of amazes me. It suggest they do see that sometimes government can and does get some things right.

        Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

        by ricklewsive on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:42:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And in the meantime (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau, ricklewsive, wu ming

        While we're waiting for paradise, what do we offer young people?  I find that doctrine rarely feeds an empty belly.  We need to offer some ideas for getting ahead that don't depend on waiting for paradise.

        Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

        by tikkun on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:08:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree wholeheartedly. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sunspots

          But then, this Boomer is still waiting for the paradise previous generations told us was in the offing if we worked hard. Well, not actually waiting on it, figured out long ago that it was bogus bullshit. Now I'm getting Social Security - and no, it doesn't pay the bills either.

          There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

          by Joieau on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:22:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No, that's a waste of time. (0+ / 0-)

      What will work is promoting libertarian socialism. Way of promoting economic equality and fairness that don't require big government, such as promoting employee/member owned co-operatives and stronger local economies.

      "Big government liberalism" is never going to sell. Anti-authoritarian populist economics will.

      •  OK but you DO realize (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snwflk

        there is just as much potential for corruption and abuse in "citizen owned" economies?  The HUMAN animal is a huge part of the problem.

        Libertarianism sounds great - every one responsible to themselves, everyone working hard, etc, etc, etc.  But what happens when there's a natural disaster?  Would that particular community have the resources to repair things like power grids, highways, airports by itself?  Hardly.

        Anti-authoritarian populist economics - anti who's authority?  Populist to whom?  All in the eye of the beholder here.  In the meantime, those of us who live in the real world will go on supporting a democratic government.  Why is it you think you are so much smarter than the guys who set that system up?  All the simplistic bromides in the world aren't gonna fix this mess until we all decide to get the money out of our politics, and the religion and the lies.

    •  I think they (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maryabein, delver

      do for the most part embrace social equality. In order to make the case to younger people the Democratic Party would actually have to embrace and implement policy that brings prosperity for the 99%. Government can work but right now it only works for the too bigs who have absolutely no interest in either prosperity the common good or social equality.

      The prevailing ideology of our established body politic is unfettered free market capitalism at it's most viscous. Young people aren't dumb and they have grown up with global information at their finger tips. Lot's of people from all generations know that the government does does not work for 'we the people' it is for and by the oligarchical collectivists and the multinationals who are now considered people. Wealth creators that create wealth for the !%.

    •  Sounds like we should have been making the case (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      markthshark, delver

      For the last 40 years.  Alas the pursuit of "electability" and "pragmatism" put a stop to that

  •  too many young people (14+ / 0-)

    buy into the american dream myth.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:07:49 AM PDT

    •  Too many young people now think of "history"... (28+ / 0-)

      ...as events that occurred the previous month.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:11:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Therein lies the problem (19+ / 0-)
        Too many young people now think of "history" as events that occurred the previous month.
        They seem incapable of thinking in terms of generations or centuries or eras which are only one or two generations "old."  Anything farther back than that never existed and didn't happen, as far as they are concerned.

        Events or movements that did not happen within their living memory (short-term memory at that) - and which had no impact on their personal lives - are dismissed as irrelevant.

        I've read statements by brand new adults (just turned 18) and those within five years either side of 18 that are so self-centered and "me, me, me, me, me" centric that I have been rendered breathless.  It's made me wonder if they are born psychopaths who are incapable of empathy.  The self-absorption is astonishing..., and mirrored in sitcoms geared for audiences their age (if previews are any indication of the thinking processes of people their age; I don't watch them).

        It's a sad state of affairs.

        I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

        by NonnyO on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:46:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  twitter, selfies, and reality tv. nt (3+ / 0-)

          Tired of being trickled down on?

          by tovan on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:36:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Psychopaths? Seriously? So we're back to blamin... (16+ / 0-)

          Psychopaths? Seriously? So we're back to blaming young people for not getting off our lawns even though they have very little political and economic power and certainly don't start wars or crash economies, although they have to face the consequences along with everyone else.

        •  They're not incapable of historical thinking. (33+ / 0-)

          They just don't know any history. I've found that my students know, for example, that there was such a thing as the Great Depression in the 1930s. But they are dumbfounded when I show them videos and cite statistics that demonstrate what the Depression really meant.

          •  THIS ^ (10+ / 0-)

            Young people don't have any historical context for any of the scary and strange things that are happening in our economy and world, and yet so many people see fit to blame them for entering a world of confusion for which they've been improperly and inadequately prepared when they are at first incapable of properly diagnosing political circumstances, distinguishing between ideological ethos, and understanding the complex interplay of politics-economics-religion-human rights-foreign policy etc...etc...etc...

            Seriously, wiser generations, get of the damn soapbox. If our children don't understand or know history (and believe me, in general they don't) who's fault is that?

            We need to place far greater emphasis on history in our public schools. I didn't need advanced trigonometry to make informed electoral decisions when I reached voting age.  I did, however, need to be able to logically distinguish the party of Lincoln from the current manifestation of the republican party. Something that many modern republicans are incapable of doing. And please understand my intent is not to disparage mathematics education in any sense.

          •  My experience is that (5+ / 0-)

            despite the fact that more of our children go to college, those who make it through their undergraduate years are not much better educated than those who graduated from high school in my generation.  We've watered down high school and undergraduate education in order to make both more accessible to less prepared students.

            Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

            by tikkun on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:11:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  This is one reason I home school. My young kids (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NonnyO

            know this.

            They know what a Hooverville is. They know what the Great Depression is.

            But their peers? Still reading See Dick and Jane Run type books just to catch up with 4th grade reading.

            I blame our state school system for that. But I don't have the power to fix it, so I figured we would be the change I wanted to see.

            "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

            by GreenMother on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:27:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yup (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TracieLynn, snwflk, NonnyO

            I thought that WWII was "ancient history" when I was a kid.  As I've aged, it felt closer and closer to time.  

            It wasn't until I went to Hamburg last week on vacation (a city that was largely destroyed in WWII) that just how RECENT that war was really hit me.  

            They could not tear down the WWII control bunkers.  So they've converted them into apartments, and in one case, an art school.  

            They chose not to repair the grand St Nikolai cathedral and now it's a memorial museum to the civilian victims of air strikes in Germany and other countries.

            You randomly encounter brass bricks on the street in front of homes.  These are micro memorials for Jews who were deported from the city to their deaths.

            The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

            by catwho on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:43:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't learn about the Vietnam War (0+ / 0-)

            until I was in high school. didn't even know it happened.

        •  I think I need to embed... (0+ / 0-)

          ...that video I posted in the other thread where old farts were telling people my age to get off their lawn about how we Millennials suck and we're sorry.

          With people like you as our examples for what the parties of our parents think, pardon us if we don't buy in to the bullshit.

          Thanks!

          Everyday Magic
          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
          -- Clarke's Third Law

          by The Technomancer on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:36:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think the Millenials can change the world. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            New Rule

            Pew's report on Millenials (which came out a few months before the one Edsall reports on) gives a much better description of Millenial's views than the later report.

            The Millenial report showed that M's have common cause with another group -- what I'm calling the Hippie Cohort of the Boomer generation.  (The 40-somethings are more aligned with the generation that preceded the Boomers.)

            My hope is that the Millenials and the Hippie Cohort will come together and reinvent government.

        •  Meh. Such has been (6+ / 0-)

          the complaint of adults about the "kids these days" for as far back into [real] history as there are written complaints for us to read. Self-absorption is and has always been a strong trait of adolescent/young adult humans. They eventually grow out of it unless their parents volunteer to pay all their living expenses for them for the rest of their lives.

          In lieu of a hefty trust fund (we call those "Trust-a-farians" around here) they do eventually confront the reality of our unbreakable caste system when they have to buy their own tools and toys while barely being able to keep the electricity and phone on month to month.

          There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

          by Joieau on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:57:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  We were all stupid kids once (15+ / 0-)

        It took me years to shake off all that patriotic bullshit we were lied to about in school.

        Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

        by The Dead Man on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:35:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Try telling them that.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Propagandar

          That's the problem.   Not only is history yesterday's tweets, they don't think they're "stupid" even in the most loving sense of the word; and no amount of logic or fact will convince them otherwise.
           

          I will not vote for Hillary.

          by dkmich on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:49:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Seriously!! (13+ / 0-)

          My child is currently in high school, in virtual school, so I've gotten to see some of the curriculum, and I've read some of the State curriculum standards.

          There are things in there like, "emphasize the benefits of the capitalist system" that are enforced by State Law.     Not "teach the characteristics", but "emphasize the benefits".    Nothing against capitalism, but no system is perfect.   Another name for Laisez Faire Capitalism is "Dickensian", invoking the pure misery described in Dickens novels of life for many under a "capitalist" system.

          In another instance, a literature assignment interpreted a line in a poem about the labor of slaves working grain fields as "effortless".     If you didn't interpreted the author's meaning as suggesting that the slaves work was "effortless" instead of "skilled", you got the question wrong.    It seemed to be push-polling a notion of "kinder, gentler" interpretation of slavery in the South.

          •  DING DING DING DING! THIS!!!!!!!! (4+ / 0-)

            Thank you DFWmom! Thank You Thank You Thank You!

            And this crap started in the 1980s!

            To which I say, DO The Math!

            "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

            by GreenMother on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:29:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What state? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DFWmom

            Grain fields being worked is "Effortless" for the people owning or watching the slaves doing the labor, I guess. Other than that, how could that interpretation make any sense?

            Although, I vividly recall having a Virginia History book in fourth or fifth grade which had an illustration of some happy slaves dancing to a fiddler while others appeared to be enjoying a repast spread out on a picnic table. Even at my age I looked at it and thought "WTF?!"

            “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

            by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 02:15:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It was not unusual in Oklahoma in the 70s (0+ / 0-)

              to read material about the South and Slavery that truly did not do justice to the horror of the institution itself with all it's myriad affects on the peoples it touched.

              And this was accompanied by bucolic scenes "art" if you will that depicted slavery and slaves in some manner that suggested that they had a decent life provided by their owners. (feel free to scream now)

              It's bullshit. Just as much bullshit as the non-address of the underlying factors that drove the suffragette movement and later feminist waves,  the labor movement nor the depredations that lead to Hoovervilles, and the Civil Rights Movement.

              But then this is the danger of glossing over deep topics. The kids swallow crap that is shallow and intellectually dishonest, and this in turn helps shape their worldview as they become adults and also contributes to the age of the low information voter.

              Never a truer sentiment has been expressed:

              Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
              Without a hint of understanding about all these issues (and more) in American history, then adults deprived of that comprehension will not be able to address modern problems driven by that history, such as:

              Wealth Extraction from minorities and minority communities, which started with reparations.

              Institutional sexism, and racism.

              Classism used as a gate keeper in higher education and racism as a dynamic in the school-to-jail pipeline.

              The need for Medicare and Social Security Programs for the elderly and infirm.

              Indigent healthcare, and prohibitions against insurance (and eventually employers) from hiring and firing or covering people based on pre-existing conditions, pregnancy, disability, or ageism.

              Ending the Roulette wheel of speculatory investment in our higher economic institution.

              Food security and safety

              and a whole lot more.

              "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

              by GreenMother on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 10:17:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry Reconstruction--not reparations. (0+ / 0-)

                Apologies for any confusion.

                "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

                by GreenMother on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 10:18:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Let em join the military--that'll it kick it out (0+ / 0-)

          of them much quicker.

          "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

          by GreenMother on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:28:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  oh, gods. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snwflk

          Jesus wept.

          The "younger" group is not millenials nor Gen Y; the "younger" group has an average age of 38 and 30% of its members are 50 or over.

          Thus, this whole discussion is based on a major fallacy.

          There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:00:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Or maybe they heard of Socialism's failures (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bob Guyer, duhban

        in the past 100 years.

        Had democratic socialism flourished instead of Soviet thuggery, we'd be living in a much nicer world I suspect. Perhaps even near-utopian.

        The Left has still not fully recovered from the horrors Lenin unleashed upon the world IMHO. He hijacked one of the brightest moments of hope for humanity and drove it straight to HELL. The past is the past...but Lord Knows it can cast a dark shadow.

        Oh and since I've been heavy into Alt. History lately, here's a fun consideration: If the Cold War had ended with even a (ahem) "mild" WW3 where merely a few tens of millions were incinerated by Russia, "socialism" would be as toxic as fascism was after WW2. The Left as we know it really would be destroyed for a century or two. Just another reason to be glad the nukes never flew.

