Let’s let young Americans skip out on rocking the vote this year so they can get back to what they do best: drinking heavily, hooking up, blogging their social lives on myspace.com, and sleeping in.
"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."
— The Sound Byte previously known as “Barack.”
There is no question a generation gap exists between the supporters of Barack Obama and the other candidates for the presidency. This is particularly true in regards to his rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Hillary Clinton. Obama is all the rage among college voters and their fealty may sweep him into office in November. He pays extra-special attention to the young and has courted them in ways some consider unethical.
Obama flatters the already inflated egos of the self-esteem generation, which has caused some to label his effect as “cult-like.” His message is . . . his message. It’s all self-reference all of the time. Indeed, my Senator offers to the young narcissism and vacuity which their dopamine receptors have latched onto as if his words were grains of morphine.
The “millennials” are a generation unlikely to make a positive contribution to society. Their educations — especially those who seek or have already obtained liberal arts degrees — have been incurably corrupted by political correctness. Imbibing PC guarantees that one will never understand politics, history or human nature. Many regard themselves as rebels but are too cowardly to question the constructs of cultural Marxism.
Questioning the authority of their professors is beyond them. Propagandistic assertions like “a patriarchy” existing, that whites possess privilege, and that “someone making money results in someone else losing money” are shoveled past their pierced tongues without a belch of dissatisfaction. Their universities have prepared them well for the insipid utterances of Barackstar Obama.
Sure, it’s easy to laugh over trite stuff like: “This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you. Because you are tired of being disappointed . . . and you're tired of being let down.”
To self-absorbed freaks, this is the painkiller they crave. Jejune phrases palliate better than a trip to the therapist. Obamaphiliacs receive the full range of emotional succor at his rallies: they chant, they scream, they hug, and then they see a rich, privileged guy on stage and confuse him for John F. Kennedy.
Of course it’s not fair to label the entirety of Obama’s young, clueless supporters as trustafarians. Loving Barack does not hinge on one’s being a trust fund baby, smoking dope, embracing the counter-cultural lifestyle or rebelling against your parents. Most of the outrageous esteem for the “man of air” springs from old school causes like rampant ignorance. The shared ignorance between my Senator and his Obamabots has formed the basis of a serious connection.
Neither the anointed one nor his flock, know much about the world. His promise to meet with the leaders of Iran and North Korea in order to iron out our differences is a magnificent example of his naivety, yet those who have experienced little evil tend not to recognize it even when it comes to summits spraying improvised exploding devices and draped in a dynamite belt. Call me a pessimist but I suspect that Barack’s charm and charisma will not travel well. Non-westerners often know a flapper when they see one.
The way of the leftist though is to manufacture false allegations of oppression about America, and then pretend that actual despots and tyrannical regimes either don’t exist or are the product of western intervention. That’s the stance they took with Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and most risibly, the genocide in Rwanda (not to mention the uproarious canard, “the Bush family funded Hitler”). Millennial feminists are already outraged about having to pay for their birth control pills so why would they care about a dictator who caused a million deaths from famine?
While riding the bus on Super Tuesday I overheard the conversation of two UIC students. They were festooned with Obama paraphernalia and droned on about the “drug makers.” One said he hated the industry on the whole while the other proclaimed that he would never work for them. With as much politeness as I could muster I interrupted them to ask what industry they would turn to should they ever acquire MRSA. They responded by inquiring what MRSA was. Never fear though. Obama is the patron saint of the ignorant and has their back (well, maybe not if they get MRSA). He stands for lowering pharmaceutical profits; although, he remains alarmingly silent in regards to the $802 million it costs Big Pharma to get their products to pass DEA trials.
That Senator Obama knows nothing about economics should not surprise us. He appears disinterested in both the law of unintended consequences and the concept of competitive advantage. He also possesses a known antipathy towards free trade. Everything about his positions reeks of partisan leftism and features the jerry-rigged pastiche of contentions which are their normal policy considerations. His ideas for change include the revolutionary idea of increasing federal spending by $250 billion a year. Groundbreaking! The ground will break at the Treasury though in light of the federocracy’s operating in the red by about $400 billion per annum.
Government waste is also something of which His Baritoneness is gloriously unaware. He need not ever raise taxes. Most government programs are pregnant with pork and disseminate more dysfunctionality than benefit. Suggestions on ways to streamline the Leviathan are available should one be motivated to look for them. Citizens Against Government Waste publishes a Pig Book which, for 2007, identified 24 projects that are prime for the axing.
