liberalism

A Pew Research poll released this week showed that Democrats may be losing their grip on Millennials.

The Democratic advantage over the Republicans in party affiliation among young voters, including those who "lean" to a party, reached a whopping 62% to 30% margin in 2008. But by the end of 2009 this 32-point margin had shrunk to just 14 points: 54% Democrat, 40% Republican.

Cue the pundits - even those young Obamaphiles are realizing the dangers of liberalism, right? While some local outlets are probably lazily reporting it this way, we're actually seeing quite the opposite.

Pew's research still shows a heavy tilt toward many liberal stances among Millennial respondents, particularly in the areas of expansion of government responsibility, favoring gay marriage, and resisting the continued military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Futhermore, Millennials are the only generation in the study to have more respondents identify as "liberal" then "conservative." 29 percent identified themselves as "liberal" while 27 percent identified as conservatives.

(We know that the whole notion that youth are liberal until they grow older is, to borrow the British term, poppycock. Research shows that when youth vote for a certain party or form certain political ideologies when they come of age, they tend to keep that voting behavior/ideology over time, despite what many people might think.)

With all this taken into account, young voters are growing disenchanted with the Democratic Party because right now it represents politics as usual. It's not because we fear Democratic liberalism; it's the opposite -- we want more of it! To get it, we need our senators and representatives to find some fortitude somewhere and get moving. The public option resurgence is something to rally around, but it faces formidable challenges in Congress, one of those being Democratic skittishness given the party's lackluster performances in the VA and NJ gubernatorial elections and the special election in Massachusetts.

The bottom line is that as long as Democratic representation in Congress follows a centrist line, it will not be representing the interests and values of the Millennials, leaving more Democratic defections among the demographic likely. 2010 is too important for that.

I wanted to make sure readers saw two articles/news stories published this week about Millennials, their political behavior, and the consequences for America's political future.

The first, written by Paul Waldman, appeared at truthout.org and is titled "So Long, Alex P. Keaton." Waldman looks back at the glory days for conservatives, when young people's political attitudes were represented on the silver screen by Alex P. Keaton in the sitcom Family Ties. The show's time on television (1982-1989) coincided with the Republican Party's reign in America; Keaton's admiration of Ronald Reagan was mimicked in thousands of households across the country by young people. Waldman then pivots to the rising Millennials:

Start with the obvious: 67 percent of voters under 29 cast their ballot for Barack Obama, a result unequalled since exit polling began. (If you're interested, exit-poll data dating back to 1976 can be found at the Roper Center.) Despite periodic proclamations that young conservatives are poised for a comeback (see, for instance, this lengthy portrait in The New York Times Magazine only six years ago of the "Young Hipublicans" who were ready to take the country by storm), young people aren't finding much to like about today's GOP. And as a pair of new reports from the Center for American Progress on the present and future of American ideology show, those feelings are likely to run much deeper than a single election or a single candidate.

While they cover a great deal of ground, the reports contain some particularly interesting points about the millennial generation. In "State of American Political Ideology, 2009,", we learn that young people are the most progressive age group overall and the most progressive on social issues, which might not be surprising. But they are also the most progressive age group in their opinions about the role of government, which might be. And as the other report, "New Progressive America," points out, this generation's share of the voting population will increase every year until 2020, when they will represent nearly 40 percent of the electorate.

Meanwhile, J. Patrick Coolican at the Las Vegas Sun looks at the bad news for the GOP found in the Millennial reports, especially Ruy Teixeira's.

His new report for the liberal Center for American Progress serves as a sort of valedictory coda, detailing the new Democratic majority and breaking down the 20-year trend in Nevada and other states.

It’s a striking document and a bracing jolt to Republicans.

The 2008 election was a mirror of 1988, with President Barack Obama winning 53 percent of the vote, matching that of George H.W. Bush. Here’s what happened: During those 20 years, the minority share of the vote increased by 11 percentage points and the white college-educated by 4. The white, working-class portion decreased by 15.

