The question I am asked most often is why I am a Republican. It’s a query accompanied with a smirk by liberals, particularly Baby Boomers. (They hope my answer will contain overtly racist, sexist, classist, ageist, heterosupremacist, insertcategoryhereist opinions or—better yet!—upbringing of the same type so that I can be made to recognize my sins, repent, and achieve salvation/redemption/eternal life on the government dole.) And it’s a query increasingly accompanied with a bit of anxiety, edge, even desperation when it comes from Republicans mainly—conservatives, less so.
I’m in the generation that’s the least Republican since Pew started tracking such things. Depressing, not dire as a statistic, but indicative of a broad force at work. It’s something in the cultural water that turns the kids these days into knee-jerk Democrats of the leftist stripe. And it’s got to be in the water—and not just in being liberal at 20 because you have a heart etc.—because it’s a sort of blind, stupid activism that delights in conformity to the (now-confirmed) left-wing echo chamber, rather than overthrowing The Man to bring in a new era of enlightenment, happiness, peace, and drug legalization.
So what is it about Generation Me/Generation Next/Millennials that makes us so blindly leftist? Below are my initial thoughts. I invite fellow writers here to join in the chorus.
I think the answer, at that abstract, 30,000-foot view, is simple and explainable by characteristics of the era. The story goes something like this: being a limited-government, fiscally conservative Republican is, well, kind of boring. You let people do what they want to do. You provide for the common defense, the national infrastructure, some social goods (e.g. education), and enforce laws that keep people from stealing, killing, and the like. It is remote, even impersonal. The government does not care who you are or what you do. It just gets out of your damn way.
But I’m in the generation that believes it is amazingly interesting. The internet, which brought to us delights like LOLcats, rickrolling, and Rathergate, also brought us navel-gazing on a scale unseen before now. As Matt Labash put it in this week’s Weekly Standard, “The very fact that they are on Facebook has convinced people that every facet of their life is inherently interesting enough to alert everyone to its importance.” In other words, me me me now now now pay attention pay attention pay attention to me me me.
Unsurprisingly, this also affects political discourse. What I feel is infinitely more important than what I know or what you can prove with logic or numbers. “That offends me [or aggrieved groups X, Y, and Z]” is a sufficient answer to settle any intellectual debate. Take away your cold facts; my intuition and desires are enough to settle complex debates. Sound familiar yet?
And I’m in the generation that believes it depends on what the meaning of is…is. However young we were during Bill and Monica, we got the lesson. There are no moral absolutes, no unimpeachable standards of right and wrong. There is only legal and illegal. What the law prescribes is allowed; what it does not discuss is a black hole. (Here there be anarchy, so we never go there.) But then, even that is flexible. A tax cheat collects our taxes, a corrupt crook stayed governor of Illinois for weeks, and a perjurer held the highest office in the land.
This whole process makes us curiously dependent on the government and our legislators to decide what is good, what is bad, and what the penalties are for transgressing those boundaries. We dwell, quite literally, in the nanny state. Even worse, we enjoy it. We press for its growth and slow encroachment on each part of our lives.
As Republicans and conservatives, how do we communicate to this generation? We tell them to grow up or we wait until they do (i.e. when they get their first paychecks). The only upshot of Obama’s budget is that he may hasten that process nicely…
Last 5 posts by Abby Alger
- Helping the Right Online, One PDF at a Time - March 29th, 2009
- In which I browse HR 1105, so you don't have to. - February 24th, 2009
- Re: Attacking Obama - February 5th, 2009
- What does youth voter outreach look like? - January 11th, 2009
- Let’s Fix the System - December 28th, 2008
Dear Abby,
As much as I hate to add a discordant voice to your one-woman “chorus,” I accept your invitation.
Do you honestly believe that young people lean left just because we seek conformity? Or because fiscally responsible governance is “boring?” Wake up.
Liberalism is not in the water (that apparently only young people drink). It is a product of an open mind that cares about the world it lives in. The free market and <6 year election cycle are ill-suited to addressing long-term challenges. Yet somehow I still care about the long-term future. I’d like the world to be a clean, safe place both for myself now and my kids later. And sadly, that alone makes me a Democrat.
We’re liberals because we think everyone deserves a chance. And we’re liberals because we think everyone deserves a choice. For a party that prides itself on government “getting out of your damn way,” you certainly enjoy legislating your values. But if you really want to know why our generation is so “blindly” Democratic, I’ll tell you the answer, but you’re not going to like it:
We are Democrats because of Republicans. Our generation awoke politically to the travesties of the Bush administration and its Congressional accomplices. I don’t have to list the deeds of that gang, you know them well. And we’re still paying for them today in money and blood.
