Republicans

As Democrats approach the end of their first year of the 21st century in control of both Congress and the White House, we are reminded of a hard truth: progressive change is much more difficult than conservative retrenchment.

Throughout history change has always faced an uphill battle against the seductive forces of fear, hatred, dogma, and tradition. In fact, major progressive change is so difficult and occurs so infrequently that such victories are historical outliers. As Mike Lux points out, only four or five decades in the history of the United States have proved to be fertile ground for such change.

Some believed that the 21st century would be different, that the proliferation of technology and the internet would be a panacea. However, this view ignored those aspects of this century that make change more difficult. While it is true that the internet has enabled more public participation and government transparency and allowed people to compete with the media power of corporate television and radio, it also allowed people to self-select their news, information, and facts. No longer can a Walter Cronkite turn the tide of American public opinion against a war with a single statement. The internet is a value-neutral platform and it spreads conservative messages just as effectively as progressive ones. Life expectancy is dramatically longer than in the past, slowing generational change and keeping old prejudices and fears alive (this is where conservatives will convince themselves that I am arguing for death panels as a progressive conspiracy). Change today will be just as difficult as it has been in the past.

Also extinguished a year in is the naïve belief in bipartisanship, that we can convince Republicans to join with Democrats to do the right thing for the American people. Bipartisanship only exists when there is a Republican in the White House, and such bipartisanship has had devastating consequences (see Iraq War, Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy, deregulation).

Republicans view government as a zero-sum game. Health care is not a service for the American people but a battle to be fought for political gain. Helping the uninsured and those who have had the American dream shattered by health care costs is nothing compared to the potential to recreate Waterloo. The conservative platform is dogma, with their evangelists castigating those who do not show proper devotion to the faith. To them, legislation is but a chessboard where black and white move their pieces through amendments and procedures to ultimately topple the opponent's king.

Change takes time. The Presidency, control of the House, and a 20 member majority in the Senate is not a sufficient condition. Democrats need candidates that are not just electable but also effective, as well as the courage to believe that standing firm for our ideas can actually be a winning strategy. We need to enlarge the electorate by putting serious effort into engaging Millennials and minorities. Progressive victories have proved us to be on the right side of history--ending slavery, universal suffrage, the New Deal, and Medicare--and we need representatives that will make the right decision now and not worry about whether history will move fast enough to prove them right before the next election.

Change requires sacrifice and effort, new strategies, more profiles in courage, and a dream that will never die.

Over at New Majority, a youth conservative site similar to Future Majority, Rachel Hoff argues that there is an opportunity present for the GOP to make inroads with young voters. All they have to do is stay on message and talk about what young voters want to discuss: jobs and the economy.

And yet, President Obama still gets his strongest support from young Americans, with 60 percent of people under 30 still approving of the job he is doing. But the recent economic and public opinion trends provide a huge opportunity for Republicans to make up some ground with the youngest generation of voters. The GOP’s challenge, however, is to stay on message as they sweet talk young Americans.

[...]

A survey by the Young Republican National Federation at the beginning of this year showed that 23 percent of Young Republicans wanted their party to focus on job creation and the economy. Only 6 percent of these young party activists thought the GOP should focus on social issues. (And social conservatives were well represented in the survey.) For young voters of all social stripes, it seems it is a matter of priorities.

Recession or no recession, young Americans care most about jobs. And if Republicans take advantage of this opportunity to talk competently and confidently about the economy, the party has a chance to break young America’s love affair with Obama and win these voters back to the GOP.

It's great that young conservatives have so much optimism. But here are a couple realities that can't simply be pushed aside:

1.) Young people don't like the GOP. In the most recent Daily Kos/Research 2000 tracking poll, only six percent of 18-29 year olds rate the GOP favorably, while 79 percent favor President Obama. I'm not sure where Hoff's 60 percent figure originates, but youth clearly side and trust Obama on these issues.

2a.) Social issue junkies run the GOP, and they can't kick the habit. Yes, it might be exciting for Republicans to think they can force the breakup between Obama and young voters, but those who might share Hoff's correct view that youth want to talk about the economy are outnumbered by those who celebrate Glenn Beck, Michael Steele, and crazy teabagging parties. God, guns, and gays still consume too much of the GOP's attention for any kind of substantive discussion of quality of life issues to take root. As long as this is the case, young voters aren't seeing red.