If you’re a Republican, these are “uh-oh” trends.

Other trends seem destined to exacerbate the Republican plight. Obama won the millennials — Americans born between 1978 and 2000 — by 66 percent to 32 percent. This generation is adding 4.5 million voters every year.

This is not breaking news to us. Most of you reading this site know that the GOP is in significant peril and on the edge of becoming irrelevant to young people.

These posts are signs, though, that we're seeing this idea of a new, energized, progressive generation gaining power escaping from the political junkie bubble. In other words, the casual political observer will begin to understand and expect a new political direction for America should this narrative continue to be covered by conventional media.

Why is that important? Well, I agree with those who point out that it doesn't quite matter if our elders are willing to respect us. They point out that we're eventually going to change this country whether they like it or not. At the same time, though, the faster this country accepts the large change that's coming, the more opportunities we might be able to have now instead of tomorrow. Either way, we're headed for a sea change, and these two well-researched and well-written articles hit the nail on the head.

While President Obama's inauguration was an obvious sign this week that the country will be getting more progressive in the coming years, there was some quiet foreshadowing accompanying the festivities that bore witness to just how progressive the nation can be.

In the 2008 CIRP (Cooperative Institutional Research Program) Freshman Survey, an annual survey of the nation's incoming college students administered by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, respondents identified themselves as "liberals" at a rate not seen in several decades. But, as we know, they're not sitting on the political sidelines -- far from it. This group of freshmen is more politically engaged than any other freshman class in the last 40 years.

From the survey's website:

College freshman [sic] are more politically engaged today than at any point during the last 40 years, with 89.5 percent reporting that they frequently or occasionally discussed politics in the last year, according to UCLA's annual survey of the nation's entering students at four-year institutions.

The portion of incoming freshmen who frequently discussed politics in the last year - 35.6 percent - surpasses the 33.6 percent level recorded in 1968, itself a 40-year high mark of student political engagement. The 2008 level was also higher than in other recent presidential election years, including 1992 (29.7 percent), when Bill Clinton was elected, the survey found.

[...]

An increase was also seen in the proportion of students who characterize themselves as liberal, which reached its highest level in 35 years in 2008, at 31.0 percent. The percentage of incoming students who characterize themselves as politically middle-of-the-road, however, has seen a steady decline and in 2008 reached an all-time low of 43.3 percent, roughly the same percentage as in 1970. One in five students (20.7 percent) identified themselves as conservative in 2008, down from 23.1 percent in 2007.

These numbers seem to indicate that parties are headed toward another golden age. The "party period" in American history sets the standard:

The period from 1840 to 1890 has been labeled "the party period" and "the golden age of parties" because the major political parties (Democrats and Whigs until the mid-1850s, then Democrats and Republicans) were the strongest they have been in American history. Party leaders used patronage and campaign practices that aroused partisan enthusiasm to gain wide membership and keep them loyal and active. It worked. Voter turnout during this period was the highest in American history: between 70 and 80 percent for presidential elections and sometimes higher in state and local contests.

Throughout history, we've learned that increased polarization leads to increased participation. While this particular survey only includes college students, history has proven the survey's accuracy in representing political trends over the years. And so, with polarization and engagement up big among the young people questioned in this survey, political participation should stay sky-high for quite some time, given polarization's connection with participation and the stickiness of youth voting habits.

However, we can't solely rely on trends to be successful at shaping the future electorate. And this is where Tim Kaine's chairmanship becomes so important. The "Party Period" described above was crafted by political machines, or local parties on steroids. In order to cultivate the partisanship that breeds participation, Tip O'Neill's localism was channeled from the future. Community picnics, socials, and rallies were prevalent, all organized by the local party. Politics invaded many areas of everyday life; many citizens couldn't avoid it even if they wanted to -- and they didn't. Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy, while certainly not a machine, made the Democratic Party more tangible to people. Suddenly Democrats were being locally organized everywhere, and whether citizens agreed with them or not, they couldn't keep these newcomers from increasing the amount of political rhetoric and debate in their communities. Consequently, many more people were forced to process political ideas, leading to some sort of political identification that wouldn't have been there prior to Dean's chairmanship.

