‘Few of Those Who Are Single, Irreligious, and Economically Challenged Before Age 30 Will Stay That Way…’
via The Not-So-Liberal American Future – The Daily Beast.
Of course it’s too early to determine with any certainty whether the same maturing process will work its magic on youthful Obama cadres from 2008 and 2012, but there is some indication that the shift has already begun. As the hope-and-change candidate of four years ago, Obama swept voters between 18 and 29 by a truly stunning margin of 34 points, 66 to 32 percent. Four years later, a significant portion of those true believers had moved into the 30- to 45-year-old segment of the population, a group that chose Obama with a much more modest majority of 52 percent. It was exactly the same percentage, by the way, that he received from the same age group four years before.
Chait suggests that the progressive inclinations of this year’s under-30s will remain steady and unshakable as the years pass, citing polling data showing 33 percent of young voters calling themselves liberal in 2012, compared to 25 percent of the larger electorate. But that’s a reflection of their circumstances as much as their ideological commitment. People under 30 are disproportionately single, religiously uncommitted, and earning incomes below the national median. Such voters combined to deliver Obama’s margin of victory.
Among the unmarried, who make up 41 percent of the electorate, Obama won by a margin of 24 percent. Among the 17 percent who say they “never” attend religious services, he won by 28 percent. And with those earning less than $50,000 a year, who comprise 41 percent of the voting public, he enjoyed a 22-percent edge.
The most salient point about all these characteristics is that, like youth itself, they count as temporary: the statistics show that few of those who are single, irreligious, and economically challenged before age 30 will stay that way as they progress through middle age and beyond. And it’s no accident that Romney won big majorities of those groups—the married, the religiously engaged, and the economically prosperous—associated so clearly with the middle aged and the middle class.
Chait expresses admiration for the 59 percent of young voters who agreed with the statement that “government should do more to solve problems” and assumes that this opinion stems from thoughtful analysis of the issues of the day. But it’s at least as plausible that the youthful preference for activist government stems from the relatively small number of those between 18 and 29 who’ve ever been asked to pay for such initiatives. IRS figures indicate that they are vastly under-represented among the bare majority of Americans who pay personal income taxes, and even more under-represented among those who pay at the highest rates. It’s also safe to assume that under-30s include a substantial number who benefit directly from subsidized student loans, either as current students or as recent graduates struggling with debt.
****
Image courtesy shutterstock / ostill
Related at PJ Lifestyle:
Those numbers do indeed stem from the fact that few of those young people have ever paid taxes save maybe FICA, Social Security, etc. from whatever entry level job they had, and hated because is didn’t pay enough to support the lifestyle they felt they were entitled to. Others are simply victims of the government schools which teach kids to rely on government for everything. Since economics is rarely taught and what is taught has a Keynesian spin, small wonder they don’t worry about government spending, debt, and soaking the rich, so long as they get free stuff.
Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity can’t. We have raised several generations where the almighty State has protected the Stupid from both Darwinian pressure and reality. They have multiplied and reached a critical mass, where they are destructive to the efforts of those trying to keep things running. Until they are forced to meet Mr. Darwin [who in the long run never sleeps], they will keep screwing things up until we reach the point where they will be involuntarily exposed to his acquaintance. Their last words will be, “No fair!”.
No sympathy. Give them what they voted for, good and hard.
Subotai Bahadur
Glad you think they can grow up. I get the sneaking suspicion that they won’t, however.
I mean, kids these days can stay on Mommy and/or Daddy’s insurance until they are 26, never have to pay for their own birth control pills (the whopping $9 per month savings is enough to buy their votes), and think that racking up 100k in student loans while studying comparative literature is brilliant.
Ignorance can be cured. Weapons-grade stupidity can’t.
I am a member of this generation age wise, and am largely disgusted with it. Although I do not consider myself among them in any other way, I do understand the way many of them think (if it can be called that). I have no doubt that they will grow *comparatively* more conservative as they age, but some ideas have been drilled in so hard that they will probably stick. One big example here is gay marriage. They’ll always be for that one because they’ve had the “diversity” message drilled into them so hard every single day since preschool. Religiously I don’t see them changing too much either. Religion tends to be picked up from one’s parents, it’s pretty rare to suddenly become religious when you hit 30. Another is universal (read government run) healthcare. They’ve been lead to believe that anything less is “unfair” and “racist” and that America is some sort of horrible outlier to the rest of the “civilized” world. Many of them will talk in glowing terms about how everything is “free” in Europe, never having actually been to a hospital there or had to fill up a gas tank at $8 per gallon. Maybe the experience of watching their children or parents suffer while waiting in line behind welfare mothers and winos to be seen (while they pay for it all) will wake a few of them up, but the generational consensus sadly seems to be that healthcare is a positive “right” to be administered by the government.