2b.) As long as the GOP is talking social issues, youth aren't going to agree with them. The most diverse generation in American history simply does not agree with the GOP's backward-looking views on most social issues.

OUCH! This morning's new swanked up GOP website launched. But Ben Smith at Politico notes the the "Future Leaders" page has an unfortunate omission.

Leadership is key, not that the Democratic Party is much better... a little better... but not by much. Their saving grace is the many non-partisan progressive groups and indeed the Young Democrats doing everything they can to develop youth leadership. Hopefully, some day, that will translate into the DNC reaching out to these youth to take leading positions in legislative offices and campaigns, and eventually run for office.

(Note - I changed the title of this post for accuracy.)

I'm late in getting to this, but on Monday, conservative (and Millennial) New York Times columnist Ross Douthat published an interesting article noting that the conservatives have made strange bedfellows in the health care debate, siding with seniors in favor of continuing government subsidized health care in the form of Medicare:

Conservatives have marshaled various briefs against the Democratic health care proposals. They’ve argued that the plans will be too expensive, that they’ll cramp innovation and raise premiums for the already-insured, that they’ll encourage employers to drop coverage and discourage them from hiring.

These arguments have been effective, up to a point. But they aren’t nearly as effective as warning senior citizens that Barack Obama wants to take away their health care.

That’s why Republicans find themselves tiptoeing into an unfamiliar role — as champions of old-age entitlements. The Democrats are “sticking it to seniors with cuts to Medicare,” Mitch McConnell declared. They want to “cannibalize” the program to pay for reform, John Cornyn complained. It’s a “raid,” Sam Brownback warned, that could result in the elderly losing “necessary care.”

Douthat notes, rightly I think, that while this maybe a politically savvy move in the short term, it not only flies in the face of bedrock conservative principles of smaller government and greater fiscal conservatism. As the population continues to age, it will make any conservative attempts to reform Medicare nearly impossible.

What Douthat misses, though, is that while older voters may be scared of "the government touching their Medicare," young people are the most supportive of reforming the health care system. Millennials are pragmatists. They don't care about ideology - they just want an efficient government that works for people. Right now, Republicans are not only disingenuously courting seniors (Mediscaring, as Douthat says), they are openly obstructing any good faith attempt at reform. Whether or not reform passes, that's not going to play well with youth. The Republican strategy for winning the short term political argument is another nail in the coffin or their long-term health as a viable national party.

"But do you want to be non-partisan and get nothing? Or do you want to be partisan and end up with a good health care plan? That is the choice." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Charleston Gazette, 6/25/2009

Sen. Rockefeller's framing of the choice should be instructive for his fellow Democratic senators (whether they listen is surely up in the air).

In a way, the problem Rockefeller speaks of here is the opposite of something we often see among our lawmakers. Usually, lawmakers refuse to cooperate, often turning the process into an ideological battle that holds good policy hostage, resulting in little progress. Unfortunately, since we've gotten control of the Congress in 2006, Democrats are obsessed with making sure the GOP is happy with any legislative victories we might achieve. Yet, Republicans couldn't care less about what Democrats feel. So we face a different outcome, though still frustrating -- policy IS passed, but it's nothing but mush, or Republican-lite.

Here we are, debating health care, faced with yet another opportunity to pass critical and historic legislation, this time with a Democratic president in the White House, and too many Democrats are afraid of hurting the Republicans' feelings.

Repeat after me: PARTISANSHIP IS NOT A BAD THING. Yes, the arguing and ideological tactics can produce a toxic political process. But just as well, empty legislation can produce toxic policy, still leaving millions of Americans without health insurance, while handing the GOP a bone. The fact remains that Democrats have nearly 60 percent of the seats in both chambers, having won the majority of congressional races in 2008 despite the Republicans' frequent attempts at linking the party and its presidential candidate with socialism. The presidential candidate ran on "change" and won. People want to see something different.

What's more, the American people in poll after poll trust the Democrats to handle nearly all issues, with health care being one of the issues the public trusts Democrats with the most. A large Washington Post poll released this week produces similar results, though the poll pits Obama against the Congressional Republicans instead of both parties. Obama won big. Borrowing from Greg Sargent's post on the Post's poll at The Plum Line:

• On health care, 51% of indys trust Obama, and 26% trust GOPers in Congress.
• On the economy, 51% of indys trust Obama, and 31% trust the GOP.
• On the budget deficit, 52% of indys trust Obama, and 30% trust the GOP.