        "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

        by TheHalfrican on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:57:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  IMO the Pew Poll is inaccurate on economic issues (13+ / 0-)

      Theres no way that young voters, who have been victimized by current economic policy and who created the Occupy movement and the term economic inequality, are libertarian bootstrappers. There's also no way that their leanings towards Socialist beliefs translates into conservative leanings on economic issues.

      Pew either got a bad sample,  didn't phrase their questions accurately, or are conflating the opinions of two ideologically diverse age cohorts.  It doesn't wash. I'd prefer to see more quality, unbiased polling of Millenials before accepting these bizarre results as CW.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:43:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Most Adverturous (0+ / 0-)

        leaders are always the rare few of any group.  Occupy was the brain child of very adventurous and extremely bright (they don't always go together) young people.  They were not, by any stretch of the imagination, the majority of their age cohorts.  The question I'd be more interested in examining is the effect that Occupy had on their less adventurous members of their cohorts.  Pew may not be entirely accurate, but I don't think it can be discounted.

        Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

        by tikkun on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:19:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Betty, check out the average age of the (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming, gulfgal98, TracieLynn, BYw, snwflk, delver

        "younger" group. It's 38. Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees has delved deeper into the data and says that 30% of each "younger" category is over 50 years old.

        They've thrown my generation into the mix in an incredibly disingenuous way, and lots of people of good faith are accepting it as truth.

        I'm trying to push back on this, but it's hard after a night of insomnia and no coffee (coffee machine broke this morning, so I'm not in the best of moods).

        There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:20:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Have you read the full report? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming, delver

        It shows the "New Generation Left" to be more like "Solid Liberals" than not. On a few things they skew libertarian, and the highllighted article is zeroing in on those. And the differences don't seem to be so much ideology. For example, they definitely believe government should help the poor, but they don't think we can afford to do much more than we are doing already.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:49:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Where's the Occupy movement now? (0+ / 0-)

        it's barely relevant, if at all

  •  Discount The Findings From The Reason Foundation (47+ / 0-)

    No surprise that they find that young people tend to be more conservative on economic issues than on social ones.

    While that might be true to some extant I think much of it is because the Democratic party has been defined as younger people have come of age more on cultural opposition to the GOP more than economic opposition. Really until Elizabeth Warren has appeared on the national scene there has been no national Democratic politician of stature making the populist case on economics.  As the debate continues forward as how do we now get to a full employment economy I think that it will become obvious to the young that government has a role to play and the glorious free market that maybe some of their corporate hack business professors talked about can not do it all.

    •  Many leading Democratic, economic pundits... (19+ / 0-)

      ...have noted that we may already be at "full employment."

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:28:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow. This Is As Good As It Gets? (16+ / 0-)

        Think one of the main reasons we have not seen the unemployment lower more substantially is that private employment has recovered from the downturn but the public sector has not seen the return to levels of the past and especially in the recoveries from previous downturns. Those Democratic pundits are not feeling the pain of a tight job market.

        •  "New jobs" aren't paying as well as "old jobs..." (28+ / 0-)

          ...and a disproportionate share of those new jobs are part-time, as opposed to full-time.

          If you note, even last month's numbers reflected this inconvenient fact.

          If you look at the different BLS indices in last month's report, the NSA (unadjusted) numbers (see the first three columns of the chart, linked previously in this sentence) looked strikingly different than the SA numbers, too.

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:49:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And Young People Are In The Thick Of It (22+ / 0-)

            Being asked to be interns to get ahead as they are long out of school. Balancing multiple contract jobs rather than one full time job. Think some bias is on display on part of the analysts that younger people are more likely to believe in free market solutions than their older counterparts. And again one of the problems might be is that the alternatives that they have seen proposed are between rabid free market Republicans and deficit hawk Democrats.

            •  I think one of the problems (18+ / 0-)

              is who they interviewed.  I have kids age 26 to 32.  All are more concerned about climate change than anything else even their jobs.  They see a very limited future and are even deciding that they will have no children because the future looks so bleak to them. They believe there are solutions but are looking around at people with their heads in the sand and the complete non-action and marvel at priorities of lawmakers and corporate America.  They can see that the government could be useful here and they see that evil people are running it.  This age group is not stupid and I think studies like those noted in this piece are looking at them through the lens of the '80s instead of the lens of the present.
                   Pew polled 10,000 people and the conclusions drawn, imo, don't represent anything but those 10,000 people.  There was barely a mention of environment, and the future of the planet which will be the number one concern in the coming years.  

              Everyone! Arms akimbo! 68351

              by tobendaro on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 04:18:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your "will be" is the key. For a youth in this ... (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Stude Dude, CroneWit, Joieau, tikkun

                ... economy, it's today's and tomorrow's job that counts. And frankly, shortsighted as that may be, I can't blame 'em.

                2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:34:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My kids and their (8+ / 0-)

                  friends are into the "will be".  As are the young people I teach and work with.  They want to live well but also see a hopeless situation before them with no one caring about their future.  They are gob smacked by the inattention. I know only a few who echo their parent's financial and work philosophy of walking over others to get theirs while ignoring important factors of life quality and sustainability. I find this study to be inaccurate probably because of the demographic interviewed.

                  Everyone! Arms akimbo! 68351

                  by tobendaro on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:45:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK, perhaps "future of the planet" captures it. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Don midwest, CroneWit

                    That's the idealism in high school graduation speeches. (Idealism that is an important aspect of getting along as life goes on!)

                    But I'll wager that apart from the discussion groups and class sessions, the practicalities of getting along day-to-day will surpass the understandable youthful enthusiasm for Changing Everything. It looks so much easier to change big things when you're young.

                    We're probably not disagreeing that much. I was reacting to the "environment" part of your earlier comment. And it isn't that the environment - e.g. pollution, global warming and sustainability - aren't very important. It's that other Importances like jobs understandably take precedence over more generalized concerns. I think that's one reason why carbon emissions taxes, for example, don't light up the electorate.

                    2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                    by TRPChicago on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:02:50 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  My kids and many (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      orlbucfan, TRPChicago

                      of their friends have environmentally driven health issues.  Disease and conditions related to pollution, pesticides that affect our food, water and air.  They know this and understand it.  Add the fact that they will have increasing difficult lives because of climate change makes them think it is the priority.  They also get that changing our ways will provide new jobs and more jobs with lots of opportunity.  They don't see any of that happening although a large amount of them are actually doing things to help get it done.  I am frankly amazed to hear that the rest of the younger population doesn't think this way.

                      Everyone! Arms akimbo! 68351

                      by tobendaro on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:08:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Pew's earlier report on Millenials (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tobendaro

                came much closer to your description, tobendaro, than their second report, which Edsall covers (iirc).

          •  Tangential to your point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            delver

            I've seen many self-congratulatory statements on twitter about how great job creation has been under Obama, and to me it comes off as completely tone deaf.  Jobs have been created under Obama, but what kind of jobs are they?  Do people feel like they're getting ahead or at least making some progress in their lives?  My guess is that for the majority of people, the answer to this last question is a definitive "no".

            If Dems run this fall on "hey, things are great economically, let's just stay the course", they could be in for a rude awakening.  People don't like being told everything is peaches and cream, when in fact the situation is still very dire for a great many people

            Yes, things would have been much worse under Romney - you'll get no argument from me on that - but one likes to think this country can do better than this anemic "recovery".

            There's another old saying, Senator: don't piss down my back and tell me it's trickle down

            by mosec on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 03:27:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Full employment as defined by them for them (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mosec, Phoebe Loosinhouse

          a level of unemployment that keeps enough people desperate so they will work for less, that keeps unions at bay and generally defunding the contribution base for any politicians who do not bow down to the oligarchy's inequality policies...

          The general welfare is anathema to these people their patrons and apologists... dog eat dog the one with the most toys wins is the only acceptable society.

          Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

          by IreGyre on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:00:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  By "full employment" they mean that there is (7+ / 0-)

        only structural and frictional unemployment in the economy - IOW, that unemployment due to an under performing economy (cyclical unemployment) no longer exists.
           In their thinking the million or so long term unemployed aren't unemployed because of the economy, they are unemployed because they no longer have skills that make them useful to employers. So, they're structurally unemployed.
           The ups and downs of GDP are no longer relevant to them.
           The economists may be right, but structural unemployment (the mismatch of job skills and available jobs) is a major social problem in its own right, which our country historically has never adequately addressed.
           By calling our high unemployment and low workforce participation "structural," TPTB are writing off the futures of millions of people.

        •  The young see no future (0+ / 0-)

          being offered to them. I don't care how young or old you are, if there's no future you can see or imagine yourself participating in, then there's no reason at all to play the game.

          There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves. - Will Rogers

          by Joieau on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:06:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No. They're wrong. (0+ / 0-)

          And, just tangentially, I hate the way they use the word "structural."

          There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:18:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm Only Guessing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          delver, Phoebe Loosinhouse

          but it's my guess that it's not skills and jobs that are necessarily mismatched, but skills and corporate America's willingness to pay an adequate price for getting their hands on those skills.  Media has ignored this possibility entirely.  The only thing we hear from media is the voice of the petulant COMPANY.  We don't hear anyone talking about the actual skills of students graduating from college.  I'd call it Corporate Propaganda which Media propagates like the God's Truth.

          Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

          by tikkun on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:33:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I hope you don't agree with that (0+ / 0-)

        interesting viewpoint.

        There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:17:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agree, there's some hinky stuff going on (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Guyer, delver

      With these polls, particularly on economic issues. Whether honest errors or an attempt to dishonestly sway public policy, media coverage and voting, the conclusions on that issue appear to be genuinely flawed.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:51:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This whole discussion should stop in its tracks (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Leo Flinnwood, wu ming, delver

      and consider the fact that the average age of Pew's "younger" group is 38.

      Without reconsideration based on that fact, this discussion is going to result in little but spun fallacies.

      Ultimately, I guess it won't matter much, because those fallacies will burst like bubbles as soon as they encounter any empirical reality to do with people under 30 and their actual views. Which, by the way, I am not an expert on. I just know that "millenials" and "Gen Y" do not equate to a group whose average age is 38 and 30% of whom are over 50.

      There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:16:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You've Made An Important Point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      delver

      and one we need to examine more closely.  The Neo-cons, who are generally out of favor, are now leading university classrooms and moulding the thinking of our young people.  The Straussians already understood that there was a vacuum in the liberal arts and they sent out beaucoup numbers of teachers to fill that vacuum, knowing that moulding the minds of the next generations was their most urgent business.  

      Democrats have completely ignored all of that and have done so to our detriment.

      Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

      by tikkun on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:25:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Economic redistribution of wealth, and issues of (15+ / 0-)

    personal and sexual autonomy, this is the divide between Democrats and I gather has the potential to become as lethal as a Tea-Kocher at a GOP garden party.  For now let us take a stand on the care, protection and the rights of the law for  some 52,000 child refugees from Central America, violence is so prevalent in their lives that they could risk a long, hazardous journey to the United States to escape the fear of death they most likely  faced at home.  We can take our citizenship in the United States for granted, but these children have decided to risk their lives for care, protection and having some basic necessities of life.  Let them always remember our kindness in their time of need.  How can we be a civilized nation of laws if we can not review their situations and then decide what action to take under the law.  

  •  i basically thought he (47+ / 0-)

    drew the wrong conclusions from the data.  millenials mistrust government because for their entire lives it's been run by baby boomers who have done nothing but screw them over.  we distrust THIS government, but we don't distrust the IDEA of government.  

    basically, we want a functional social welfare state like every other modern country has.  we don't have the baggage of cold-war instilled red panic and any of us who have traveled outside the country or even have friends from elsewhere realize that much of the world pities americans, it doesn't envy us-- this is a generational sea change.  

    we want social democracy, but we don't trust the baby boomer generation to deliver it for us.  so we'll go on believing in the theory of effective government and biding our time until the baby boomer death grip on the body politic loosens enough for us to take over

    (obviously, i'm painting with a broad brush...)

    •  Baby Boomer Who Agrees With You (9+ / 0-)

      I have the vegetarian diet although I probably drink too much vodka to help me sleep. Hoping I will outlast my conservative cholesterol filled contemporaries and the death grip of their bullshit will loosen.

    •  Take heart, your generation will screw up, too. (21+ / 0-)

      Every generation has been screwed over by their corporate sociopaths, warmongers,  and/or  religious fanatics and conmen. Who are ever and always with us.