With the party four years into a transformational strategy and with a titanic generation sympathizing with liberalism at a record rate, the stage is set for the Democratic Party to define politics for a generation. But the party needs to milk this trend for all that it's worth. Dean's localism should be strengthened, incorporating increasing numbers of people into the party by becoming socially active, whether it's through volunteer work, sponsoring community events, maintaining a presence at as many small-town fairs and parades as possible, and of course, continuing to allocate dollars to regional parties that atrophied during the last third of the 20th Century.

Finally, Democrats (especially the Obama administration) need to avoid at all costs the idea that youth should be relegated to service; youth should be heavily involved in the party's strategic planning and day-to-day operations. More on that to come soon.

The Center for American Progress recently released a report titled "Millennial Economics: It Don't Matter If You're Black or White." The report, written by Amanda Logan and David Madland, describes the Millennial Generation's view on economic policy as increasingly homogenous across racial lines.

On a range of economic issues—from support for universal health care and labor unions to assistance for the needy—minorities in the Millennial Generation are generally more progressive than whites of the same age. Young blacks and Hispanics are more likely than young whites to believe that the government can be a force for good in the economy, and that labor unions are necessary to ensure strong and sustainable economic growth, as well as support increased investments in health care, education, and other areas.

Perhaps the most unique trait of the Millennial Generation is that the gap between young minorities and young whites is shrinking. Not only are young adults today more progressive than previous generations—as a previous Center for American Progress report, “The Progressive Generation,” found—but they are more likely to hold similar views than previous generations of young adults. Young whites today are closing the progressive gap with minorities on most of the economic issues we examined—and on some issues have become more progressive.

So what?

Well one thing is obvious: as we move into the future, Millennials are in the process of solidifying their liberalism. The demographics speak to this solidification:

• Over the past 20 years, an average of 86 percent of blacks aged 18 to 29 agreed that labor unions are necessary to protect workers, while 72 percent of young whites agreed—a
  14 percentage-point progressive gap.
• Today the gap is just 2 percentage points. Forty-six percent of young Hispanics over the past two decades believed it is the gov- ernment’s responsibility to ensure a good job and standard of living for all, while just 35 percent of young whites did—a gap of 11 percentage points. Today, the gap is less than 6 percentage points.

Matt Zeitlin from pushback makes the relevant observation: -- white Millennials are diverging from their parents' more conservative views, while minority Millennials are maintaining the already liberal viewpoints of their parents. With a more united, progressive, and engaged Millennial generation, there's reason for Millennial activists and bloggers to be optimistic. Thanks to Matthew Yglesias, here's a chart demonstrating the Millennials' convergence on the issue of health care compared to older generations of Americans:

Furthermore, Millennials are breaking the lock Republicans have put on the political dialogue thanks to their devotion to quality of life issues. In 1968, Nixon succeeded in getting many whites to vote against their fears and not for their economic quality of life. In subsequent elections, Americans held political views that were formed along cultural fault lines; the Republican Party and its candidates seized on Nixon's example and for decades were successful in setting up sideshow after sideshow to distract Americans from their failed economic philosophy. But eventually it all catches up. And with the political awakening of the Millennials, that time is now for the GOP.

Here we have a generation focused on progress. Their pragmatic approach toward making things better undermines the GOP's effort to distract them with things like tales of people named William Ayers. A focus on the economy and quality of life issues is far more appropriate for meritocratic Millennials than the latest symbol forming a battleground for a Boomer-style ideological struggle. So now that economic issues are the name of the game, the liberal viewpoints of the Millennials have even greater weight.

Add into that the noted tolerance of Millennials on social issues, and the possibility of building a solid political coalition increases even more. The political awakening of Millennials is occurring at just the time we as a society need it.