Even though Barack Obama is on record as supporting a public option as a part of health reform, the majority of independent voters still support him -- twice as many than the number supporting Republicans.

Youth are relying on the Democratic Party to produce some results after supporting them by a 2-1 ratio in 2008. We're waiting for good policy (read - health reform WITH a public option) that's passed and signed into law because we WANT and NEED it to be passed, not because we want to make sure the Republicans aren't mad and don't hold a grudge.

If the GOP wants to work with Democrats in good faith, fine. If not, Democrats have marching orders from Americans. And they don't include kissing the feet of the GOP.

Morley Winograd and Michael Hais have an interesting post up at their blog, Millennial Makeover. Winograd and Hais argue that MTV is finally understanding that the youth of today look and act nothing like the youth of yesteryear, er- 1981.

The network, long known for cynical and vapid content, has suddenly understood the importance of being earnest. Booze and bikinis are out. Do-good singers and hard-working art students are in.

MTV acknowledged that its programming had become out of step with the progressive, service-oriented values of today's youth, the Millennial Generation. "It was very clear we were at one of those transformational moments, when this new generation of Millennials [born between 1982 and 2003] were demanding a new MTV," a channel executive explained.

Winograd and Hais examine the differences between the Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials through the lens of movies that were popular during the time period in which each generation came of age. (The Devil Wears Prada is a far cry from The Graduate.)

The point Winograd and Hais make and that I've echoed for a few months now is that the Republican Party won't have a presence in national politics for decades to come unless it stops seeing youth as inconsequential and unworthy of a long-term investment; such a view restricts the GOP from understanding the general attitudes and values inherent in Millennials, who will continue to deliver a major shock to the political process over the next twenty years. And while this GOP extinction might seem great for progressive activists like us, a lack of Republican competition would actually relieve the pressure on Democrats to continue funding and supporting innovative youth outreach programs well into the future.

We're running out of ways to say it. But some poll results released by Democracy Corps this week yield perilous signs for the GOP's relevance to today's youth. The poll analysis diagnoses the problem.

Republicans struggle among young people for a very specific reason. At a time when young people are paying close attention to politics and when so many are struggling economically, even more so than older generations, the Republicans simply do not speak to the reality of their lives or to the issues important to them. This perception stands in marked contrast to their reaction to Barack Obama. Nationally, voters’ opinion of the President may have cooled slightly—and inevitably—in recent weeks, but among younger voters, he has never been more popular. They strongly support his economic policy and are confident that he will make a difference in their lives.

As Winograd and Hais might say it, the GOP is stuck in the idealist era, when the nation could afford to entertain a divided government. In an idealist era, "bipartisanship" means finding the lowest common denominator between two ideological extremes. With the way Washington is, that process takes a while. And with voters handing the executive branch to one party and the legislative branch to the other over decades of time, they put their seal of approval on this arrangement. Until now.

But in 2008, America moved to a new political era and everything changed, including the meaning of bipartisanship, as the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression pushed the country into another civic era. In this environment, the American public, which had preferred divided government during the previous idealist era, now endorses unified government. A CNN survey conducted immediately after the 2008 general election indicated that a clear majority (59%) favored the idea of the Democrats controlling both elective branches of the federal government. Only 38 percent said that one-party rule was a bad idea. The public used a clearly civic era rationale to explain its changed attitude, telling Wall Street Journal pollsters that when the same party controls both the presidency and Congress, "it will end gridlock in Washington and things will get done." A recent CBS/New York Times survey confirmed the desire for decisive action across the institutional lines of a newly unified government. A clear majority (56%) wants President Obama to pursue the policies he promised in the campaign rather than working in a bipartisan way with Republicans (39%). By contrast, an even larger majority (79%) wants congressional Republicans to work in a bipartisan way with the President rather than sticking to Republican policies.

What do young voters have to do with this? Well, they form the backbone of the new civic era. From a Winograd and Hais Washington Post op-ed piece in February 2008:

Unlike the young baby boomers, millennials want to strengthen the political system, not tear it down. According to a study last year by the Pew Research Center, most millennials (64 percent) disagree that the federal government is wasteful and inefficient, while most older Americans (58 percent) think it is. A 2006 survey by Frank N. Magid Associates indicated that millennials are more likely than older generations to believe that politicians care what people think and are more concerned with the good of the country than of their political party.

It also showed that millennials, more than their elders, believe that U.S. political institutions will deal effectively with concerns the nation will face in the future.