      Tired of being trickled down on?

      by tovan on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:56:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the "generation v generation" argument is so weird (17+ / 0-)

        it's not "the boomers" who are screwing the young people (and a bunch of other people) it's certain individual boomers.

        An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

        by mightymouse on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 04:25:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But never underestimate (4+ / 0-)

          the time-honored allure of believing that all the streams gushed with champagne, every cow produced ready-made milkshakes and every incident of flatulence smelled like incense... until the previous generation came along.  

        •  And so on back in history. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dallasdoc, tikkun, mightymouse

          Your generation will have its oppressors and wasters too, mostly they just haven't had the chance to reveal themselves.  And some of your kids will blame you.

        •  I think I understand what you mean (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mightymouse

          I'm a person that views some important issues through a generational lens instead of a left/right lens.  And, at times, I view the Depression/WWII generation not as the greatest generation but the greediest and the boomers as even worse.  But just because I believe that the governmental policies of the boomers have been disastrous, I don't blame my parents or their friends.

          And just to be clear, the issues I'm talking about are the national debt, SS/Medicare and climate change/peak oil.  On each of these issues the boomers have consistently enacted policies that pushed all the sacrifices onto their posterity.

          With that said, my generation (Gen X) has done little except complain about it but then again we are not yet in control of any branch of the government.  So while I give the government run by the boomers a solid, well deserved "F", I give my generation an "I" for incomplete.

          We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

          by theotherside on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:39:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re Boomers and SS/Medicare (4+ / 0-)

            You do know that Boomers like me, and I started working full time in 1973 and probably was paying at least some payroll tax as early 1967 --- were paying in to support our WWI era grandparents who were born in the 1880's.  And someone my age is not eligible to retire with the full Social Security benefit until 2017.  

            •  Yep, I know that. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shrike, mightymouse

              I also know that my generation will have paid 6.2% into FICA and 1.45% for Medicare our entire lives.  Meanwhile, you (in 1973) started out at 4.85% and 1% respectively.  (Other boomers that were born in 1946 and started their worklives in 1964 will have started out with FICA taxes of 3.625% and no Medicare tax, although that was soon to start at a rate of .35%)  We will also have to work one to two years longer than boomers.  And I also know that despite us paying more into the system as a percentage basis and despite our generation working more years your generation is expected to receive 100 percent of the promised benefits and we are expected to only be able to fund about 75% of our benefits.

              Now, I understand the rationale and politics.

              If I were to be given these two alternatives:

              Policy A- Lower taxes, less work years, 100 percent of promised benefits

              or

              Policy B- Higher taxes, more work years, 75 percent of promised benefits

              I would choose Policy A all day long.  But if the choice was to take Policy A and then give Policy B to my kids, I would hope I would choose a third option that made it fair to me and my kids (and their kids).  And that is what I advocate for.

              As a simple point of fact the boomers have been in power for quite awhile now and they have chosen Policy A for themselves and decided to hand Policy B to me and my kids.

              So can you see how it can be viewed as unfair?  Or do you dispute the facts that I presented?

              We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

              by theotherside on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:54:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Democrats need to take on generational fairness (0+ / 0-)

                It's a tough one, but the time is right for the First Hillary Clinton Administration (and I am hoping there will be just one, that she will bow out in 2020) to do right by all of her generational constituencies and make the "hard choices" (that are actually very obvious) to preserve the retirement and healthcare systems  for the present and the future.  Such as: no cap on SS/Medicare tax, slow the rate of increase in benefits, raise the retirement age for full benefits.

                It's the microeconomy, stupid!

                by chinshihtang on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 03:18:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  The baby boomer generation is like other... (22+ / 0-)

      ...generations: We're not all the same. Just like all the Millennials and Gen Xes aren't all the same.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:12:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Military industrial complex screwed boomers over. (17+ / 0-)

      It has screwed every generation since Joe McCarthy went on his witch hunts. Everyone has been screwed over by the 0.01% for the past 30 years. A tiny, tiny fraction of the population has most of the political power.

      “Industry does everything they can and gets away with it almost all the time, whether it’s the coal industry, not the subject of this hearing, or water or whatever. They will cut corners, and they will get away with it. " Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D, WVa

      by FishOutofWater on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:29:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is it really that much? (11+ / 0-)

        Im not so sure. I actually think the top 20%--30% dont have much to complain about. Theyre enjoying the highest standard of living in the world.

        Can your average surgeon or corporate lawyer or tenured professor or television producer or local organic free range chicken farmer really claim the system is screwing them? I mean really?! I dont think so.

        Billionaires arent doing all this on their own you know. We reward in this country based on social proximity to the rich. Not based on work and production.

        •  ^Excellent.^ (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          brooklynbadboy

          Without the vast corps of "knowledge workers", the very rich would have a far more difficult time doing their evil shit. And while many of them are up for some redistribution, I can't imagine many would support structural change that slows down the gravy train of "social proximity to the rich."

          Not without a big, big fight. To me, these people are a bigger problem than those we call the ruling class.

          “If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”

          by MrJayTee on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:54:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Eisenhower tried to warn them. But did they listen (0+ / 0-)

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:31:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That sounds about right to me. nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan
    •  Bravo. Excellent observation. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ozsea1

      Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

      by ricklewsive on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:40:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gen X, too (5+ / 0-)

      Keep in mind a sgnificant percentage of economic conservatives ruining our country and economy are people who were teens during the Reagan years. They're now in their 40s, like Obama, Cantor, Palin, Lew, Geithner, Rubio, etc.

      There's a large ideological chasm between those age cohorts.

      Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

      by Betty Pinson on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:04:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Right, it's time for boomers to step aside (0+ / 0-)

      They have done enough damage.  Give the rest of us a shot.

      We want to build cyber magicians!

      by VelvetElvis on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:16:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well I see you're ready to sit on your a** (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tikkun, Willinois, aliasalias

      for a looonnng time then, because my WWII era mom is still voting as are her 90+ age girl friends.  The Boomers aren't going to be gone till you're collecting Social Security if you bother to do anything that makes you eligible, you're theory being that waiting for the previous generations to die will do the trick.  So my unsolicited Boomer advice is that this is not a plan.

      •  Not to mention all the people still alive (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell

        that are say between 70 and 85. Sometimes I think they get lumped in with the baby boomer stats to inflate the white conservative numbers - especially for those who do indeed tend to "paint with a broad brush."

    •  Recced and agreed but with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thirty three and a third

      reservations about the it's the boomers fault. What about the screw or get screwed XYZ'ers hummmm...  In my family consisting of three generations of liberals : boomer's,  x'ers and 20 year old millennial's, there is this blaming of the generation preceding or following there own. Each generation thinks that the body politic will improve once the old farts die off.

      Thing is every generation spawns greedy, corrupt, sociopath's  who seem to always get power and go into politics. The worst of the RW in DC seems to me to have lot's of younger pols and those Young Republicans of the Bushie era are certainly not boomers. Teh stupid is not confined to generations it's been around as long as humans.

      Me and my granddaughter seem to share more of the same political values and outlook then her parents, my son and I do. We both think the body politic is rigged to only work for the top.  My grandmother was a outright socialist my mom, of the greatest generation lol, was much more an establishment Dem. and bought into into the capitalistic American Dream, and so it goes, and on and on. We need to stop blaming each other as we're all bozo's on this bus. Another divide and conquer distraction that enables generations of 'the owner's of the place' and their pols to stay in power.

  •  If they're not into "economic redistribution" (12+ / 0-)

    it's largely because much effort has gone into disguising that commerce is not defined by money and that currency, to be effective, has to be constantly redistributed or, if you will, recycled.
    Young people understand cycling and recycling, but no pollster is going to put questions to them about those activities and their connection to the economy.
    Economic analysis is still working off an antiquated paradigm in which the form is mistaken for the function.
    Individual liberty and mobility are always important to young humans but their elders, looking to have them stick around and serve, are disinclined to address those desiderata.

    •  The problem with the term (9+ / 0-)

      "economic redistribution" is that it's generally used to describe taxing the better-off and harder-working to help less well-off parasites, when in reality not only is that inaccurate and mean-spirited in itself, but also leaves out the other kind of "economic redistribution", when better-off parasites take money from less well-off hard-working people through various legal and illegal scams, like the ridiculously low capital gains tax and various other tax loopholes for the rich, insanely low wages, insanely high interest rates, and so on.

      Yeah, but calling out something so obvious and awful is just "class warfare", so we can't have that. The real American Dream has become to get rich by ripping others off and screwing them over. No one wants to burst that bubble.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:02:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  People associate a phrase like economic (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kovie

        redistribution with things like taking family farms and turning them into collectives and stuff like that. They think anyone using that or "social justice" is a Maoist and that all the hard working Americans will have to share the contents of their tip jars with the guy out back sleeping in his car. Their greatest fear is that someone is getting a "free ride" or isn't doing their fair share or is living off the hard work of others.

        And actually the fear is justified. They just haven't realized that the guy getting the free ride and living off the hard work of others is the 1%er,  not their cohabitants in misery and wage slavery.

        “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

        by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 02:30:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Divide and conquer (0+ / 0-)

          Worked for Caesar, works for them. The rubes always fall for it. What kind of mouthbreathing idiot champions the plight of the uber rich?

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 05:49:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Best tweet I ever got was from T Edsall (5+ / 0-)

    "Thomas Edsall ‏@Edsall  Apr 17
    Tweets by @Auriandra are the best source of information on Twitter and should be followed by one and all"

    I think Thomas Edsall is the best oped writer at the NYT. He writes like an academic (which I like) & puts a lot of work & thought into each piece (which I also like). I've spent hours just following up all his links.

    "All politics is national."

    by Auriandra on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:35:05 AM PDT

  •  Work Hard = Get Ahead...LOL (15+ / 0-)

    Yeah, that's the way it works all right. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    And as the song and dance begins, the children play at home with needles, needles and pins.

    by The Lone Apple on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:37:58 AM PDT

    •  Oddly enough I see that attitude from my (2+ / 0-)

      80+ Bagger relatives. If only we had worked harder, then we would have gone further! Did you not do well? It's because you didn't work hard enough.

      Yea, that's the way it works all right! You got that!

      "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

      by GreenMother on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:33:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually it works on some levels (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Lone Apple

      IT won't make you rich but it will make you secure.  We, my husband and I, figured out that no corporation was going to hire us to benefit us. To think they would was ludicrous.  So, we decided we needed to make our own plan.  I became a teacher for the union benefits (read health) and my husband started our family business.  We did work hard but the benefits accrued to our personal well being rather than to some corporation.  The result was that we moved from dire poverty to a pretty dependable stability.  It's harder to do that now because credit is harder to get. Crowd sourcing is carrying some of the load of that local banks used to carry.  

      Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

      by tikkun on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:48:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Spot On. Sadly, Triangulation will out in November (5+ / 0-)

    Dudehisattva...

    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:41:06 AM PDT

  •  Similar situation on the other side, too. (18+ / 0-)

    Ron Paul's main support came from clueless young people. And while he probably won't win the GOP nomination, Rand Paul will no doubt tap into that same support and cause headaches in the GOP 2016 primaries.

    Older voters have seen the positive changes things such as Social Security and the Great Society programs have made in people's lives.

    Younger voters? They saw our government at "work" during Katrina.

    I think this is one of the main reasons the GOP wanted Obamacare to fail. It would just add to their notion that government can't do anything right.

    Now that Obamacare is succeeding despite all the bastards' hard work, I wonder if that will help change the notion of what effective governing can do.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 03:13:10 AM PDT

    •  It only will if we are able to market its success (0+ / 0-)

      effectively

      Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

      by tikkun on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:49:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Katrina response was enough to shake anyone's (0+ / 0-)

      faith in government. I know it shook mine. I think I'm still suffering PTSD at the discovery that our government could be so inept and unresponsive and inhumane and callous and stupid and slow in responding to the results of a natural disaster right here in the gd middle of the country. (Except for the Coast Guard. I'll always make an exception for the Coast Guard who were magnificent - remember the commander who said he didn't need to wait for orders from the top because he knew what his mission was?)

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 02:45:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Though I agree with his observations (18+ / 0-)

    Though I agree with his observations to a certain extent, I don't believe his conclusion. Edsall obviously talked to great extent with college educated young people and completely ignored the working class. I continue to be impressed by younger peoples' ability to see through bullshit.

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

    by MargaretPOA on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 03:23:54 AM PDT

  •  Young people are idealist by nature... (11+ / 0-)

    When I was their age, I believed much the same. But then as you experience life, and see many, many people who work hard yet barely can stay ahead of the game you realize that confirmation bias is a strong myth-maker.

