Next Gen GOP

As I mentioned in yesterday's Quick Hits post, Neil Howe has revisited the politics of Millennials in a report co-authored with Reena Nadler, titled "Yes We Can: The Emergence of Millennials as a Political Generation." Howe and Nadler examine the political motivations of today's young people through the lens of the the framework Howe and his late research partner, William Strauss, produced a decade ago. The report, which was released by New America Foundation as a part of its Next Social Contract Initiative, is available in a .pdf file here. This report, and Peter Levine's report, titled "The Millennial Pendulum: A New Generation of Voters and the Prospects for a Political Realignment," will be released at an event at the New America Foundation (1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW 7th Floor, Washington, DC). Participants include Neil Howe, Reena Nadler, Peter Levine and Scott Keeter (Director of Survey Research at Pew Research Center), and Hans Riemer (National Youth Vote Director for the Obama campaign and former Political and Issues Director for Rock the Vote).

The first portion of the report rehashes what the Millennial Generation is, how it fits into American history, and the generation's collective personality. In fact, Howe and Nadler examine the development of the Millennials using the seven adjectives Howe and Strauss used to describe Millennials in their book Millennials Rising: special, sheltered, confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving.

Eventually, Howe and Nadler delve into the development of the Millennials' political personality. Conceding that it is too early to know whether or not the Millennial trend toward the Democratic Party is a sure thing and that Millennials are somewhat complex politicos, often taking hybrid positions, Howe and Nadler label Millennials as "politically and economically liberal but socially and culturally conservative." The authors compare the politics of today's youth with the views of "Reagan Democrats," seeing similarities in each generation's political orientation.

At first, the conservative label threw me off. I remembered reading in Generation We that Millennials are much more tolerant socially than their elders. For instance:

On race, too, there’s strong trend among Generation We toward seeing race as fundamentally a nonissue. In 2003, almost all (89 percent) of white 18- to 25-year-old Millennials said they agreed that “it’s all right for Blacks and Whites to date each other,” including 64 percent who “completely” agreed. Back in 1987–1988, when the same question was posed to white 18- to 25-year-old Gen Xers, just 56 percent agreed with this statement.

Gallup data from a 2005 poll underscore these findings; 95 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds said they approve of Blacks and Whites dating, and 60 percent of this age group said they had dated someone of a different race. In addition, 82 percent of white 18- to 25-year-old Millennials in 2003 disagreed with the idea that they “don’t have much in common with people of other races.”

But it is their views on sexual preference issues that are perhaps the most strikingly liberal. On gays, the views of Generation We are far more liberal than that of their elders. For example, in a 2007 Pew survey, an outright majority (56 percent) of 18- to 29-year-olds supported allowing gays and lesbians to marry, while the public as a whole opposed gay marriage by a 55-to-37 majority.

Millennials are also concerned about political trends that put tolerance at risk. In an April 2005 GQR poll of 18- to 25-year-olds, 64 percent believed that religious conservatives had gone too far in invading people’s personal lives, and 58 percent thought the country needs to work harder at accepting and tolerating gays, rather than work harder
at upholding traditional values.

But Howe and Nadler weren't necessarily talking about same-sex marriage and abortion (which Millennials do not view either more progressively or conservatively than their Boomer parents). Instead, they were focusing on the Millennial fondness for the family structure. Emphasis is mine.

Millennials are maintaining strong emotional, physical, and financial connections with their families as they enter adulthood. Throughout their childhood and adolescence, they have been more likely than the last two generations to trust their parents, depend on their support, and discuss important personal matters with them. Looking ahead, Millennials also place great importance on starting their own nuclear families. They are less interested than their Boomer parents in reforming family life and discussing (or arguing about) “family values.” Most prefer to take the importance of families for granted and try to make them work. Like older liberals, they support a broad definition of acceptable family structures. Like older conservatives, they believe that strong families are the cornerstone of a stable and livable society.

[...]

Despite this family-oriented “traditionalism,” today’s youth are more likely than older Americans to believe that unconventional families can be just as close and stable as traditional families. Millennials believe that the opportunity to participate in family life is so important that nobody should be left out. This generation is nearly twice as likely as older Americans to favor gay marriage, and they are the only age group that favors allowing gays to adopt children.

Republican youth, as Mike noted earlier this week, like to see a path back to parity among today's youth in the "socially conservative" nature of Millennials, but as you just read, this proves to be fool's gold. This isn't your Republican Boomer parent's "socially conservative" philosophy.

Furthermore, what Howe and Nadler don't substantively touch upon is that Millennials are much more apt to think economically when thinking of matters of national importance. Arguments over the fabric of the nation consist not of abortions and the possibility of gays marrying each other, but of the social safety net and entitlement reform. The fiscally liberal Millennials will be placing much more emphasis on defining its pro-government priorities in the budget than on any social viewpoints, especially given the nature of the economic crisis. This certainly counts for something and can't be overlooked when assessing the next twenty or thirty years of politics.

Howe and Nadler center their report on "ten imperatives" they think will form the Millennial political agenda moving forward.

1. Strengthen Community
2. Trust the System
3. Minimize Personal Risk
4. Support the Family
5. Be Upbeat and Optimistic
6. Make Capitalism Work Better
7. Champion Unity over Diversity
8. Favor Realistic and Multilateral World Leadership
9. Seek Consensus and Decorum in Politics
10. Plan Ahead for the Long-term

I don't think any of these would necessarily surprise those of us interested in Millennial political behavior, other than the way Howe and Nadler have Millennials supporting the family compared to our conservative counterparts. One thing to underscore might be the economic liberalism of today's young people. Again and again, Howe and Nadler point out the pro-government, pro-regulation mindset among the generation, careful to include that Millennials don't despise business and the markets. Raised amid excessive individualism, Millennials tend to see a group solution to many crises, and so with our global financial crisis, it's only natural that they look to an institution like the government for solutions.

Looking into the future, Howe and Nadler underscored entitlement reform as something Millennials will use to grab a hold of the political discussion. Howe and Nadler predict that future-oriented Millennials will be the generation with the political ability and will to make tough, sustainable fiscal decisions, reforming Social Security and Medicare.

All in all, Howe and Nadler's report is a good start. Millennials are clearly already starting to impact our politics in a major way. But I think there's more that can be said regarding the future agenda for the generation, especially given Howe and Nadler's prediction that Millennials will coalesce behind one party in a civil, pragmatic way. For example, at what point does the climate crisis begin to supercede entitlement reform as the largest challenge? Will we be recovered from today's mess in time to deal with that? A great foundation, but I'll be looking for more to read on this in the months and years to come.

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.