Outside of his canned speeches, unsavory racial overtones are discernable. Judging others by the company they keep is more than an advertising slogan. It’s a time-tested way to ascertain character and values. Obama’s friends and associates are rather dubious, and I’m not only referring to trust funders like John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy. For conservatives, who long for an end to public obsessions over skin color, genitalia and class, his personal life is not reassuring.
There is ample evidence to suggest that his real view of race may not be in harmony with the one he put forth at the 2004 Democratic Party Convention. Much has been reported about the racialist nature of the church he attends. The candidate’s relationship with Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright is pretty damning. The man brims with antipathy for his country and described 9/11 as a case of white America getting what it deserves. The alleged holy man further demeaned his country and dubbed it a place of white supremacy. No doubt, should Obama become our next president, the tone of his sermons will not change. Why mess with success?
Closer to home is the person of Michelle Obama. His wife’s statement that, “for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback,” suggests that the contempt Reverend Wright has for America could be shared by his two most prominent parishioners. Personally, not for the first time in my life was I reminded that those who deem our great democracy to be a racist, sexist state have no interest in preserving it.
As for Obama and his gilded youth, we are further reminded of just how ridiculous the American fetish for juvenility is. We should listen to the young people because . . . there can be no reason. The phrase “young people” and “serious thinking” do not belong together in the same sentence. Yet pairing the former with words and phrases such as “hormones, sex, athletics, narcissism, experimentation, drinking, ambition, incessant conversation, over attention to self,” and “ruthless pursuit of entertainment” is most descriptive.
This whole “students are coming together to make their voices heard” thing is so 1969. Back then we listened to the flower children . . . and they slipped us brown acid. If you ask me, one serious mistake per fifty years is enough. If I want to hear a completely irrelevant opinion about politics then I’ll eschew the UIC campus and consult with the beagle across the hall instead. At least with him I can get past self-importance and bewilderment with the aide of a greenie. Let’s let young Americans skip out on rocking the vote this year so they can get back to what they do best: drinking heavily, hooking up, blogging their social lives on myspace.com, and sleeping in. Oh, and sleeping in as late as possible on November 4th 2008 is heartily recommended.
veritaseducation@gmail.com
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22chapin%27s+inferno%22&search_type=
Read more articles by Bernard Chapin
I totally disagree with Chapin's point of view when it comes to talking about the young Americans. Generalizing the American youth do best: in drinking heavily, hooking up, blogging their social lives on myspace.com, and sleeping in, is deplorable. Mind you there's a very high AWAKENING AMONGST AMERICAN YOUTH OF TODAY. Be prepared to witness the full impact of the transformational voice of the young Americans which we should encourage and be so proud of.
Comment by BeFair | March 12, 2008
"The phrase “young people” and “serious thinking” do not belong together in the same sentence."
I think that may be an over-generalization. Especially as a young business student who considers himself fully capable of "serious thinking". If you think ignorance and imbecility is the exclusive domain of young people, allow me to introduce you to the AARP. And keep in mind that young people do not constitute a majority of voters - Obama is winning primary contests because the wise, old, serious thinkers of the Democratic party are as infatuated with him as the kiddies. Democrats are morons. Therefore, young Democrats are morons. Young people are not all Democrats. Therefore, young people are not all morons.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 12, 2008
Obama's got his own problems, there's no need to take potshots at his supporters, particularly based only on their youth. The new generation has ever been the bane of the older, and always is on the brink of plunging the world into ruin.
This article from 1957 shows many of the same concerns, though filtered through a different social milieu. "Parents who have lived in the Jazz Age can not very well forbid adventurousness, nor can they take a very stalwart attitude about sex. Even if they do, their daughters rarely listen. What or what not to do about sex is, these days, relative. It all depends. This is not to say that there are no longer any moral standards; certainly there are—the fact that sex still causes guilt and worry proves it. But moral generalizations seem remote and unreal, something our grandparents believed in."
Comment by Raymond Ingles | March 12, 2008
http://www.vcsnet.com/ is a good place to check out voter registration demographics. It gives state-by-state breakdowns, though each state does things a little differently so it takes a little work. I did some comparisons by age, gender and ethic groupings. Of course people don't always vote the way they register and some states (e.g., Texas) have low registrations rates. Even so, I think it safe to say the proportion between republican and democrats is a fair representation of how people in these states (and nationally) tend to vote.