  •  I have often thought with the Republican party (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern, hlsmlane, tikkun

    dying out that the Democratic party would split.
    Someone only needs to present the ideas of one of the groups and take the party over the other will join which ever party is left that supports their ideals.

    •  I think "Party" is the wrong word. (0+ / 0-)

      Political parties are practically irrelevant. The term just refers to coalescences of interests we've labeled for convenience, terms that have masked ideological differences for many decades.

      There is this artifact of Party in Congress because that's the way its bodies are organized and "led". And although some important campaign money is distributed by party-oriented groups, most individuals run for office as individuals with various degrees of adherence to "party." You see this in members of both parties.

      We will always have conservatives on economic issues and liberals on social issues, for example, and an array of attitudes about major issues of the time that do not fit nicely within those big broad "political" generalities like "party."

      2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:49:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thomas Frank "What's the matter with Kansas" (20+ / 0-)

    now has a fairly regular column at salon.com

    ran across him a couple of months ago after years of not noticing him

    here is the link to his columns

    writer/thomas_frank/

    here are some headlines related to this diary. Need to go to the link above to get any or all of the articles.

    Congratulations, class of 2014: You’re totally screwed
    College costs more and more, even as it gets objectively worse. Only people worse off than indebted grads: adjuncts
    The trigger warning we need: “College is a scam meant to perpetuate the 1 percent”
    The trigger warning we need: "Borrowing to attend an American college may be hazardous to your dreams"
    Colleges are full of it: Behind the three-decade scheme to raise tuition, bankrupt generations, and hypnotize the media
    Tuition is up 1,200 percent in 30 years. Here's why you're unemployed, crushed by debt -- and no one is helping
    David Graeber: “Spotlight on the financial sector did make apparent just how bizarrely skewed our economy is in terms of who gets rewarded”
    David Graeber explains why the more your job helps others, the less you get paid
    Hillary Clinton forgets the ’90s: Our latest gilded age and our latest phony populists
    The gilded age Clinton now laments had its roots in the dark side of Bill's economic record. So why trust her now?
  •  I think it's a spread more than a schism... (11+ / 0-)

    The survey is accurate, I'm sure, but there are also quite a few younger voters who are very much plugged into the class/wealth inequity issue -- they feel a generational oppression, a deck stacked against them, and they blame both parties for letting the middle class erode.

    The current state of the GOP, now, that's a schism!  The religious fundamentalist reactionaries against the centrist Republicans.

  •  The Young Outsider should concern us (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Unduna, bobswern, Sandino, CenPhx, CroneWit

    YOUNG OUTSIDERS
    14% OF ADULT POPULATION, 15% OF REGISTERED VOTERS, 11% OF VERY ENGAGED

    49% Rep/Lean Rep (23% Rep, 26% Lean Rep); 35% Dem/Lean Dem

    Basic description:
    This relatively young, largely independent group holds a mix of conservative and liberal views. And while more lean toward the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, Young Outsiders express unfavorable opinions of both major parties. They are skeptical of activist government; a substantial majority views government as wasteful and inefficient. Yet they diverge from the two conservative typology groups – Steadfast Conservatives and Business Conservatives – in their strong support for the environment
    and many liberal social policies.

    Defining values:
    A large majority of Young Outsiders (81%) think “poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return.” That is among the highest share of any typology group. Two
    -thirds (66%) say government is doing too much to solve
    problems, while only about half as many (32%) want it to do more. Yet most Young Outsiders favor government action to protect the environment; 68% say stricter environmental laws are worth the cost. Majorities of Young Outsiders favor same-sex marriage (68%) and legalizing
    marijuana (67%), while 58% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. However, they also are strong supporters of gun rights. About six-in-ten (63%) say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns while just 35% think it is more important to control gun ownership.

    Political attitudes:

    In this fall’s midterms, Young Outsiders favor the   Republican in their district by 53% to 33%. Yet they are not deeply engaged in politics. Only 42% say they follow what’s going on in politics and government most of the time, and just 30% know that Democrats have a majority in the Senate and that Republicans control the House. Young Outsiders have divided views of many political figures; no leading Republican is viewed more positively than negatively.

    Who they are:
    Young Outsiders are one of the youngest typology groups; 30% are under 30 and most are under 50. About three
    - quarters (73%) are non-Hispanic whites, and about as many are male (48%) as female (52%). They are relatively secure financially, for their age profile, and most (63%) say “paying the bills is generally not a problem.”

    Lifestyle notes:

    Young Outsiders are detached from religion as well as politics. Just 25% say they attend religious services at least weekly. Most Young Outsiders say it is important to live in a
    community with high quality public schools and where they can live near extended family. Relatively few place priority on living near people who share their religious faith (23%) or political views (18%).

    •  This (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Arun
      A large majority of Young Outsiders (81%) think “poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return.” That is among the highest share of any typology group
      While I'm not a Young Outsider, I think that if you want to flip their preference from Republican to Democratic, the Democrats should change their messaging and emphasis on helping the poor.

      As basic general world views, as Edsal points out, the left views the poor as victims and the right views them as lazy.  And each reads their own media that re-enforces their own biases and so here on DKOS we will see stories of hard working poor people who just need a break and a helping hand.  Meanwhile on the right they still print stories of welfare queens and people with Obama phones.  

      Now, most boomers and even people in my generation (Gen X) are probably mostly locked into one view or the other and aren't likely to change.  But if the Democrats could change the messaging then they are more likely to draw in the Young Outsiders and, hopefully, prove that some government programs work.

      So what would that messaging be?
      1. The poor aren't monolithic in nature.  They are neither all hardworking nor are they all lazy.  But statistics would show (and more studies may need to be done) that X percentage of the poor are more in the hardworking category than in the lazy category.
      2. We will tailor our programs to help the hardworking poor.
      3. Specifically, we will strengthen our safety net to all poor people in need of help that are willing to help their local communities.
      4.  Thus nearly all government assistance programs (unemployment, TANF, disability, food stamps, etc.) will have a community investment requirement.
      5.  The community investment requirement will be individualized to each community but will be primarily designed to assist people that are poor, unemployed, lack transportation, etc.  and not go to help offset the cost current government programs.
      6.  The level of commitment (ie. number of hours of "voluntering") required in exchange for this type of assistance will be tied to a local living wage.

      If you do that the key benefits I see are that:
      A)  You have a stronger safety net that is far better than the status quo.
      B) You destroy the welfare queen/Obama phone narrative of the right.
      C) You pull the Young Outsider's to the Democratic Party and away from the Republicans.
      D) Long term, you prove government programs can work.
      E) You have cleaner, safer, more liveable cities and suburbs.

      Not a bad outcome if you ask me.

      We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

      by theotherside on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:09:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Under 50 is not Young (0+ / 0-)

      In this day and age, it may be immature, but immaturity doesn't make them young...it just makes them insufferable.

      Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

      by tikkun on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:54:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And somewhat pathetic too. (0+ / 0-)

        When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered -- MLK, Jr.

        by caul on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:54:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  omfg, BOHICA - the slashdot economy (6+ / 0-)

    4.Profit! Eyes on the prize.

    By a margin of 70-35, millennials in the Reason survey chose “competition is primarily good; it stimulates people to work hard and develop new ideas” over “competition is primarily harmful; it brings out the worst in people.” By 64-25, millennials picked “profit is generally good because it encourages businesses to provide valued products to attract customers” as opposed to “profit is generally bad because it encourages businesses to take advantage of their customers and employees.”
    The owners must be ecstatic. Prepare the abattoirs! :-)
  •  Interesting diary, thanks. Nt (5+ / 0-)

    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 04:58:21 AM PDT

  •  Social & cultural issues R currently more central (7+ / 0-)

    At the risk of being totally condescending, what else would this age group (18 to 29) be more concerned with????   Conceding up front all the exceptions to the rule, this age group generally isn't married and has no kids, which gives them a much more self-centered outlook on life.  They have minimal obligation and responsibility for anybody but themselves; and if they are working and financially successful, hooray for them because their own anecdotal evidence shows that life is a beach (in Mexico or Daytona for some).   If not, they're in their parents' basement resenting the hell out of them for being "involved in their lives".  Afterall, they are 22 and who the hell do those parents think they are trying to tell them what to do despite the fact that their parents worked and paid for everything they eat, touch, sleep on, and drive.    Add in "the fact that young people never get old or die", and we're surprised that all they care about are issues that directly impact them?   Too bad their parents don't represent their pocket book self-interests half as well.  Millenials also don't vote,  so the importance of their opinion is diminished by their their own actions, and in my book, naivete.    I respect that this age group "thinks it and believes it", but please, don't ask my age group to revert, convert. or put much stock in the belief that their sexual freedom is more important than their bread and butter.

    Today is probably not a good day for me to discuss this age group.  I have three 16-20 yo male grandsons at differing stages of growth and success that all have one thing in common.   They're convinced they know it all.  I am a proponent of the young, but I'm rather tired of this helicopter generation acting like they're the first generation to discover their belly buttons. Maybe we shouldn't have clapped so hard when they peed in the big boy toilet.  

    With this, I am going to take my crabby self and depart knowing full well they will all grow up and this too shall pass.  

    I will not vote for Hillary.

    by dkmich on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:09:47 AM PDT

    •  You nailed it! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dkmich, milkbone, tikkun, lostinamerica

      All of my Libertarian/Republican't nephews (whose views were shaped by their selfish, racists, narcissistic idiot fathers) fall into this same trap; they were raised to believe that government is a sop for "those people", that government can't do anything right, let alone do anything to improve their miserable, paycheck-to-paycheck existence, and have a knee-jerk aversion to any politician who isn't a raging Right Wing Psychopath.  Two of them are real gems of contradiction:  They both vehemently hate unions and government, but both are unionized government employees!  When you point out the contradiction, and the fact that if they were working for a private corporation with no union contract they'd be working for half the wage and none of the benefits (given the nature of the work they do,) they completely reject the possibility, believing themselves to be somehow better, smarter and harder working than everyone else.  The good news is that none of them act on their beliefs by actually voting, so there is still plenty of time for them to learn the hard way before they do, not that I'd wish hardship on them, but it does seem to be the only way they'd ever learn the lessons they need to learn...

    •  It's less about us knowing it all... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dkmich

      ...and more about not being all that interested in listening to the generation that history shows got it all wrong and then wants to try to tell us how we should go about fixing it.

      Everyday Magic
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
      -- Clarke's Third Law

      by The Technomancer on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:51:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The boomers gave you the 60s. (0+ / 0-)

        We ended the viet nam war and pretty much had pot legalized.   We had jobs, could afford college, kids and marriage; and weren't in hock up to our ears.

        Then came the Xers and the Ys.  They're the ones that screwed it up for everybody.  They brought you grunge, MTV, Volvos,  baby-on-board signs, a love of materialism and everything commercial, and Ronald Reagan.  

        There are some things in life, like a fine wine, that can't be had unless and until you age it.    Naivete and immortality are a fact of life for everyone at age 20, regardless of generation.   There are some universal truths, and that's one of them.

        I will not vote for Hillary.

        by dkmich on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:23:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There Is No Such Thing As Economic Progressivism (10+ / 0-)

    or liberalism.

    There hasn't been a major party that's liberal since the Beatles were recording. There hasn't been a strong societal voice for liberal economics since then. Everyone too young to have gray hair has never seen the US have either a democratic economy nor a democratic government that would represent the people against the will of ownership.

    The American Experiment ended a long, long time ago. We all agree on aristocratic wealth, we all agree that government can't do much about the economy and probably shouldn't.

    It doesn't especially matter how things have been or might be if we were governed otherwise because neither leaders nor the people are calling for it.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:23:26 AM PDT

    •  Not all of us (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maybeeso in michigan

      Just the fools and narcissists. I.e. most people. But positive change never came from universal consensus on or even majority support for policies that made it possible. FDR ran as an economic conservative but governed like a semi-socialist liberal. LBJ government way more liberally, domestically, than one might have predicted. TR too, and he was a freaking Republican.

      Democracy is not an effective governing principle. In fact it's often a terrible one. You get elected democratically, then govern in a more republican way, doing what you think is best, not the people who voted for you, many if not most of whom are weak-minded idiots when it comes to policy. Leaders who respect public opinion are fools, because most people are fools.

      They'll like you when your policies succeed and help them.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:53:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You Lost Me At (6+ / 0-)
      we all agree that government can't do much about the economy and probably shouldn't.
      Nope. I disagree.