A rarely mentioned but equally disastrous trend is that many of them simply don’t understand the concept or value of privacy. I am close to the last group to remember flying before 9/11 and the TSA, to the others all the invasive stuff is normal. In addition most of them were deeply affected by 9/11 at a young age and conditioned to accept government intrusion in the name of protection from terrorists. I remember being in 7th grade and watching the attacks unfold. Parents were coming to pick their children up from school and some were talking about how it “wasn’t safe” in our small city thousands of miles from the action. I knew at that moment, at 12 years old, that I feared our government and society’s over reaction to the terrorism infinitely more than any terrorism itself.
Another place the lack of privacy manifests itself is in my generation’s digital lives. I’m among only 2% of my age group without a Facebook or other social media page. Of the other 98% a few are smart about revealing only minimal details. The rest share everything and consider it normal. I’m the odd one out for not wanting my pictures posted online and fed into facial recognition software. Facebook was just starting when I left high school and I never really needed it. It is now a *major* (if not primary) method of social interaction in middle school, high school, and college. People my age feel comfortable leaving a complete list of their real friends and relatives, facially tagged photos, internet browsing history (through cookies), private messages, time-stamped locations, personal statements, hobbies and interests, etc with a company that explicitly makes its money selling such things to the highest bidder. Some are delusional enough to think it’s private, some just don’t care. The few who are a bit worried mostly give in to the peer pressure to participate. When a school introduces ID cards containing RFID to track its students on campus, most don’t even blink. It’s totally normal to them, a logical next step. They consider me a paranoid deviant for buying an RFID blocking wallet. This does not portend good things for the future of our society.
Now on to the things that will change. A lot of my generation is of the ultra-environmental “OMG global warming is going to kill us!” crowd. Again, they’ve been fed this from a fairly young age. However, unlike some of the above, I think that once they realize that hope and change won’t put gas in their SUV they’ll change their tune a bit. They are at least responsive to gas prices and I’ve seen attitudes change a bit over the last few years on this. After the Iraq war a lot of them are of the pacifist bent, but the next time there’s a terrorist attack of sufficient size on US soil they’ll be the first ones baying for blood. A major break with liberal orthodoxy among my generation is that many of them are starting to realize that they won’t see a dime of SS or medicare. There’s a growing sentiment of need for reform that will pick up a lot of momentum as the boomers retire and taxes increase to pay for it all. FICA taxes hit everyone, so this they’ll notice. The Dems will have an interesting time holding their coalition together while keeping their promise not to touch entitlements.
The hardest thing for my generation to swallow is that they’ll likely be the first generation in a century (or maybe even longer) to have lower living standards than their parents enjoyed. In no small part this is a consequence of how they’ve voted. Good, let them eat it. It remains to be seen how they’ll react to reality in the long term.
Kids in America, for various reasons, are not growing up and maturing as rapidly as in previous generations. Therefore I argue that the only people under the age of 25 who should be allowed to vote are active military. If you are a young person who is willing to put your life on the line for your country by choosing to serve in the armed forces then you get to vote when you enter the military. Other than that, young folks are incapable of voting for responsible leaders until they realize what it takes to make it on their own.
The following list of rationalities leveled at correcting our nation’s ills excludes the legitimately disabled:
If you are someone who is dependent on others for your livelihood you don’t get to vote.
If you are on welfare/food stamps you don’t get to vote.
If you live in government housing you don’t get to vote.
If you are dead you don’t get to vote.
If you can’t read and/or write you don’t get to vote.
If you can’t speak English you don’t get to vote.
If you are not a U.S. citizen you don’t get to vote.
If you are deceased you don’t get to vote.
If you have ever been committed to a mental institution you don’t get to vote.
If you can’t show I.D. for any reason, you don’t get to vote.
For every election cycle, everyone who wishes to be eligible to vote must pass a test. The test must force the voter to demonstrate a basic comprehension of the issues involved in the election and where the candidate stands on each issue. If you are unable or unwilling to complete such a test you don’t get to vote.
If you think the above is too inconvenient then you don’t care enough about your country to be allowed to vote.
All of these things listed above would have been laughed at a century ago because it was just common sense back then. Now half of our society can’t even grasp the importance of these basic concepts. Therefore I doubt we’ll ever see any of these ideas implemented and enforced in an effective way, especially since those with the most power are counting on the absence of these safeguards in order to remain in and increase their power.
Why is it a GOOD thing that few of those under 30 who are “irreligious” will stay that way?
You have accredited yourself well with a thoughtful post.
Many of us Boomers were well past thirty before the bankruptcy of the Democratic Left became evident to us. For myself, it was the hypocrisy of their stances with regard to the underclass. It became evident to me that they were actively pursuing strategies that expanded the public union sector at the expense of the real interests of the poorest, who they had no real interest in helping.
So much for conservatives being heartless toward minorities and the poor…