What I found is, although there is some difference by age group, it is not strong enough to generalize. Overall, registered voters are 23% Republican, 27% Democrat, and 50% other. The largest association by age is in the 26-54 year-old group for Utah, where Republicans out-register Democrats 4-1. I don’t see a similarly large difference for any blue-states and somewhat less pronounced in other red-states. For all other age groups, Democrats very slightly lead Republicans. The real difference, then, appears to be slight Democrat leads in the most populous states; which more than makes up for pro-Republican disparities in the many low-population states like Utah. So, whether youth in your area tend leftward may depend where you are located.
One point to note is relatively few under 25-year olds register, making it difficult to assess affiliation and leaving open the question how they vote. Also, the 26-54 category is numerically larger and broader than the other categories, obscuring how stratified this particular group may actually be. A large disparity may still exist between the high and low ends of this group. There are stronger disparities by gender, ethnic and income than by age, with the strongest affiliation among blacks and women (strongly Democrat).
This publication (http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS07_2006MidtermCPS.pdf) states “In 2006, 43 percent of young voters, ages 18 to 29, identified as Democrats, an increase of six percentage points over 2002. Republican affiliation among young people fell eight percentage points during the same period.” The split in under-30 votes for 2006 was 43/31 compared to 37/36 for over-30 votes; with most of the surge representing urban blacks, Hispanics and native-Americans.
What all this tells me is, Democrats succeeded in mobilizing normally apathetic voter blocks in 2006. This is the conservative Achilles heel in most elections. Democrats can draw on a larger base, if they can just get them to the polls. Conservatives, of any age, tend to turn out regardless; making efforts to turn out more of us (on the presumption we are similarly sitting it out) futile. We do better appealing to independent and unaffiliated voters; which is what drives Republicans to court left-of-center votes. For Democrats, it means they must poll even further leftward because those most apathetic are also those young, poor, least educated, disaffected, and least conversant with the issues, and easily persuaded ‘their benefits’ are threatened. The Democrat party suffers a split-personality consisting of overcompensating elites, on the one hand, and their clients on the other. As with Republicans, there’s not much more they can squeeze from their base, but there’s a broad pool of disenfranchised both parties want to attract. Democrats have the advantage here because they are not tied to expectations of their base to limit government.
The young, even among the educated, do have a greater leaning toward socialism, despite often libertarian, government-despising rhetoric. It is typical of youth to believe the answer to corruption and incompetence is reforms that can only increase government more, are no different than ideals once professed by parents, and Democrats nurture this belief far more than Republicans. Yet, I find almost as many geriatric-Americans with the same belief that Democrats are the guys to give them government purged of capitalism and blessed with a cradle-to-grave nanny-net.
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf - national, no party
http://www.voterfocus.com/ws/wscand/reports/volusia_03308_034237_3-03-08%20District%20Demographic%20Analysis.pdf Volusia County Florida w/party
http://www.voterfocus.com/ws/wscand/reports/volusia_01208_125318_1-02-08%20district%20demographic%20analysis.pdf
http://onlineservices.cabarruscounty.us/Elections/RegStats/VoterDemographics.pdf
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/redblue11.pdf
http://www.votesmart.org/resource_political_resources.php?category=13
Comment by Bob Stapler | March 12, 2008
Thank you Bob for injecting some hard data into Mr. Chapin's fanciful argument. As a father and grandfather, I am not about to write off our future generations because of a five percent drift right or left in the ever changing body politic.
The fact that drug use, crime, and teenage pregnancy is down is much more important to me.
As a visiting centrist on your good blog, let me posit that the reason for the youth trend mirrors the reason that the country in general is trending left, with the latest Rasmussen identifying the gap between self identified Democrats vs. Republicans now at 41.5 to 31.8 percent, about the highest since 1964:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends
I do not think it is because of any fondness for the welfare state or higher taxes or amnesty for immigrants, but because of the GOP stands on the environment, healthcare, and an interventionist foreign policy.
I think conservatives on these issue have both drifted from reality as well as the American concensus.
I see nothing in the history of conservatism that would not support a cautious approach to the environment and certainly no support for using our military to intervene in international geopolits that are no direct threat to the homeland.