      The above appears to be throwing in the towel-- GIVING UP on our political leadership who in their wisdom has spent $400 Billion (and counting) on the F-35, a fighter jet that has been experiencing engine failure and other problems-- while at the same time not fulling funding our nation's infrastructure needs.

      Now our feeble congress can't fully fund the Highway Trust Fund, desperately looking in this or that cookie jar for spare change to "temporarily fund" it.

      This is utterly and hopelessly absurd.

      "Our" political leadership bailed the banks out to the tune of Trillions of dollars and they regularly right the big phat checks for "defense" spending.

      This has everything to do with enabling/profiting the ONE PERCENT ECONOMY, while throwing the rest of us to the wolves, the "vagaries of the free market".

      So don't got there-- don't pretend "the government can't do much about the economy". They are doing PLENTY; just not in regard to the 99 percent.

      "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

      by Superpole on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:09:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Democratic Party has no ideology (0+ / 0-)

      and hasn't since about 1976.  The Republicans have a pretty clear ideology.  if nothing else, they pretty much know where they stand.

      The Democratic Party could fracture along any number of faults because there isn't any central core for what it's about anymore.  

      •  We don't need libertarians. Go your own way if you (0+ / 0-)

        cannot support the party's interest. We don't need our own purist 'Teaparty". This is a democratic site. You are here. Respect this site and our priorities. Third parties,split parties are not acceptable here. You have been told over and over that you are free to leave. I think our great leader
        recently said "F Off!" This is a political site, most of us are involved in political action. Whether it be legislation or GOTV. Watch Warren and Obama. They dig each other and both promote and support the party and it's goals and strategies. They will in no way support any party split. You guys can grow up or...

      •  The democratic party is in no danger of fracturing (0+ / 0-)

        Watch Obama  and Warren. They support each other and the party. We do not need nor want a split party. No purist 'Tea Party' here. No libertarians either. We are democrats. Grow up or as our great leader recently said "F Off!

    •  A polite disagreement: there is such a thing as (0+ / 0-)

      Liberalism, and the Democratic party is a perfect example.

      A look at the history of liberalism in the US and UK shows it's very comfortable with imperialism and the mass death that accompanies it, and with domestic economics that screw the poor and working class. In fact, this is exactly what we've seen over the last 30 years. There is a vast difference between what people who call themselves liberals say they want and what the political organizations supported by liberals do with continuing liberal support.

      Liberalism is economically conservative, socially centrist, and internationally violently interventionist on behalf of big business. Both history and contemporary events prove this.

      What contemporary liberals tell themselves to get through the night changes nothing.

      “If there is no justice for the people, may there be no peace for the government.”

      by MrJayTee on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:10:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do you guys actually believe this stuff? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mallyroyal, sviscusi

      I know it sounds really cool to say America ended years ago, but do you actually believe it?

      By the way, during your awesome gilded age of democratic progressivism black people were being lynched, made to sit in the back of the bus and had to drink from separate water fountains. Women could vote, but practically were never the equals of men. And don't even start about LGBT people - they either didn't exist or were hated and feared much worse than today.

      So yes, there was a great society for some segment of the white male population. Hooray! Lets not go back to those days shall we?

      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

      by PhillyJeff on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:10:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Liberals & Libertarians Find Common Ground in Hous (13+ / 0-)
    The House on Thursday voted 221 to 200 to approve an amendment by one of its most vocal liberal members, Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, to ban federal contracts for companies that set up sham headquarters in offshore tax havens like Bermuda. Thirty-four Republicans bucked their party to push it to passage.

    That was only the most recent stirring of life on the House’s left flank. Democrats have long hoped they could find common cause on at least some issues with the Republican conference’s libertarian wing. That is starting to happen, fueled by rising distrust of government on the right, a willingness of Democrats to defy the Obama administration in some instances and a freewheeling amendment process on appropriations bills.

    NY Times article

    Here is how I found it

    Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald  3m

    Encouraging NYT article on the growing liberal/libertarian alliance in the House  http://www.nytimes.com/...

    Liberals and Libertarians Find Common Ground in House
  •  Don't Tweet Me Bro! (7+ / 0-)

    Sez this semi-typical member of the older Democratic cohort. As for members of the younger one, well, it seems like they love them their liberalism when it frees them to live the lives they want to live and fills their young heads with aspirational mantra about HOPE!, but not so much when it calls on them to sacrifice, you know, stuff, like money and shit, to help the less well-off.

    I call their brand of liberalism Selfie Liberalism: Selfish Liberalism.

    Or, as Rand Paul likes to call it, Libertarianism.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:46:20 AM PDT

  •  I'd be likely (6+ / 0-)

    to believe, in today's economy, that "most people can get ahead if they’re willing to work hard” if I was still living with my parents.  Libertarianism is liberalism for the comfortable.

  •  Propaganda has done much to (6+ / 0-)

    seed Libertarian ideals among the young. Should we be surprised that they've been swayed? The Left has to fight for their ideals as hard as the Right has done in the public forum.

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 05:57:54 AM PDT

  •  sadly, the millennials evaluatepolitical progress (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude, IowaBiologist

    and the ineffectiveness of the democratic party and it's reps, as if talk radio is irrelevant while it dominates messaging in the US and kicks internet ass with it's professional think tank coordination and centralized management.

    and most non-millenials do the same, while those 1200 coordinated and unchallenged radio stations run rings around them, taking free pot shots at the reps and ideals, enabling the perception of the center to the right, and minimizing the work they think they're supporting with their activism and donations.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:01:54 AM PDT

  •  Well, their optimism will get crushed (5+ / 0-)

    as their life continues and the propaganda wears off.

  •  this is good news... (5+ / 0-)

    for Rand Paul. Seriously.

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:04:14 AM PDT

  •  big money has stacked the deck (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern, Stude Dude, Betty Pinson

    the generation gap IS real, goals and attitudes are different.  however --

    what anyone voted for and what they end up getting are COMPLETELY different.

    BIG MONEY decides what happens in government, not voters.  it’s like taking two aces out of a deck of cards before you deal, or ANY two other cards.  you don’t end up winning every hand, but by the end of the evening, it tips the odds in your favor.

    same thing in WASH D.C., big money has stacked the deck greatly in their odds, and no matter who you voted for, in the end you lose.

  •  If younger Americans (5+ / 0-)

    abandon the Democratic Party and politics altogether or opt for some strange voting pattern putting and keeping economic conservatives in office, at least I won't have to live with the results for long,  same as global warming.

    But they'll suffer for it.   If you are economically powerless, meaningless to the economy because you've been frozen out of the benefits of higher education but have to pay the loans, get can't a stable job with a living wage, stuck with aging parents who can't support you,  no way to afford your own children, and you think that social networking with equally unemployed, impoverished and hamstrung people will save you in a micro economy based on barter of services,  congratulations you will love your feudal overlords.

  •  Many of my Students report the same feeling. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern, TayTay, New Rule, Willinois

    Much of it has to do with the extreme form of Proselytizing done by their liberal to socialist teachers and parents: WORK HARD. This was a cultural consensus reached about.. oh.. 1975 when the Oil Shortages hit, and it looked like OverPopulation and Resource Destruction were going to overtake the US, and the world.

    There was a realization that unless a young person gets focused fast, works hard toward a goal, and uses every possible advantage, these three conspiring forces would relegate them to the back of the bus, or worse. I dont think that it is a wrong idea.

    Then, as students looked around in their classrrooms, they see kids who a) are lethargic b) are without hope c) are without a goal d) are without motivation or accomplishment e) are without work habits, including looking for the "easy way" via drugs, cheating, sex, gambling, extreme risk taking.

    What none of our kids really understand is that BOTH or ALL these reactions are part of the SAME reaction to Resource Depletion, Overpopulation, and Diminishing Opportunity among the population. They do not have enough life experience to see that many students have parents who look for the easy way, are not energetic, not educated, and are prone to despair in the face of the rather grim facts. These kids will not get ahead in the new reality.

    The kids who are accomplishing, working hard, have hope that they will be able to rise above the trifecta of doom which Liberals and Socialists have spoken so loudly about, and this remains our problem. We have been, like the Libertarians, so wedded to the "Do your own thing" individualism that we do not teach Group Action in Concert well at all.

    It wasnt enough to present the facts of the world to the last two generations. We did fail to give them hope that these issues are not apocalyptic in nature. We failed to give them the idea that there is Group Action, Democracy, to preserve the world and our way of living within it.

    That is a successful formula even today. Kids need Hope that Problems can be solved with Group Action, Democracy.

    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

    by OregonOak on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:26:39 AM PDT

  •  "Must Read" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern, Betty Pinson, Tony Situ

    Hardly.

    The Democratic Party could well gain strength politically as it edges away from economic liberalism to a coalition determined to protect personal liberties from conservative moral constraint.
    Isn't that already what the Democratic Party has been doing over the past three decades? For most Americans, has such a shift been shown to have a positive economic outcome?

    Then again, Edsall isn't really mentioning what he means by 'economic liberalism' although by looking at some of the data he's mentioning he seems to be referencing the New Deal and Great Society eras.

    Ask millennials if they think ending tax breaks for companies that offshore jobs is a good idea. Or if there needs to be more stringent regulation of the financial industry. Or any number of other modern economically-oriented items that fall under the heading 'economic liberalism' and you'll probably see that millennials are a helluva lot less libertarian in outlook.

    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

    by grape crush on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:27:21 AM PDT

  •  "Superman" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern, ozsea1

    Young people in their teens and early twenties are still at that stage of brain and mental development where they have a difficult time processing the potential risks to themselves.

    Intellectually, they may know the risks of a given activity, but they have a hard time conceiving that the risks could actually happen to them personally.  It's why a lot of kids take what adults think are stupid risks (and it also has a lot to do with teen pregnancy - they know unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy, but they're not good at processing what the odds of it are for them personally).

    And undoubtedly this impacts their outlook for the future, by making them think that they'll never be one paycheck away from being evicted, or that they'll never get sick or have an accident (which is part of why many never bothered to get insurance pre-Obamacare), or that their having a job might depend on whether or not the the higher-ups at the company want to liquidate their positions to inflate this quarter's earnings.

  •  We're doomed. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude

    When they own the information, they can bend it all they want. -- John Mayer

    by S M Tenneshaw on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:35:14 AM PDT

  •  Bob, I look at it more as the divide between.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson, ozsea1

    ACTUAL Democrats and the self-hating moderate Republicans who pretend to be Democrats. Moderate, Centrist, it's all code words for democrats who aren't really.

    But who also aren't A) Insane or B) Reality deniers.

    They day is approaching where the reality of the world will no longer allow these pseudo-democrats to keep pretending they can stick to conservative austerity economic concepts (centrist?) and remain connected to reality.

    Their inner conflict is too bad, but it's time to choose a side, the fence they are sitting on is about to collapse.

    Personally they can go fuck themselves. In the long run the economy and inequality are going to catchup to all of them and the people will react the way they did in the early 1930's and the Republican scum will be out on their asses for decades again. Assuming the US as we know it survives.

    All the signs of a coming civil war are rising, The Stupid (tm) are getting more stupid and as everything they touch turns to shit and they refuse to confront the WHY's of the actual real world, they will ultimately lash out at those who they think are making their world go to shit .... when all the while it is they themselves who are responsible. And like a cornered animal in pain but unable to understand what and why it hurts so bad.

    Instead of doing the right thing and just killing themselves, they will lash out and kill others. The rise of domestic terrorist activity, dingaling militia's, etc are all symptoms of this problem.

    What we need is leadership from the top to call it like it is and call them out for who and what they are, all of them. Frightened racist scared little bunnies .... with guns and the vote.

    They need a smack. In the late 20's and early 30's the smack came i the form of an economic collapse so profound that even the dumbest motherfucker came to understand that they don't understand what the don't understand and they gave up and let those who were smarter and wiser and did understand .... handle it.

    An entire generation or two learned that lesson the hard way, and that lesson has been lost to the next 3 generations .... they need their wake up call, let's hope it doesn't require a depression or civil war to get the point across.

  •  Define "young" (10+ / 0-)

    Go to the Demographics section of Pew's report.

    30% of the "Next Generation Left" is 50 or older.

    34% of the "Young Outsiders" are 50 or older.

    http://www.people-press.org/...

    And the "Solid Liberals" group skews young, just not as young as the "Next Generation Left" (55% under 50 vs. 69% under 50, 24% under 30 vs. 33% under 30). Although what that means overall depends on how big each group is (you'd have to weight those percentages by the total size of the groups).