Given the public's disapproval of both Congress and President Bush, we're going to need all the optimism and change we can generate to overcome those challenges. Luckily, the millennial generation, like its GI generation forebears, is arriving right on time to deliver just what America needs.

In the Democracy Corps poll, we see that today's youth strongly agree with the president on issues, most importantly, his economic stimulus plan.

Young people support the stimulus package convincingly (68 percent favor, 20 percent oppose) and in much higher numbers than older Americans. Young people doing well financially are only marginally less likely to support the plan (65 percent favor) than young people overall and even among Republicans, only 47 percent oppose.

Young people believe the stimulus plan will work, not only in improving the economy overall, but also in improving their own lives in particular. A 71 percent majority describe themselves as confident the stimulus plan will work overall, 68 percent are confident it will improve their own situation, including 68 percent of those who describe their personal economic situation as just fair or poor.

We also learn that youth, like never before, are closely watching the events in Washington.

Young people are paying attention to Washington. Nearly half (45 percent) of young people watched the President’s prime time address on February 24th and 75 percent describe themselves as following the Obama administration closely. Even among young people who are not registered to vote, a 60 percent majority say they have watched the Administration carefully.

And what are Millennials, who strongly support President Obama, watching so closely?

The above is a perfect example of a Republican Party that is stuck on sideshows from the idealist era, and can't problem-solve or make a legitimate effort to pursue the common good in its politics. No figures were offered in their budget proposal; instead, the GOP leadership attacked the other side.

As long as young people and their opinions are ignored, no amount of tweeting or other desperate attempts to use technology will matter. The GOP treats youth as irrelevant, and young voters consequently view Republicans the same way.

If you've been listening to the Republicans lately, you could be forgiven for thinking that Democrats are nothing more than socialists in capitalist clothing, looking to steal bacon-flavored lollipops from babies and redistribute that candy to appease pork-hungry interest groups.

What else are we to make of these statements by prominent conservative pundits and Republican party leaders? (emphasis mine)

Michelle Malkin:

Barack Obama has dubbed his behemoth fiscal stimulus proposal the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." But if truth in advertising were required of White House plans, only one title would fit the trillion-dollar-plus-and-growing bill: The Generational Theft Act of 2009. [...]

Moreover, despite Obama's earnest-seeming pledge to block all earmarks, there will be an inevitable lard-up of the stimulus. When has there not?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell signaled openness to the plan over the weekend as long as the GOP gets nominal input and kabuki hearings. The lard-up will guarantee that future capital is diverted to superfluous pork projects ("green jobs") and away from productive private enterprise. Instead of basic roads and bridges, infrastructure spending will go to bloated unions overseeing pie-in-the-sky construction projects like the $30 billion-plus high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco, which California officials fully expect to be funded.

Minority Leader Boehner:

Between the “stimulus” spending package and other spending ambitions held by the Democratic Party, “it seems likely that the deficit for this year will approach $1.7 trillion,” American Enterprise Institute scholar Kevin Hassett notes. “If your family income in 2006 was between $75,000 and $100,000, the extra taxes that you will have to pay at some point in the future [as a result of the additional borrowing by Congress] add up to about $14,000,” Mr. Hassett says.

The hundreds of billions of dollars Washington is borrowing to finance this pork-barrel monstrosity will come from our children and grandchildren. This is not “stimulus” – it’s generational theft.

George Will:

It is said that the negligible Republican support for the stimulus legislation means that bipartisanship is dead. But what can "bipartisanship" mean concerning legislation that concerns almost everything?

John McCain probably was eager to return to the Senate as an avatar of bipartisanship, a role he has enjoyed. It is, therefore, a measure of the recklessness of House Democrats that they caused the stimulus debate to revolve around a bill that McCain dismisses as "generational theft."

John McCain:

While I'm touched by the GOP's new-found concern for our youth, I'm curious as to why such concerns never materialized over the last 8 years as a Republican President turned record budget surpluses into the worst deficit in American history. President Bush achieved that legacy - aided by Rep Boehner and Senator McCain - by failing to invest in American infrastructure, turning a blind eye to the self-destructive practices of Wall Street and the banks, and championing massive tax cuts for the rich such that economic disparity in America is now greater than it has been at any time since The Gilded Age. Forgive me if I find it disingenuous that two figureheads of the party that turned a blind eye to Bush's tax cuts and spending policies, and enabled this new "Gilded Age," are now crying "generational theft."