Healthcare is a bit different. Universal healthcare would definitely expand government and taxes, and I can clearly see a clear conservative ideological argument against it. However, the current system is such a frightening mess to people, and so wasteful, that pragmatism will trump ideology, and Americans will no longer accept the status quo which has generally been the GOP line with the exception of Romney.
Of those issues, the youth in particular, are tied to the environment- they will still be here when we are gone, and the military- they fight the wars. McCain has good environment credentials.
I don't know how the war will play. The vocal anti-war crowd on the left always turns off the public and McCain actually managed to outpoll his GOP rivals among people opposed to the war.
I think he can make a good argument not to pull out precipitously from Iraq, but needs to distance himself from the Wolfowitz and company philosophy.
Comment by yonkel | March 14, 2008
Fellows, apologize so much for my rudeness in not responding earlier. I get busy during the week. This generation is unique. I do grant that older people have always had gripes about younger people but this situation is new. Never before has reading been so unpopular and never before has so much of life been tied to what goes on upon a glowing screen of some kind. Heimowitz in CJ cites a statistic that the average man in the 18 to 34 yo age bracket plays nearly 3 hours of video games a day…which is horrifying. Further, the transcendence of rap of hip-hop music attests to this fact. So much of it is sampled from works I recognize from the 80s and 90s (if there’s really even music at all). Yes, performers have always borrowed from their predecessors but not in the systematic fashion they do today. As for lyrics, sometimes they’re so unimaginative and crass one can barely listen to them.
With Obama’s gilded youth, one must remember that this generation is the first one to really be indoctrinated fully by their professors. Talk to some of these kids. They really believe in the Howard Zinn version of US history. They believe in lies about patriarchy and white privilege. Many of them are ashamed of their ancestors and despise their heritage. They are not individuals whose opinions should ever be sought regarding our nation’s defense.
Comment by berncois | March 15, 2008
Befair, generalizing is not deplorable here it’s quite accurate in regards to these young men and women. The media and a candidate’s fluff and circumstance has caused “their awakening.” There is no substance other than socialism to Obama and socialism inherently appeals to those who are not working and those who make no contribution to society.
Comment by berncois | March 15, 2008
Patrick, I do not disagree with you overall. You understand that we speak of means right? Not “all young people,” that’s a straw man argument. Further I do no think “ignorance and imbecility is the exclusive domain of young people” but that it is prevalent among those with no life experiences is a given which is a major reason why no one should listen to them.
Comment by berncois | March 15, 2008
Raymond, the Jazz Age never featured PC indoctrination of the young. Nowadays the young are taught that conservative equates with “close minded, ignorant, selfish” and “hateful.” It equates with none of those things. The young cannot be expected to defend themselves against this onslaught. They have no experience with which to guide them or the necessary focus. Hormones matter and politics is an abstraction. I didn’t either have the will or focus when I was their age. I voted for Jerry Brown in the 1988 Michigan Primary. My father taught me that Democrats cared about the poor and that Republicans only cared about the rich. It turned out that he didn’t know anything about politics but who was I to argue as a college freshman? Indeed, these youths will readily question George Bush’s authority but not that of their leftover left professors.
Comment by berncois | March 15, 2008
Befair i responded to you but it appears to be missing: let me try again: generalizing is not deplorable here it’s quite accurate in regards to these young men and women. The media and a candidate’s fluff and circumstance has caused “their awakening.” There is no substance other than socialism to Obama and socialism inherently appeals to those who are not working and those who make no contribution to society.
fellows, i'll let you have the last word, time is precious but thanks for reading
Comment by berncois | March 15, 2008
Does the author have children or grandchildren. I am encouraged by my children and grandchildren.
The behaviour of youth is always bound to raise the collective eyebrows of their elders.
Give them a break and God bless em.
Besides, the behaviour of my day consisted of smoking pot and listening to Led Zepellin, not exactly the Lords work.
Comment by yonkel | March 17, 2008
Yonkel,
I am wary of the ‘centrist’ label and wonder on what basis you consider yourself one. ‘Centrist' is one of those terms that can mean many things and nothing. Some self-styled centrist are socialists who think, because they condemn the riotous, take-no-prisoners misbehavior of that ideology, can be excused despite supporting the same values and conclusions. Others think themselves centrists because they support some Republican measures and some Democrat; never admitting both are left of center. Still others, and more justifiably, are centrist because they are ignorant where they stand in the political spectrum and disinterested; but are better labeled apathetic. Finally, there are those ‘centrists’ who think conservatively, but cannot overcome the liberal programming they’ve been fed all their lives, are brainwashed into equating ‘conservative’ with ‘fascist’, and half-heartedly support conservative positions when safe to do so. It is very tricky remaining a centrist on the political playground. Sooner or later, we all have to decide we are liberal or conservative, and make a stand accordingly.