  •  Well, it sounds like the winning combination . . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern

    . . . is to take an "I've got mine" approach towards younger workers.  Use their gullibility towards the lie that hard work will get you ahead to profit from making them work harder while raking in the profits from paying them next to nothing.  Then toss them some no-cost liberal feel good laws and you can get them to work even harder while low taxes continue to allow easy profit taking.

    Hey!  I'm starting to sound like the DLC.

  •  Pew did a poll/report just on Millienals (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobswern, CenPhx, New Rule, gulfgal98

    that went into much more detail on the particular differences in the younger generation's views than the later poll Edsall reports did.

    Not that the two reports contradict each other; it's more that the later report kind of truncates the Millenial coverage, in such a way as to slightly distort it, to my eye.

    I don't recollect the descriptors Pew assigns to the various sub-divisions in its polls, but I do remember that (in the Millenials report), they showed 40-somethings as being much more conservative than the Hippie Cohort (my term, of course!), and the Millenials' values being more in line with the Hippie Cohort.  These divisions have been very evident to me in the very heated 'What are Democrats supposed to be' discussions several months back.

  •  Ir is a product of the political market. (0+ / 0-)
    “Social and cultural issues are currently more central to millennials’ political judgments than economic policy,” the report says. “When asked to explain the reasons for their ideological identifications, social and cultural concerns largely defined their labels.”
    I wonder if that has to do with all the bipartisanship when it comes to corporate sponsored public policy.
    Looking again at the Reason poll, the survey found that “while millennials see themselves as closer to Republican governor and potential presidential candidate Chris Christie on economic issues, and closer to likely Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on social issues, they say they are voting for Clinton.”
    So could anyone tell me in quick, black and white, simple english fashion how Chris Christie's economic policy differs from HRC's?

    This whole thing boils down to very little distinction between Dems and Reps on Economic Policy, all of that distinction coming from the personal taxation end of economics. I wonder why they are a bit libertarian.

    Seems to me that this data set of polling is geared towards a lower taxes and free trade PR offensive - a codification of corporate sponsored public policy into our body politic.

    This schism is less important than the corporate sponsored, win at all costs pragmatists vs the non-corporate, pony posse types, although highlighting and acting on the schism it is more important for consolidating corporate power.

    These polls strike me as nothing more than a sales pitch for a new libertarianism where we free the State from that pesky and unpredictable "democracy".Fourth Revolution: The Global Race to Reinvent the State.

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 06:55:12 AM PDT

    •  Hillary Clinton (0+ / 0-)

      would approve the arc tunnel and provide more funds for public transport. Hillary Clinton would not have massive amounts of corruption. HRC would not refuse to pay the union contracts that were agreed to. HRC would not be afraid to raise taxes if the state needed it. I could go on and on.

  •  The Old Left is dying out. (0+ / 0-)

    Affirmative action will be here as well, shortly.  Really, only the last vestiges remain at this point.  There's not much interest in the trappings of centrally-planned economies, either.

    We're in a two-party system, so that means the Democratic party will shift to the "right" on some issues.

  •  It is the millennials that have the problem, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    otto, cville townie

    and the problem is a lack of ideological consistency:

    In some other respects, the millennial voters studied by Reason appear to hold orthodox liberal views: they support more spending to help the poor, even if it means higher taxes; government action to guarantee a living wage, enough for everyone to eat and have a place to sleep; and a government guarantee of health insurance. Conversely, majorities of the same voters believe that wealth should be distributed according to achievement as opposed to need, and that “people should be allowed to keep what they produce, even if there are others with greater needs.”
    This, it seems to me, is the real point of the data: millennials are not ideologically coherent.

    The thing is though, look at the weight of Liberal economic values expressed in policy, from this quote, vs the conservative values.

    Millennials have chosen, quite clearly, they just don't have anyone to champion those Liberal ideals in the form of rhetoric and policy.

    Perhaps its time they got an earful of that stuff?

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:08:28 AM PDT

  •  Predicting that the Dem party is at odds (0+ / 0-)

    I don't think that takes that much effort.  

    The Democratic part is always at odds with itself.  

    Streichholzschächtelchen

    by otto on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:18:50 AM PDT

  •  I may not have the thorough understanding (4+ / 0-)

    of this article that I need to comment on it, as I got way too little sleep last night and the coffeemaker broke this morning.  So I may not have the thorough understanding of this article it deserves.  But I read down far enough to see that the average age of this "younger group" is 38. The average age. Which means they're including my generation in the mix. No Millenials or Gen Y group has an average age of 38. And if they included my generation,  that's an entirely different conclusion, because it's no news that my generation doesn't support left-wing economics or so-called "Big Government." Throw in the Ron Paul contingent from the Millenials and Gen Y and there's your libertarian "younger group." But though it's technically true that Gen X is "younger" than something, creating a "younger group" with an average age of near 40 strikes me as disingenuous, an attempt to make it seem like the next coming wave of economic thought will find its happiest home in the Cato Institute.  And already smart people are accepting that assumption as a given and arguing on that basis.

    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:25:35 AM PDT

  •  I would be very skeptical of these results (5+ / 0-)

    The Pew survey is not comparing generations; it is comparing three groups that Pew has broken up the Democratic coalition into: Solid Liberals, Next Gen Left, and Faith and Family Left. If you look at cross tabs, millennials are represented in each group. Next Gen Left looks more conservative on economic issues compared to Solid Liberals, and Solid Liberals are on average older than Next Gen Left (46 v. 38), but that is not saying that younger people are more conservative than older generations because the Faith and Family Left is also more conservative than Solid Liberals, and is also on average older than the other two groups.

    The cross tabs are here:
    http://www.people-press.org/...

    Edsall could be right, but I don't think he shows it with the Pew results.  The one other study he cites that shows a generational difference has only 300 individuals surveyed.

  •  In other words (7+ / 0-)

    "Younger" in this case, just means "younger than the Boomers." And this placement of my generation in the "younger" category allows for one more iteration of the Pete Petersen narrative: "It's the Old Folks Oppressing the Young with that Nasty Big Government Spending!" in this case, a more subtle version without the disturbing vision of Alan Simpson dancing gangnam style and with an academic veneer deriving from Pew's once-deserved reputation.

    None of this is intended as a slur on Edsall who, my guess is, was simply guilty of some carelessness and an over-reliance on Pew's aforementioned reputation.

    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:52:07 AM PDT

  •  That is one of the most confusing articles I've (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson, CroneWit, New Rule, emelyn

    read lately.

    Edsall conflated a recent Pew poll with older Pew polls, a Reason commissioned poll, and various odds, ends, opinions and tidbits from hither and yon. In the end he would have us believe younger Democrats are Reagan Democrats.

    In a larger sense he has only demonstrated that young people still view themselves as immortals. After all, Henley wrote Invictus at age 26.

    I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

    by Just Bob on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:53:45 AM PDT

  •  I like the Working Families Party (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CroneWit

    One of the problems is that politicians do what they want when they are in office.  The parties exaggerate the differences.  I do not believe any politician, or a negligible number, care about the people.  People that I thought had morals and scruples all went for money.  The parties serve up stooges that go for the middle.

    I think the Working Families Party that endorses candidates has more influence than voting Democratic.  Third parties always have problems becoming registered in all states and the endorsement of candidates avoids those problems.  Dems are famous for getting rid of their progressive candidates or redistricting them out of office at the same time party members donate money to them.  The party fights the people.

  •  It's the Bat Scene from Fear and Loathing in Las (0+ / 0-)

    Vegas--

    They can't see what we can see. They don't have the experience, We try and warn them but you know, anything over 40 is practically senile by today's job creyator's standards, so we (old folks) must be seeing things.

    Well Children--This here is Bat Country. We tried to warn you, but no worries, you will see them soon enough.

    "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

    by GreenMother on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:00:50 AM PDT

  •  It makes no sense... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    northerntier, Betty Pinson

    ...unless you realize that the NYT and many of its columnists, and the rest of the MSM, have been spouting some variant of "those goddamn hippies will become the world's biggest conservatives once they grow up and get a job."   This just doesn't happen all that often, and most of the time it does happens, it involves a high profile leftist who finds that he can make big money by changing sides in a highly public way.

    Now, millennial socialists aren't your grandfather's socialists.  (This mind set was actually in emergent form among the lefties of my generation, but we screwed it up.  Perhaps our kids will do better.)  No collective farms, lots of locally sourced goods, for example.

  •  One more sign that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Choco8, maryabein

    the Class War is over and the rich have won.

    How anyone can look at the extreme concentration of income and wealth and decide that it's not the defining social illness of our time is, well, a catastrophic victory for the rich.

    I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

    Trust, but verify. - Reagan
    Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

    by Words In Action on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:04:30 AM PDT

  •  I think less 'Democratic schism' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Betty Pinson

    and more, 'Let's start a new party that reflects our values and reality.'

    Because currently, we have old men passing laws on technology they don't understand, which is bad.

    We have both parties sucking up to corporate interests, which we don't like.

    We have a sense of frustration with the old parties. Someday soon, a new party shall rise like Tesla, and do things in new and unexpected ways, befuddling the Old Guard and totally messing up their good ol' boy network ways of doing things.

    THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. -- L. Ron Hubbard Technique 88

    by xenubarb on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:06:06 AM PDT

  •  Average age is 38. (3+ / 0-)

    They are making one big divide, with boomers, silents, and what's left of the Greatest on one side, and everybody else on the other in a "younger" category. That's why it's "younger" and not "young."

    They've thrown my generation into the mix so they can continue to push a neoliberal narrative in which left-wing economics (from the New Deal to the Great Society to socialism) is on the wane and retrograde old people are continuing to impose these outworn ideas on the young. But no worries! Soon there will be a schism and the "younger" group will rise up with their socially liberal and economically conservative ways, which just so happens to reflect exactly what both the Democratic party establishment and the plutocracy wants.

    Except that the "younger" people in their study includes people in their 40s and 50s, and while it may have been news in 1984 that we (then actually young) embraced Reaganomics, it's hardly news now. And it has little or nothing to do with what either Gen Y or the Millenials think. About anything. There are definitely libertarians and Paul supporters among the young (which I'm going to define as under 30), but mashing them together with the well-known economic conservatism of the majority of my generation in order to create a narrative of rising youth with conservative economic ideas is trash science. And dirty pool.

    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:13:17 AM PDT

  •  Bah. (0+ / 0-)

    'Get off my Democratic lawn!'.

    Yawn.

  •  The ruling elite will be thrilled (0+ / 0-)

    No danger to the status quo from the next generation

    "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

    by gjohnsit on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:18:57 AM PDT

  •  I think it not just the younger (0+ / 0-)

    generation.  I had a thought this morning, we probably all heard of the terrible two's, my thought was what about the fictional fifties?  The age when we all think it is not going to happen to ME?  I am 70 and my husband 74, and we have both been physically active our whole lives.  I won't go into the long list here, but there are no two ways about it the body breaks down, sure if you have the money you can go and get it remolded in various ways, but guess what you are still getting old.  Our list goes from heart disease, to UC, to AAA aneurysm, and my list is bad bones, aching back etc etc etc.  I walk 2 miles all year round, spend 45 minutes on the treadmill and we just got a rebounder also known as a mini trampoline for health reasons.  And guess what it still happens. The same applies to your financial situation and your political views.  Yes, it all requires constant vigilance.   Why am I still worried sick about what we will get in medical bills 6 months after an emergency visit?  I have to read the article later today, I saved it and it is a must read for me.

  •  OK, well, until people realize that these data (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    New Rule

    don't refer to "Millenials" or even "Gen Y" but a melange of Millenials, Gen Y and Gen X--essentially, everybody younger than Boomers mashed together--this discussion is basically going to revolve around fictional ideas about the nature of Millenials and Gen Y--essentially rationalizations or attempts to explain what people think Pew's data states about Millenials and Gen Y. The data doesn't state that, but because of the way Pew labeled and categorized the data, it's an easy mistake to make. And one which I'm sure Pew is happy to have people make, since I've rarely seen a more disingenuous academic monkey trick than this. At least not since Reinhart and Rogoff.

    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:25:48 AM PDT

  •  "Government is trying to do too much" (0+ / 0-)

    When it's regulating medical decisions, YES!

    I think that question needs a more specific breakdown.

    I guess I'd be a "next-generation left" but I think the government isn't doing enough to help the poor, especially those who suffered during the financial crisis.  However, I think it's doing way too much to interfere with personal relationships and medical decisions.  That's mostly on the state level, though.