Growing up in that climate, how could we become anything but Democrats? Even if we DIDN’T support the liberal policy agenda or happen to care about the environment, in a 2-party system we really had little choice BUT lean left. Our generation wasn’t born liberal, we were pushed there, away from the Republicans abusing our government and hijacking our country.
And do you really want to talk about criminal politicians? People in glass houses, for god’s sake. Our guy got a blow job. Your guy deceived us into an unending war et plenty of al.. You don’t want to go here. If our country was as interested in transparency as you claim to be (in your profile) and our current president wasn’t trying to turn a new leaf and leave the past where it is, we WOULD have to legalize drugs – to make room for Republicans in our prisons (perhaps not for quantity, just quality).
Also, it’s cute that you scoff at Democrats for wanting peace. You’re right, it IS confusing why more young people aren’t Republicans.
Unrelated point but worth mentioning: it’s a little hypocritical to disparage our generation because it “believes it is amazingly interesting” and draws undue attention to itself…on a blog that you started so the whole world can access your personal insights. Yes, I know I have a blog too. But my life and opinions are amazingly interesting.
I find Jamie’s comments to be rather amusing. Only in the most Orwellian of senses can supporting strongly coercive government be described as supporting individual choice. Liberalism is not about open minds if it prefers demographic diversity to diversity of intellect and opinion. Those who are open-minded are tolerant or accepting of those who are different, but this includes those whose differences are political in nature rather than demographic or socioeconomic in character.
Why, if the Left would “like the world to be a clean, safe place”, is burdensome regulation encouraged over human ingenuity and entrepreneurship? The free market has been responsible for many great innovations, particularly in the twentieth century. Government gave the world neither the internal combustion engine, the television, the assembly line, nor the radio. Government has, instead, given the world desertification, war, and mistrust among peoples.
Conservatives are for allowing people a chance at life, and for allowing people to make choices in life. But, unlike Leftists, Conservatives accept that choices have consequences. Democrats are forever legislating their values. To claim otherwise is to ignore the growth of government in the United States throughout the twentieth century, but particularly from 1933 onwards.
One finds it curious that critics of the Bush administrations would become Democrats rather than members of the Libertarian Party. Conservatives and some Republicans have been long critical of George W. Bush. However, these criticisms largely stand despite the change in control to the Democratic Party. Why, if one opposes the Republican Party for launching wars of some strategic value to the United States, would one support a party responsible for orchestrating wars of no strategic value the United States throughout the 1990′s? Certainly, if one opposes the Bush administration for its excessive spending, joining or supporting the Democratic Party is precisely the wrong course of action to take.
A government which is not large and all powerful is a government which cannot be effective in abuses of power. If your problem is with abuse of power, then criticizing Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt is in order, rather than criticizing George W. Bush who followed the example of those who came before.
Your point, Jamie, regarding criminal politicians (which are all too prevalent in both parties) and drug policy is hard to follow, so I will avoid addressing that issue further. Although, it is true that George W. Bush never lied under oath. The problem I have with defenders of Clinton over impeachment is that they down play what occurred between President Clinton, and a subordinate, much younger female employee. Forgive me for thinking that Democrats had a problem with sexual harassment. Certainly, if the Clinton impeachment was mere about a single, insignificant act as claimed, perjuring oneself over such apparently irrelevant acts is absurd.
Republicans are not opposed to peace, but there is not peace in protectionism, and there is not peace in abandoning allies and strategic partners.
James,
Liberalism does not “prefer demographic diversity,” it appeals to a broad range of people. That comes in handy during elections, by the way. And people of “demographic diversity” often have different opinions; race and ethnicity do not predestine or define the mind of a person, and that implication isn’t pretty. “Diversity of intellect” is a new one for me and I rather enjoy it, but I’m not sure I would be upset if the Democratic Party didn’t have it. As for tolerance, let’s move on.
I am actually curious how you think Democrats, more than Republicans, legislate their values. Same-sex marriage? Stem cell research? Religion in schools and places of governance + creationism/intelligent design? These are all clear examples of conservatives imposing their personal values upon others. In all of these situations, liberals fought merely to remove the conservative imposition, enforcing nothing upon conservatives themselves; in each of these cases, conservatives attempt to require or prevent a course of action for other people while liberals, requiring nothing of conservatives, merely ask the government not to inappropriately interfere with people’s personal lives …an interesting turn of events, no?