The Rasmussen poll represents a tiny sample (15,000 or 0.005% of the population) re-sampled monthly. The sampling methodology is minimally described at: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology. This type of poll is more useful for identifying shifts than overall composition; so all this tells me is there’s been no major shift since 2006. If anything, Democrat numbers slipped a bit late-2007, but have since regained most of that (see http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/party_affiliation/summary_of_party_affiliation). However, the shift leftward is now slowing appreciably and may signal the beginning of a rightward swing. The Rasmussen report you gave us tells us nothing about why these shifts occur, but I can offer a simpler answer: the politically ambivalent are fickle and easily stampeded. They generally return to an equilibrium state that is a little more liberal than conservative. Those are people who shift allegiance the way you or I might change clothes and can be viewed as a Brownian cloud chasing itself. The typical unaligned voter has the libertarian’s regard of power, is wary of both parties, and often casts his vote in a futile attempt at keeping both weak and off-balance. The unchecked growth we’ve seen in government proves that does not work beyond a certain point; though it has, and still can, slow usurpation if well organized and with respect to specific, limited objects (e.g., the Contract with America).
As to influencing these shifts, I totally disagree. Chasing Democrats by mending our international fences and statist patronizing like health and environment are surefire formulas for losing. If all we do is compete with Democrats in their game, we end up liberal-lite; with nothing to distinguish between us and them. The independent voter and youth are, then, more apt to say the heck with us and swing leftward as having the more concrete agenda. If we don’t want people buying the liberal nonsense of free-rides, we need to offer something better – not less of the same trite nonsense. That means selling people on the idea excessive government is a trap, not a safety-net. The difficulty is telling people they don’t need a free-ride when, in fact, the ride is anything but free. This has less appeal than government as 'mommy', such that only those old enough to understand the fraud, those once bitten or unusually perceptive, will understand the need to vote more conservatively than a simple balanced 2-party polarity suggests. This is not an easy sell, and you won’t do it by vindicatin people in the belief they need help or we that need world-approval to make the world a better, safer place. We do it by telling the rest of the world they can either follow our lead or shift for themselves, not by asking their leave. This takes confidence, boldness, and the knowledge what we do is in the right. It does not require we join the liberal shame-&-blame choir. I believe the American people, especially its youth, are looking for someone to inspire them to feel pride the way Reagan did. You don’t win by playing catch up and you don’t advance conservatism by sacrificing its principles. You win by asserting them.
Comment by Bob Stapler | March 21, 2008
(cont. from #12)
Every one of those things you mentioned – environmentalism, healthcare mandates, anti-interventionism (aka isolationism) does just that. But, I will focus mainly on healthcare as the most enticing to the uninitiated and most dangerous politically.
If healthcare costs have spiraled out of control, it is not least because of over-regulation and a litigation industry favored and protected by tort lawyers we generally elect to govern. Now, you suggest, we need government to insinuate itself further, guaranteeing the cost of decent care skyrockets while bad care abounds. The problem with all governmental healthcare takeovers is they pretend to deliver equal goods. They don't and can't. Look close the state-run healthcare systems of Britain, Canada, Sweden, &c to see what a real healthcare meltdown looks like. The more you take personal decisions out of our hands and put them into government’s, the more you put our health at risk. Under state-run systems, decisions are immediately made to cut costs by limiting access to the most costly services; substituting older, cheaper services, drugs and technologies. Staff cuts and support functions are similarly cut in an effort to keep cost flat. Without any incentive to devise new drugs, pharmaceuticals shrivel and go bust. As soon as drugs can be produced and shipped cheaper from India, Mexico, or China, the advantage goes to them. Cost cutting successively makes the next lower technology more precious, driving up cost and negating first savings. A new round of cost cutting ensues, denying still more services and life-saving technologies; until a point is reached people are set to revolt. As there is no further profit motive, available technology and knowledge stagnate, and may even degrade. Hospital repair and sanitation becomes neglected, as in Britain. Doctor's become indifferent to patients and wait times become longer than many patients can endure. This is what both Democrats and Republicans are proposing for us to keep medical cost from going higher and to bring minimal care within everyone’s reach. It will do both, but only by eviscerating the level of care we now enjoy.