    The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

    by catwho on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:25:54 AM PDT

  •  asdf (5+ / 0-)

    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:49:30 AM PDT

  •  Of Course (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    socal altvibe, shayes

    Of course the young believe they can make it with hard work and a good attitude. We've been feeding them that lie all their lives so they wouldn't give up before they even got started. They also have no idea what we have lost in the last 50 years. They haven't been trapped in the system long enough to have their dreams crushed and the life sucked out of them. We need to tell them the truth, that you could make it on hard work alone before the 1% ruined everything. That you now have to rely on dumb luck and collaboration with the enemy too. They need to be told how the system was broken and how much they have lost, and what this next election means to their futures. And we need to stop telling them the can do anything they set their minds to. Not alone anyway.

  •  Definitely an Interesting Read (0+ / 0-)

    But I also think they provide no context--contemporary or historical--that supports this representing a "Coming Schism."  For example - the implication (by ommission) is that there isn't a long, rich history of generational differences in beliefs within a given political party... you can't really prove a negative (and I haven't conducted surveys going back decades to provide any evidence) but the fact of the matter is the whole reason we LABEL generations is that they share a set of generational experiences and that uniquely shapes their belief and values system.

    It has always been thus.

  •  I believe that socialism will happen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shayes

    Or that democratic socialism as espoused by Sanders will.

    I think it's a matter of time and valiant and continued effort.

    Personally, I think it's a good thing.

    I could be wrong on all counts, but I hope I'm not.

    •  always felt i was born about 200 years too soon (0+ / 0-)

      it has taken centuries for the Democratic Socialist countries of Europe to form.  the USA is still very young.  the government formed separately from European influence.  it will take us about 200 more years to get there.  mindset changes very slowly with each generation.   just sorry i won't be around to even see the tide begin to shift in that direction.

      I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

      by blue drop on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:08:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not to worry. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ozsea1, ivote2004, shayes

        While we are all distracted by wars, pollution and the banks 1% oligarchy, today it was revealed that Murdoch, the ORIGINAL NSA sadist is trying to buy Time Warner / CNN / HBO... There is one diary about today. There should be 20.
        That there is no longer a construct of ANTI TRUST or imprisonment for two bit crook sadists is beyond unreality that despite Murdoch being guilty of lawbreaking here in the US with his phone taping of US citizens let alone WORLDWIDE, he'll probably pass musgastard with the 1%'s "gov" flunky minions because he could then brainwash with his "Siamese" two headed octopus, tubes, these "communist" younger generations.
        The distraction of wars. This being just one example.
        OUTrage is what should be. But WE digress...

    March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

    by 3rock on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:15:14 AM PDT

    •  ...and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ivote2004

         ink the deal.
          Ink isn't worth the paper it's written on...  

      March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

      by 3rock on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:32:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's the eerie (0+ / 0-)

            psychological subliminal "coincidence" of it all that gets me, knowing the history of Hollywood whenever a "new" technological entertainment medium comes along and "Hollywood" starts losing easy money, let alone their "influence," Hollywood shifts far right in it's "entertainment". This time in history as unprecedented FAR RIGHT as it gets!
                       

        psychological subliminal "coincidence"
                IMHO
           to add humor, my clause, my clause...

        March AGAINST monsatanOHagentorange 3/25/13 a time warp

        by 3rock on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:28:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I like Edsall (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, emelyn, sviscusi, chinshihtang

    But more emphasis on social issues than economic issues does not a schism make.

    This is rather silly hyperbole imo.

  •  I find Edsall's findings to be (0+ / 0-)

    contrary to my experience with the cohort mentioned.

    Being around 16 to 30 y/o-ish people does not yield the results he reports.

    •  I just find it impossible to believe that a MS or (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WheninRome

      PhD saddled with huge College debt, living in Mom's basement or attic, believes that "if I just work hard I'll get ahead". Nor their minimum-wage high-school grad counterparts. Nor African Americans in large part. Who are these people, what ages are they really, and how representative are they, truly?

      •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

        I hear more jaded and and realistic views along with the realization that the game is rigged and whomever is making policy is riding the gravy train for the status quo.

        That goes for almost every cohort I encounter.

  •  Logged in just to tip & recc the diary and (0+ / 0-)

    the good dialogue / comments fostered here !

    "..The political class cannot solve the problems it created. " - Jay Rosen

    by New Rule on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 09:39:45 AM PDT

  •  Yes, but Americans do want less inequality (0+ / 0-)

    As I recall from some research into Americans' attitudes towards wealth inequality (I don't recall a breakdown by age), Americans underestimate how much wealth inequality there is in this country, and when they ask how much wealth inequality is OK, they give numbers that would make the U.S. more like Sweden or Holland, that is, much more equal than it is here.  I would suggest that young Americans have heard so much anti-tax, anti-rhetoric government that they believe it, but if you dig down and look at their attitudes, I would be very surprised if young Americans actually knew how much inequality exists.  Given that they want a more equal society, how would they propose to do this without somehow asking the wealthy to pay more?  I believe it is possible to get past this initial anti-tax, anti-government bias, but it will take some work.

  •  What Democratic Party? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlueInARedState

    There's Repubs and Repubs-lite.  There is no longer a Democratic party. And they are prepping to nominate a Neoliberal , War Hawk as thier 2016 candidate. Woohoo!!!


    No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle.

    by CitizenOfEarth on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:16:21 AM PDT

    •  And I refuse to accept the "inevitable" meme (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CitizenOfEarth

      I will vote for her if she's the nominee, but when Kos spoke as if it was a done deal not long ago, I bristled.  

      Wall Street CEOs—the same ones who wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs—still strut around Congress, no shame, demanding favors, and acting like we should thank them. ~ Elizabeth Warren

      by BlueInARedState on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:49:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Regarding this (0+ / 0-)
    The two groups were asked to choose whether “most people can get ahead if they’re willing to work hard” or whether “hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people.” A decisive majority of the older “solid liberal” group, 67 percent, responded that hard work is no guarantee of success, while an even larger majority, 77 percent, of the younger “next generation left” believes that you can get ahead if you are willing to work hard.
    Young people are still idealistic in their experiences. Hard work is never a bad thing but it does not guarantee success. More than anything from my experience is that more often it is who likes you or who you know more than what you can do that is more of a guarantee to success. It has taken me 30 years of working since graduating from college to even get close to making $50k per year with benefits and I work for a small company.
  •  It appears that millennials don't understand th... (0+ / 0-)

    It appears that millennials don't understand the economy they are in. I understand that they have been fed a mistrust of government since they were born but they are not going to get ahead in a libertarian economy. Let them learn the hard way.

  •  Total misreading. Or intentional misdirection. (4+ / 0-)

    The conclusions he makes are absurd. No, the Democratic party doesn't need to move away from economic liberalism and toward the chamber of commerce. It needs to move away from identifying liberalism with ineffective big government programs and abuse of federal power. Honestly, why on earth would anyone trust the government in the era of the Iraq War based on lies and even the Obama administration abusing power at NSA and elsewhere?

    But, the writer ignored broad support by young voters for more government action to protect the environment and deal with climate change.

    Decentralized, anti-authoritarian liberalism is what will work with millennials. That can be even more communitarian than previous policies because it emphasizes local communities taking action together rather than depending on federal bureaucracies or big corporations. Democrats need to look at the progressive-populist tradition of liberal policies that don't depend on federal engineering of society.

    I'm not surprised the NYT and PEW would continue the tradition of New York institutions trying to minimize anti-authoritarian political movements. It's not in their financial interests to let those movements grow.

  •  Is persecution of Snowden a Democratic value? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chinshihtang

    This comment is inspired by a diary on the rec list detailing the latest development in the Snowden saga.  Younger people have BS detectors that are finally tuned (in general).

  •  In part the result of Democratic Party not making (0+ / 0-)

    the case for government.

    Republicans shut down the government, and Democrats had them on the political ropes, but did they use the opportunity to make the conceptual case?

    Nope.

    Because that case is socialist and populist, and they like their consolidated corporate control.

    Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

    by Simplify on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:31:51 AM PDT

  •  I don't get it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whenwego

    one one hand we are told younger voters are "less focused on economic redistribution," and in practically the same breath we're talking about how they are more open to socialism and how 73% think government should be doing more. The latter two concepts are indistinguishable from the former.

  •  DiBlasio (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whenwego, RASalvatore

    in NY is the beginning of the generational shift into a truly post-Reagan society. It's an absurd premise that in an age of increased racial integration in general, increasing gains in gay rights, increasing acceptance of the "1%" meme that politics will somehow veer rightwards, and it will be young Democrats  leading the charge.

  •  And yet how does this explain Liz Warren's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whenwego

    assent nationally?

    I strongly believe that what will eventually happen is the republican party will continue to self destruct and what we call the Democratic party will eventually split into two camps
    (or parties). One camp will be something like the Liz Warren democratic party and the other camp will resemble something like the Clinton's version of the democratic party.

    Either way the Overton Window will move to a more center left position (which is a good thing).

    When I cannot sing my heart. I can only speak my mind.

    by Unbozo on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:30:26 PM PDT

  •  Not really sure how this makes sense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whenwego

    The only way I think more people from my generation are less socialist is because they grew up in an era where social issues were widely debated and much progress was made but our leaders and mainstream corporate media repeatedly tell us that economic issues are off-the-table. Or that anything resembling a more progressive tax code, a more protectionist trade policy, enforceable labor rights are "not serious" proposals.

    •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

      that millennials (full disclosure: I am one) have been mostly influenced by their surroundings. The media glorifies the capitalist system and abhors taxation and regulation. Collectively Americans also have short memory and that causes them to have mostly forgotten their anger at Wall Street for having caused the economic crash. If anything I'd have expected people like me who were in school at the time and felt the economic effects (both my parents lost their jobs for a time) would have retained this as an experience and developed clear leftist positions.

      Generally the Times article is accurate when I consider the people I know. Social libertarianism and third-way economics rule most political identities. The few leftists I actually know are highly critical of the Democratic Party and are in turn ridiculed by the majority of those they know. If you oppose self enrichment and strong individualism then good luck being a social democrat or progressive as a millennial.

      I do not necessarily like that the Times article is so concerned with white millennials. Immigration has had a lot to do with swelling the ranks of my generation and their views may differ.

       

  •  “There is a libertarian streak that is apparent... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whenwego, Susan G in MN

    “There is a libertarian streak that is apparent among these left-of-center young people. Socially liberal but very wary of government. Why? They came of age in an anti-government era when government doesn’t work."

    Horseshit. They came of age in an anti-government era where the government works just fine -despite a coordinated jihad to destroy it, and the largest continuous ideological propaganda push in history.

  •  Getting "ahead" is the wrong goal. (0+ / 0-)

    It implies that you leave others behind.

    The problem with liberalism/progressivism is that it writes off the vast majority of the population, while pushing for ways that roughly 20% of the country will do better.

    This as opposed to conservatism, which is basically about the 1% alone.

    Neither part of the off-center -- left or right -- is humane, just, fair or moral. The best that one could say about liberalism is that it is less unjust, less inhumane, less unfair and less immoral than conservatism. But it is not in the business of achieving universal social justice, as those much further to the left are.

    The far better route to go is to make sure we don't leave anyone behind, so there is no getting "ahead" in the first place. And by that, I'm not talking about the old bugaboo, "equal results." I'm talking about equal access to all the fruits of this society, regardless of one's economic birth lottery.

    And I'm talking about how sad it is that Pew and others never even discuss alternatives to our 1% or 20% options. I think once we focus on 100%, we will excite and inspire the young like never before, in solidarity.

    “While we do our good works let us not forget that the real solution lies in a world in which charity will have become unnecessary.” ― Chinua Achebe . . . {Economic Left/Right: -9.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.77}

    by diomedes77 on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:01:34 PM PDT

  •  It's easily summed up in a single sentence "I r... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ivote2004

    It's easily summed up in a single sentence

    "I reject your claim that you can dictate to me!"

    Where 'you' is the authority, the establishment, the current 'powers that be'. Thus 'you' is both the authoritarian government and the authoritarian corporatists.

  •  Trendlines? (0+ / 0-)

    I don't believe that any of the differences between young and old Democrats are more pronounced now than they ever were.

    Younger people have long typically believed that government does too much, because all they've heard about is that - while they've mostly personally experienced very little, being young. They likewise believe that working hard is more a guarantee of success than old people learned from actual experience.

