Skip to main content

View Diary: “The Coming Democratic Schism,” Thomas Edsall’s NY Times’ Must-Read (Updated) (484 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site