Your criticisms of regulation and comments about the entrepreneurial benefits of the free market are valid – for command and control-style environmental regulation. This is considered the “old model,” although still applicable and appropriate in some situations. Your arguments are flawed in regard to market-based incentives, the currently preferred type of environmental regulation. MBIs work as missing price signals are applied to the market so that it can function as it should, taking into account previously omitted externalities. This is the goal of a cap and trade system: put a price on carbon and let businesses figure out how to most efficiently reduce emissions. We won’t even set a price, the market can determine that as well, as it should. It worked for sulfur dioxide emissions in this very country, reducing emissions at a fraction of the cost thought even possible.
Yes, perjury is wrong and certainly a punishable offense. My point is the old “nobody died when Clinton lied” line. And it is hard to argue that his transgressions exceeded those of Bush.
I never claimed that one’s opinions were predetermined by one’s ethnic or racial origins, for you to suggest or imply otherwise is at best disingenuous, sand exemplifies that which plagues our political discourse today. That said, I stand by my remarks that liberals prefer those of color or women who agree with them over those who do not. The selection of Governor Palin by Senator McCain should exemplify that. But, before you get into things the Alaskan governor might have said that were in some way unwise, I feel safe in presuming that you voted for Joe Biden who, well, is a human gaffe machine. It’s not that Republicans don’t care about minorities or women, it’s that the party contends that such traits should not make said folks any different than the others in the political arena; that equality of opportunity matters, and equality of outcomes is not the business of the government. It is interesting that you profess open-mindedness, but willingly admit that you “wouldn’t be upset” if your party was entirely of one mind. That might not upset me terribly either admittedly, but only because it would help the GOP electorally. Of course, in reality, challenging and testing existing or prevailing ideas is the essence of politics.
Let’s address the issues you have raised. I will start first by saying that ID Theory/Creationism has no business being substituted for science, so on that matter we are surely more or less in agreement. However, large and coercive government enables such things to wield greater strength than otherwise would be the case. If states and localities ran primary and secondary education more fully rather than the increasing federal control of education seen over the past 30 years, the states would be free to compete for quality of education, and those who pushed creationism as anything even remotely scientiic would lose in the free market of ideas in the realm of education policy, because each state would be competing to produce a better educational system than would be available elsewhere in the country. Simply put, big government empowers bad ideas.
Now, let us tackle the other political issues you’ve raised. The problem with the same-sex marriage issue in my opinion is that both sides seem to overreact at times. On this issue far too often, for example, Democrats prefer adjudicating to legislating. Let’s have same-sex marriage, but let’s pass it through ordinary means, rather than enact it with no historical basis from the judicial bench. Social conservatives often act excessively on this issue too by driving referenda against same-sex marriage, but such efforts can be reversed by future referenda. Ideas and discourse are too important to disregard in the name of a quick solution to a challenge never really posed before. Legislatures in the United States have a thorough deliberative process which should be utilized more rather than less when addressing issues which are quite recent in emergence. Same-sex marriage will remain controversial until its supporters have won the public debate on the matter, and the means of winning that debate is not in the courts.
Religion in state-sponsored schools should come into play only in the area of philosophy and history related coursework, as the subject of religion pertains to both. As for religiosity in places of government, if only the Left interpreted the Second Amendment as broadly as it does the phrase “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…
Nonetheless, on stem cell research, you simply could not be more wrong. The conservative position of limiting or prohibiting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research does nothing to impose the values of others on anyone. Instead, forcing those with moral objections to contribute funding to such endeavors is an imposition of the values of others on them. Yes, advocates for federally-funded embryonic stem cell research are well-meaning, but so are those with a fundamental disdain for abortion who oppose forcing taxpayers to fund that practice.
A cap and trade system would in practice, to use religion as a point of reference, be a new means of selling indulgences. The practice would manage to be corrupt and unsound, and would produce unintended consequences. If the market is setting a price for carbon as you claim, then how would that constitute a change from iur present rules on the matter? The market can do more to mitigate waste than governments and government regulatons could under just about any circumstances.
It’s wrong to suggest that Clinton’s only transgressions were those for which he was impeached. If such is how one wishes to define transgressions, then Bush was guilty of none. In reality, George W. Bush like his predecessor led the nation into several conflicts of varied necessity, and along the way conducted the affairs of state in not always the most sincere of manners. Your seemingly blind partisanship merely reinforces what I’ve said here.