Considering your medical dollars protect both your health and your ability to earn a decent living, the so-called high price of modern healthcare, even dialing in the added cost of regulation and litigation, is really a bargain. Instead of whining about how costly it is, consider the loss it would represent if you did not have available to you things like wonder drugs, high-technology, and a medical knowledgebase unheard of in your father’s day. Modern medicine is costly, mainly, because take-two-aspirin-and-call-me-in-the-morning is a whole lot cheaper than chemotherapy, MRI’s, and neurosurgery. But, which do you think is going to keep you alive and supporting your family should you develop a brain tumor the size of a fig? Don’t want to pay the price of modern healthcare – fine, you are just as free to choose the level of care your grandparents received, and at a substantially lower (adjusted for inflation) price. Just, please, don’t expect others to foot the bill for what is your right to buy the best (or worst) care available - no more, no less. Your grandparents paid no premiums, had no employee benefits, and no Medicaid/Medicare. When they got sick, they paid out of pocket, borrowed, or muddled through using home remedies. If they got really sick, they died. That is all any of us are really entitled to by right of birth. Everything else, we create; not government. So, if you wish to sell us on socialized medicine, you are going to have to sell us first on the monumentally stupid notion we are better off putting government in charge of our health decisions with no way to back out. Think not? Look at Britain. Look at our public education system, how dysfunctional that is since government took it over, and how hard it is opting out.
Comment by Bob Stapler | March 21, 2008
(cont. from #13)
If the average American is “frightened” by the current healthcare “mess”, just think how “frightened” they’ll be when they are paying every bit as much in taxes for care that does not serve us half so well or healthy; some dying while waiting months to years for screenings we get within days.
Environmentalists shamelessly and mercilessly proclaim America prime culprit for every phony disaster from global species extinction to global-warming, DDT bird-death to SIDS, acid-rain to microwave-mutation, and ozone pollution to ozone destruction. Global-warming, if that is what you are referencing, is the biggest hoax yet to excite human folly. McCain having “good environmentalist credentials” does not exactly endear us to him and only shows how flawed he is as a conservative.
Where you say: "I think conservatives on these issue have both drifted from reality as well as the American consensus. I see nothing in the history of conservatism that would not support a cautious approach to the environment …", you are totally wrong and, if there has been a drift it has been away from both realism and conservatism. Buckley defined conservatism as “standing in the middle of the road, yelling – STOP!” Though incomplete, it says the conservative is the guy resisting the pull of lunatics to jump on the bandwagon. The ‘consensus’ on these three points (healthcare, environmentalism, and internationalism) are distinctly anti-conservative; only tangentially and disingenuously reflective of such principles as 'life & pursuit of happiness', husbandry, and sovereignty. The conservative supports your right to the best care available and will take your side when you've been cheated of it. He will even join you in partnering group rates and give generously to charities supporting those truly indigenous. But, he will not support what can only be forcible confiscation from those who labor most and best to give to those disinclined to provide for themselves. The conservative may support protecting the environment, but will not do so through crippling enterprise or punishing and taxing normal human behavior. And, the conservative will support cooperation between nations, but nothing usurping our sovereignty or personal rights. As the tendency of internationalism is the obliterating of sovereignties in favor of a single world-state, and, as that state is unlikely to sustain our peculiar freedoms, it is ridiculous thinking conservatives would support that.
"… and certainly no support for using our military to intervene in international geopolits that are no direct threat to the homeland." is again wrong. You must be confusing us with socialists and the Libertarian Party. Liberals developed the weird notion countries ought never to fight for any reason than self-defense, only when directly attacked on our own soil, and, then, only allowing us to repel up to our borders. Anyone who has ever had to defend himself against a bully or berserker can tell you that is horse-manure and a sure formula for getting killed. Our enemies have no such scruple regarding our sovereignty, as was amply demonstrated by 9/11 and similar attacks. Those countries you regard as “no direct threat” have been and remain indirect threats providing cover, safe-passage and assets to those who would destroy us or our way of life. All have deniability, yet all have been complicit. How do you expect to prevent such attacks if we must keep both hands tied behind our backs? The only way to prevent such repeats is to dig them out of their holes, and that means using our military. This is not (or should not be) a conservative stance alone because our very survival is at stake should we fail to convince our enemies they are better off staying home. It is a little late for even that, however. Now, we are engaged, and you do not pull back in the middle of a fight or you are dead.