Of course, such claims also ring hollow for historical reasons. About a decade ago - right before Bill Clinton started to create record surpluses in the budget - Republican lawmakers and conservative activists issued a similar war-cry on behalf of future generations:

The story of "generational conflict" begins with a handful of strategists and their organizations, the media sources for the myth of Generation X. The first of these was Americans for Generational Equity, or AGE, an organization that demonstrates that with proper funding, it's possible to launch an unsubstantiated idea and see it turn into the standard media view.

AGE had three adept founders and leaders: executive director Paul Hewitt, who continues to direct campaigns to privatize Social Security from his base at the right-wing National Taxpayers Union; research director Philip Longman, who recently published an anti-entitlement tome called The Return of Thrift; and Sen. Dave Durenberger (R.-Minn.), who later pled guilty to theft of public funds.

AGE was the first organization to put political muscle and public relations clout into promoting the notion of "future intergenerational conflict." Their thesis was two-fold: resources devoted to the elderly come at the expense of children; and young people will eventually mobilize against the elderly to reclaim their share of the pie. They immediately found media willing to cover these claims (e.g., Wall Street Journal, 1/13/86).

As we all know, the 8, 9, and 10 year-olds on whose behalf they claimed to speak cast their first ballots last November, and they resoundingly rejected such conservative philosophies.

The facts of the matter are simple. We're facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and the question on the minds of most economists isn't "how big will the deficits be," rather, it's "will the stimulus be big enough to plug the gaping holes in our economy." The economic recovery package isn't $800 billion in pork or wasteful spending, rather it is a stop-gap to save jobs, and a mid- to long-term investment in the future our citizens, our infrastructure, and our economy.

In its final form, the stimulus package will:

• Modernize more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of 2 million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. The plan will also double American renewable energy-generating capacity over three years.
• Make the immediate investments necessary to ensure that within five years, all of America’s medical records are computerized, reducing medical errors and saving billions in health care costs.
• Equip thousands of schools, community colleges, and public universities with 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries.
• Expand broadband across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world.
• Enact the largest investment in America’s crumbling roads, bridges and transit systems since the creation of the national highway system.
• Invest in high risk-high reward science-based research and innovation, and bring it to market—to invent the technology the world uses, and prevent and cure deadly and costly diseases.

As for the economic well-being of "future generations," as my coblogger Karlo ably described in his post earlier today, there are plenty of provisions in the final package that will help give today's youth, and tomorrow's, a leg-up: providing them with more education and employment opportunities, a cleaner environment, a more efficient health care system, and less personal debt as the price of entry to a middle class life. Here's a look at just a few such provisions:

• $19 billion, including $2 billion in discretionary funds and $17 billion for investments and incentives through Medicare and Medicaid to ensure widespread adoption and use of interoperable health information technology (IT).
• $1.1 billion to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, NIH and the HHS Office of the Secretary to evaluate the relative effectiveness of different health care services and treatment options.
• $53.6 billion for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, including $39.5 billion to local school districts using existing funding formulas, which can be used for preventing cutbacks, preventing layoffs, school modernization, or other purposes; $5 billion to states as bonus grants for meeting key performance measures in education; and $8.8 billion to states for high priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education and for modernization, renovation and repairs of public school facilities and institutions of higher education facilities.
• $13 billion for Title 1 to help close the achievement gap and enable disadvantaged students to reach their potential.
• $12.2 billion for Special Education/IDEA to improve educational outcomes for disabled children. This level of funding will increase the Federal share of special education services to its highest level ever.
• $15.6 billion to increase the maximum Pell Grant by $500. This aid will help 7 million students pursue postsecondary education.
• $3.95 billion for job training including State formula grants for adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs (including $1.2 billion to create up to one million summer jobs for youth).
• $4.5 billion for repair of federal buildings to increase energy efficiency using green technology.
• $11 billion for smart-grid related activities, including work to modernize the electric grid.
• $6.3 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Grants.
• $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program.
• $2.5 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy research.
• $2 billion in grant funding for the manufacturing of advanced batteries systems and components and vehicle batteries that are produced in the United States.
• $6 billion for new loan guarantees aimed at standard renewable projects such as wind or solar projects and for electricity transmission projects.
• $1 billion for other energy efficiency programs including alternative fuel trucks and buses, transportation charging infrastructure, and smart and energy efficient appliances.
• $21 billion in COBRA premium assistance provides a 65% subsidy for up to nine months to help workers who lose their jobs keep health coverage.
• Child Care Development Block Grant: $2 billion to provide quality child care services for an additional 300,000 children in low-income families who increasingly are unable to afford the high cost of day care.
• Head Start & Early Head Start: $2.1 billion to allow an additional 124,000 children to participate in this program, which provides development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other activities that prepare children to succeed in school.
• $555 million to expand the Department of Defense Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) during the national mortgage crisis.