    Show me the trendlines in these polls that show a "schism". Or accept that there's always been a "schism" between youth and experience.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:57:39 PM PDT

  •  It's not that government is trying to do too much. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dcnblues

    It's that government isn't nearly as effective as it could be - do to the constant interference/sabotage by right-wing Republicans of any and all public programs that could actually help members of the 99%.

    As usual, a bit of accurate perspective once in awhile goes a long way...

    All that is necessary for the triumph of the Right is that progressives do nothing.

    by Mystic Michael on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 03:50:24 PM PDT

  •  Fantastic! Neo Liberalism is really making (0+ / 0-)

    some great progress!

    Let's see how they feel in 10 years after they've had a chance to really dig into the wonderful world of Free Trade & Neo-liberal economic policies.

    I hope they really enjoy it.

    Care for a side of Free Trade with that College debt?

    The 1% are Purists: They only support Candidates that Deliver Results They Can Bank On. Don't they know they should compromise? /sarcasm

    by Johnathan Ivan on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 04:00:06 PM PDT

  •  Will the GOP Neo-Cons reactivate the Draft (0+ / 0-)

    For those of us that remember the frighting Vietnam era of Nixon and the Neoconservatism  political movement born in the United States during the 1960s we would say yes that is a very real possibility if the gain full control of the congress and the White House in 2014-2016.

    Last week their was a odd anomaly with the A year 2000-related bug has caused the US military to send more than 14,000 letters of conscription to men who were all born in the 1800s and died decades ago??

    Working in the IT industry, i know that the cover story is bogus. one the YK2 bug was fixed on that system before 2000.Two, You mean to say that no workers noticed it when as system that has been dormant almost 40 years springs to life and spits out 14,000 letters ????

    Point 1. the war hawks of the republican party hav been beating war drums to restart military action on no less that three fronts Ukraine,Syria and Iraq.

    Point 2. military authority say that we do not have the manpower to fight on that many fronts.

    Point 3. the Millennials basically can't stand the GOP

    Point 4 the  Neo conservates know from experience that the best and questionably legal way to readjust the voting Demographics once again would be to ship the Millennial off to a meanless war to die or miss voting . That is exactly what they did in the 60's ask any vet they will say they had Liberal friends that were drafted because of their political views that is why we fought to end the draft.it was being used a a political weapon.

    Point 5 Indications are they will use that "Draft Board" weapon again should they gain complete control in 2014 and 2016. They want war so they can get rid of the Millennials and rack up war profits at the same time.

    Here is a nice HP story about just such a issue.

     

  •  I have always believed that socialism - that is, (0+ / 0-)

    certain aspects of it, is not such a  bad thing. I also believe that it's a political doctrine that is badly misunderstood. As in the banshee-style shrieking of the O'Reilly-Hannity-Beck and Limbaugh contingent. So, we can look to the millennials as the future standard bearers of political tenets that we boomers find distasteful? I did try to read this entire article but didn't make it to the end. Let's just say I am very grateful that there are those who are willing to delve into the minutia of statistics and surveys and reports, et al. "It Ain't Me Babe..." but someone's gotta do it.

  •  When I was young (0+ / 0-)

    I knew two things:
    1. Government is an essential tool, but it can be - and has been - taken over by evil people, and cannot be trusted.
    2. Though balances must be maintained, there is no distinction between personal and collective liberties. You cannot have one without the other.
    Understanding this makes one appear to be both a socialist and a libertarian, in fact, they are two sides of the same coin.

    And with regards to polling, I suggest a sort of Bradley Effect - pollsters are either evil or stupid; they will distort whatever information you give them to suit their own purposes - to your detriment. They must be avoided whenever possible, and if they cannot be avoided they must be told whatever they want to hear. Thus polls cannot be trusted.

    By the way, though this is off topic I feel compelled to say it - there are three types of compromises: compromises between well meaning equals, which is only necessary when one has failed to take into account something important, and is therefore always a good thing, compromises with stupid people, which is always a bad thing, though it may look necessary at the time, and compromises with evil people, which is inexcusable.This sounds like a manifesto for the arrogant, and it is, but we are talking about the young, and the wisdom of age is not in learning to settle for failure, but to succeed without appearing arrogant.

  •  I don't see the schism... (0+ / 0-)

    I see a heterogeneous coalition, which the Democrats always have been.  No need for a fracture a là Tea Party.

    I will accept the notion that the party will need to move a little more away from Big Government, particularly the Big Brother-ish aspects of it which have been way too evident through the Obama Administration, if it wants to retain the loyalty of the next generation.  

    Don't worry too much about the 'self-made man' belief system seemingly present in the younger generation but not in the older one; learning about that is part of gaining age and wisdom and it  is happening/will happen with this younger one in time.

    It's the microeconomy, stupid!

    by chinshihtang on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 03:01:42 AM PDT

  •  I would file as a 'left of center Libertarian': (0+ / 0-)

    1) I don't believe it's the government's business to spy on my emails, my phone calls, or any other means of communication I engage in including smoke signals and semaphores, without a duly sworn PUBLIC warrant. None of this 'secret court' crap.

    2) Who I choose to marry (get engaged to, love, shack up with, take out to dinner, and/or engage in consensual spanking) is none of the Government's business.  Nor is it the business of anyone's boss, clergyman, pollster, insurance adjuster, or news agency.  All those matters are between me and my Better Half; all others can pound sand.

    3) While I do agree that we need 'safety nets' for those less fortunate, they are currently structured to be wasteful and offer little to no leverage to transition from them.  They are not wasteful in regard to the people currently enrolled; instead they are wasteful in how they are managed, and by what private enterprises.

    4) While I do agree that we have a "drug problem", it is painfully evident that throwing lots of money, police, lawyers, courts, bloodhounds, vehicles, spy satellites, and other materiel at the problem Has Not Solved Anything.  We need a complete paradigm shift in how we deal with addiction and illicit drug sales.

    5) Capitalism can be self-correcting on occasion, but Capitalism as a self-correcting and ethical entity is a myth.  There must be Oversight, with rules that make sense and consequences that have teeth.  The Federal Reserve must be audited regularly, and we must stop accepting former banksters as Federal Reserve directors.  The same goes for the EPA (no longer to be a bought-and-paid-for rubber stamp for Big Energy), the FDA (otherwise known as The Reps From Monsanto), or other entities whose purpose is to regulate, audit, and correct.  If Big Business is unethical, then it should, always and without exception, feel the sting of Government whacking its fundament.  

    6) Subsidized Business Is Not Capitalism - if a business is unviable, then it should not be in business. If a business cannot make a profit without receiving regular infusions of taxpayer money, then it should A) cease to be a going concern, or B) in the case of required services such as highway maintenance, become a bona-fide adjunct to the government (see Postal Service).

    7) Politics Is Not A Career - if your entire life's goal is to become a congressman, then you need to rethink your goals, because representing your fellow man should never be profitable.  Instead it is honorable, a duty akin to military service.  Once you've served your time, you can hang a fancy title over your desk, and then get on with what you're really good at.

    8) Bribery and Collusion Are Felonious - requiring people (voters, lobbyists, businessmen) to pay you to get an audience, or promise you 'favors' in a tit-for-tat fashion, should be considered solicitation of bribes, with perpetrators tried as such (with mandatory minimum jail time).  Lobbyists or others who solicit favor from their elected officials should be tries for bribery, with the same consequence.  

    9) Running For Office Should be Free - with all the money saved from not paying each other bribes, we should have plenty of tax money left to fund ad time on any/all of the forms of mass media available.  However, with the exception of specific votes cast, using ad time to degrade your opponent's rep is verboten, and all false statements (including hyperbole or 'what if' speculation) made in such ads will be considered slander.

    10) Social Benefit Funds are Sacrosanct - they exist solely to provide income/benefits to private individuals, and are either paid for by funds withheld from incomes, or by taxation.  These funds are off limits to any and all Government projects or departments.  Monies 'borrowed' from such funds will be placed at the top of all budgets proposed, with all other funding needs at lower priority until they are paid in full.

    11) I have no issues with Planned Parenthood (as opposed to Unplanned, which seems to be the preferred method for our current conservatives), women's (and men's) health issues, the separation of Church and State, and job protection and civil rights 'minority' status for those of alternate gender roles or sexual preference.  I do not believe a child's soul is defined at conception, but rather when they breathe their first breath (inspiration), and while I regard abortion as a hard choice to make, it should only be up to a woman and her doctor; no clergy, no businesses, no fellow citizens, and no Government need have a say (an exception might be made for the potential father, IF the pregnancy was not due to rape, assault, or sexual congress with a child or invalid).

    12) We are stewards of this Earth, and just as we are expected to keep our houses clean and our vehicles in working order, we should also keep our planet tidy as we can manage, while also exploring our immediate stellar neighborhood "because it is there".  We should encourage curiosity, wonder, and exploration along with good stewardship and courtesy - else should God/Jesus/Xenu come calling after all, we may appear as uncouth and backwards idiots with bad eating habits and no concept of cleanliness.

    The Rich and Spoiled 1%'ers are making the Biker Gang 1%'ers look a lot better than they used to.

    by dcnblues on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 03:07:01 PM PDT

Pat K California, Alumbrados, Mimikatz, PrahaPartizan, oofer, emal, jazzizbest, Pescadero Bill, maracucho, Wintermute, CleverNickName, Pompatus, RFK Lives, gjohnsit, TracieLynn, mbayrob, whenwego, CoolOnion, CalNM, ivote2004, retLT, Nate Roberts, kharma, psnyder, Dallasdoc, CitizenOfEarth, roseeriter, johanus, HeyMikey, niteskolar, LucyTooners, lcrp, Dood Abides, dkmich, outragedinSF, zerelda, Armand451, WCFoster, Brecht, tovan, historys mysteries, unclejohn, sap, run around, basquebob, stagemom, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, Lepanto, Sun Tzu, aaraujo, Ice Blue, Sandino, spunhard, FindingMyVoice, Pluto, peacestpete, mightymouse, Jim R, martini, kovie, WB Reeves, BlueInARedState, Kimball Cross, New Rule, gooderservice, JVolvo, joe shikspack, Preston S, hlsmlane, delonix, CA Nana, James Hepburn, shaharazade, markthshark, Aaa T Tudeattack, NonnyO, cpresley, One Pissed Off Liberal, pgm 01, Habitat Vic, peagreen, hawaii2, SpecialKinFlag, Ageing Hippie, offgrid, puakev, yoduuuh do or do not, FishOutofWater, wildweasels, certainot, joedemocrat, Unbozo, aliasalias, cyncynical, SeaTurtle, leonard145b, Don midwest, TomP, cville townie, rmonroe, JDWolverton, CroneWit, mconvente, TruthFreedomKindness, also mom of 5, zerone, elwior, tofumagoo, CenFlaDem, jobu, Jeff Y, 3rdOption, cybrestrike, lostinamerica, maryabein, Gorilla in the room, mkor7, thirty three and a third, glitterlust, papahaha, kevinpdx, histOries Marko, ArthurPoet, jfromga, Words In Action, ruscle, Just Bob, commonmass, The Jester, NJpeach, catwho, biggiefries, BenderRodriguez, Man from Wasichustan, gulfgal98, DerAmi, ban48, Johnny Q, Publius2008, Betty Pinson, orlbucfan, Patate, DrTerwilliker, MGross, Michael Langenmayr, slice, no way lack of brain, ozsea1, ban nock, cv lurking gf, Mr MadAsHell, La Gitane, Teknocore, FarWestGirl, Teiresias70, smiley7, marleycat, thomask, Wolf10, LSmith, Andrew F Cockburn, Sunspots, too many people, jadt65, SouthernLiberalinMD, nyer11Oak, Auriandra, No one gets out alive, Azazello, Laurel in CA, Take a Hard Left, IowaBiologist, wolf advocate, quill, Only Needs a Beat, DeadHead, Gay CA Democrat, IndieGuy, The Lone Apple, Mostel26, Joieau, FreeSpeaker, Free Jazz at High Noon, Johnny the Conqueroo, Leo Flinnwood, avsp, AverageJoe42, bigrivergal, George3, GoGoGoEverton, countwebb, jbob, JayRaye, eyo, 3rock, unfangus, evander, northerntier, GreenMother, Demeter Rising, tampaedski, Ishmaelbychoice, notevenclosetoonepercent, amparo fan, CenPhx, RUNDOWN, Tony Situ, Will Stark, benamery21, NewRomeIsBurning, bobcat41702, DocSalvage

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site