Comment by Bob Stapler | March 21, 2008
Bernard,
The youngest man at the constitutional convention in 1787 was 26 years old. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" and the "Father of the Bill of Rights", was a comparatively young 35 years old at the time. There were men at the very same convention much older, and with much more experience - the oldest of which was Benjamin Franklin at 81. Fortunately enough for the future of this country, the old, wise men at the convention didn't simply blow off the young men at the convention as inexperienced rubes incapable of serious thinking.
I understand that you are speaking of means. But if we are to be fair, is intelligence distributed any differently among young people than older people? There's certainly no evidence of such. Speaking strictly in terms means, adults of any age are equally as likely to be unintelligent. And judging simply by the anecdotal evidence, it seems to me that historically speaking, older people are just as likely to be ignorant, naive, and ill-informed as young people when it comes to political matters. FDR socialism certainly wasn't ushered in by a frenzied mob of adolescent Neanderthals. Neither was Johnson-era new-New Deal-ism. As I mentioned before, young people do not constitute a plurality of the vote. To blame Barack Obama's, or any other politician's, success strictly on a frenzied following of ignorant youths is absurd. It takes an entire ignorant party to elect an ignorant candidate.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 23, 2008
Gentlemen,
All of you have made some good points about youth. Patrick Mulligan, you represent those youths in every generation that are level-headed, and who refute the kind of over-generalization made here. Raymond is right that my generation, that of he 60s, was just as self-indulgent and ill-prepared to make decisions concerning the lives and wellbeing of millions; and Berncois makes the equally valid point many of my generation are making no better choices as grey-beards. Befair expects too much with his notion of “transformational voice” and Yonkel verges on worship regarding his grandkids, yet each new generation does infuse, at least, the hope they’ll do a little better.
So, the question is not whether this generation is fit to participate so much as when any generation is ready. Ideally, every citizen, regardless of age, has the same right and same entitlement to vote. Yet, we all recognize certain limitations based on maturity. We don’t put major decisions with life altering consequences in the hands of toddlers. Yet, we are exceedingly reluctant to take that same capability out of the hands of those too feebleminded by great age for fear of injustice. We should be reluctant to disenfranchise others, but does that mean it is not in some cases necessary? If we have made a mistake in giving youth too much power too soon, then we would be irresponsible leaving them in possession of it.
One problem I see with reducing the age of franchise is that none of us becomes adept at voting without some means of practicing it. It is no good holding mock elections and running for mock offices, because the feedbacks from these are pure fantasy taught by ‘wobblies’ with juvenile notions. So, the first practical application most of us get is electing some jerk we imagine is the messiah and who, invariably, lets us down. Still, a better transition ought to be possible providing ‘graduated’ voting powers, say voting first in local elections, then state, then federal. This would allow youth to vote in situations where the issues are clearer and the consequences more tangible and immediate; but also less destructive or irreversible.
On the other hand, there ought to be some connection between the business of voting representatives and the objects for which they are elected. For adults, this is pretty clear. Government creates laws constraining our independence of action. Most adults have property and wealth that are subject to confiscation by government, and ought, therefore, have some say in when, how much, and to what purpose it may be confiscated. Then there is the question of service, itself a form of property subject to confiscation. In the early 1970s, we decided it was wrong pressing 18-year olds into service and not give them the vote. However, as soon as youth had the vote, they supported the outlawing all forms of compulsory service; invalidating the very reason they’d been granted a vote. Youth, by definition, are still under some constraint by virtue of an inability to fend for themselves. Whether this constraint is imbedded in law or circumstance is moot, so long as they are substantially dependent. A similar case can be made for the adult-indigent who make a lifelong habit of meeting their needs at taxpayer expense. Should they have the same vote as those who pay the cost of government? Or should theirs be more limited? What of those of us in the middle? We pay less than the truly rich? This same logic would dictate their vote be proportional to how much they pay versus what we pay. Clearly, that misses intangibles and non-monetary assets subject to confiscation or destruction; and gives the rich an unfair competitive advantage. So, our voter qualifications may have some remaining inequities and youth may be a pain in the butt, but it may just be the best we can do with what we have.
Comment by Bob Stapler | March 23, 2008