To be sure, this will not be the last time we hear Republican's express concern about "future generations." This will come up again when we begin to debate Social Security and Medicare reforms, and conservative activists already used this meme to make a play for young voters during the election. We're going to continue tracking how the GOP uses this meme throughout the year.

When I think of the way that campaigns and politicians reached out to young voters this year, I have to say that the GOP doesn't come to mind as the model group of youth friendly politicos.  

Republicans also haven't been the most friendly when it comes to supporting policies that impact young people.  In 2007 when the House worked to take millions from subsidies that went to providers of student loans and instead gave them as a supplement to increase Pell Grants,  the President threatened to veto it.  

In 2005 when there was a push to increase funding to Pell Grants in a stimulus package and Sen. Arlen Spector (R-PA) said he

"opposes the proposed increase in funding for Pell Grants for College students because it would do little to spur short term economic growth." CollegeConfidential says.

There were 149 no votes in the House on the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007.  Minority Leader John Boehner said he opposed the bill because

"While Democrats insist on burdening taxpayers with new spending and higher taxes, House Republicans have presented plans to balance the budget without raising taxes, keep federal spending in check, and let middle-class families keep more of their own money."

"Plans to balance the budget" is the funny part of that... well... the whole thing is kinda a joke.

Finally, President Bush and many Republican members (along with Democrats) pushed for an $800 billion bailout to financial institutions before the election in November to stop the hemorrhage caused by, among other things, some pretty irresponsible lending practices.

The current stimulus package gives money not to the banks but directly to the people and again gives more money to Pell Grants not to mention money for better equipment in schools, and expanding broadband across the country so rural America can finally have better access to information.  

Yet John McCain, in a sudden decision to begin advocating for young people, has described this as "generational theft."

So giving money to the banks is ok - but giving money to people is theft?  

McCain claims

"We are robbing future generations of Americans of their hard-earned dollars because we are laying on them a debt of incredible proportions."

What was his excuse before?  I mean, John McCain quit his Presidential campaign to work on the Banking Bailout .... Where was the fiscal restrain then?  Where was this fiscal restraint 8 years ago when Republicans signed a blank check to President Bush for unfunded tax cuts and approved year after year of borrow and spend policies?

Last year during the election I followed US Senate candidate Jim Slattery around on a campus tour he made across Kansas.  Slattery pushed a similar higher education plan to then candidate Obama saying that students needed a $5,000 college tuition tax cut.  Slattery said young people are owed things like this because under Republican rule they have cut taxes while overspending to such an extent that it amounts to "intergenerational robbery."

When Slattery described it - I understood... it made perfect sense.  President Bush and the Republican House and Senate in 2001 inherited a budget surplus that they then turned into the worst deficit in American history.  Because of Republican spending and irresponsible Republican tax cuts our government is so underfunded and services are so scarce that we now face an economic recession unrivaled since the Great Depression.  We have zero global competitiveness, our students remain undereducated compared to our global counterparts, and only now are Republicans saying - we should exorcise restraint when Americans need it most?

The income disparity is the worst that its been in over 100 years and Republicans like John McCain actually want to claim that giving money directly to the people who need it most is theft?  A Bank Bailout was ok... but a People's Bailout is wrong?

To me this just seems like another blaring examples of how Republicans claim to love America but clearly can't stand supporting Americans.  Rather than work in a bi-partisan way and be grown-ups about the whole thing, as Paul Begala says its more "Republican strategy of deny, delay, and do nothing."

Luckily young voters don't buy it.  National polls overwhelmingly support for the President's stimulus package with and without changes, and many state reports even in red-state-America like Utah have young voters behind the package and supporting the President.   

This leaves me to wonder if the GOP is only pretending to use the concept of future generations because its politically expedient for them to do so, or if there is a real genuine need to reach out to youth and they're just bungling it so miserably.  Either way, this stimulus goes to people who need it - not corporations or the wealthy 2%... this is the change we voted for.

One of the more interesting sites that I read from across the aisle is Next Gen GOP. The site is a conservative counterpart to the more progressive politics we hold here at Future Majority, and on any given day you will see well researched and impassioned arguments for why and how the GOP should engage young voters. It reads very much like the emails, memos and research papers passed around on the Democratic side 3 or 4 years ago. In short, I respect the writers and what they are trying to do.

But I have to take issue with a recent post by Brad Tidwell, arguing against the prospect of 40 years of Democratic rule. It's not that I believe that we will have Democratic Presidents for the next 40 years. Just as with the Republicans I imagine that scandals will mount, as will corruption. Electoral conditions will fluctuate and 8 or 12 years from now we may well see a Republican President once more - or at least, a President from whatever arises out of the ashes of the current minority party that is the GOP. Rather, my problem is with his demographic assumptions and what a changing demographic tide will really mean for a recovering GOP.

Here's the main thrust of Tidwell's demographic analysis:

When considering the turnout, there is also promise of a future coalition for the Republican Party, starting with an emphasis on social conservatism. Right now for the Republican Party, “culturally conservative, working-class whites are today its most reliable voters” (Brownstein 2009). McCain did not represent these voters well- “It is likely that GOP voting decline started at the top of the ticket—with some of the culturally conservative Republicans not seeing McCain as one of their own” (Gans, 2008). A return to social conservatism will help get these voters to return to the party- McCain only led Obama with these voters by 58% to 40%, leaving much room for improvement (Brownstein 2009). Meanwhile, this increase in social conservatism will help the party make gains in minority groups where social conservatism is important- in California, around 70% of African American voters and 53% of Latino voters voted for Proposition 8, a measure limiting marriage to heterosexual unions (Harmon, 2008). Already, many key Republican strategists are working on how to appeal to these voters- Scott Baugh, chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, stated “We did not lose because of social issues. The vast majority of Republicans are anti-abortion. Voters in the state favored Obama, but they voted down gay marriage. And there is widespread opposition to illegal immigration.” Chuck DeVore, candidate for U. S. Senate seat has stated “The future of the Republican Party isn’t in white voters… That demographic is dying” (Wisckol, 2009). Clearly there will be greater attention paid to the minority voters- previous attempts to create such a movement have failed, but this does not have to be the case in the future- political parties have a way of coming back when all else seems to be against them.

I see a number of flaws in this argument:

• Culturally conservative, working class white voters are an ever-shrinking portion of the electorate, and Democrats no longer need that block to win elections. Chris Bowers has written extensively on the creation of the new demographic coalition Obama assembled, and notes that this coalition will only grow stronger as younger, more diverse voters come of age.
• Social conservatism is not a voting issue for minority voters, and it is repugnant to many younger voters, who make up an increasingly large share of non-white voters. Fully 40% of Millennials identify with one or another ethnic minority group. On social issues, like Prop 8, cited by Tidwell, they were the only age group to vote against the proposition. If the Republican Party becomes more conservative in order to appeal to older working class whites, they will only succeed in further alienating the next generation, who are disproportionately of color and socially progressive.
• Even among younger evangelical white voters, who would presumably replace the older white working voters on the older end of the electorate, social issues like choice and LGBT rights are neither the top priority nor are younger religious whites likely to hold similar views to their parents on those issue. In fact, white evangelical youth are increasingly receptive to progressive ideas.
• The GOP will never win Latino voters - especially younger Latinos - while they continue to oppose humane comprehensive immigration reform. John McCain was the standard bearer for such reform in the Republican Party. It's not clear to me how the GOP will win back Latinos - particularly younger Latinos needed to build a long-term voting block - by rejecting McCain's philosophies on immigration and spotlighting anti-choice and anti-LGBT messages.

The number of Millennials moving into the electorate is staggering: upwards of 80 - 100 million depending on how you set the boundaries. In 2008, they made up 18% of the electorate and broke 2 - 1 in favor of Democrats. As Millennials get older, they will vote in higher and higher numbers and occupy a larger and larger portion of the electorate. By 2016, they may account for 30% of the eligible electorate.

Do the math and the answer is simple: the GOP cannot climb out of its demographic hole by running to the right. The only way out will be to adapt to the current political environment and accept a wide range of progressive stances not just on social, but on economic, environmental, and foreign policy issues. If the GOP is to have a future, it's going to need to run to the left, not the right.