Thursday, November 06, 2008
A Youngster's Interpretation of The Election
Now, I think Republicans tend to make more sense than Democrats on most issues, but the two where they make almost no sense in are abortion and gay rights/marriage. Since both are almost completely religious issues, I see no reason for politicians to control them. I've only heard one good secular argument against gay marriage, and no good secular arguments against abortion.
I was annoyed to learn that the Dems won in so many places and that the (primarily) Christian conservatives had decided to put all of their votes into banning gay marriage, of all things.
I was actually ashamed today because not only did Americans decide that we were useless, corrupt bums and that we had no place in Washington, we decided to prove it.
If the Republicans want to win, they need to know a few things about My Generation:
My generation has a very strong identity. People are pretty much accepting of everyone no matter what after you graduate from high school, but we also realize that most people are selfish jerks. Reading lots of existentialist writing (like Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut) has made us question God and religion in general. Therefore:
1)We don't take smack from anyone, unless they're cute.
2)We're not very crazy when it comes to religion.
3)We understand that people are motivated best by greed rather than altruism, and that's okay.
4)Don't trust any politician farther than you can throw him/her.
Most of the people who voted for Obama are not really libertarians. They're just liberals. Libertarians either voted half-jokingly for Ron Paul, Bob Barr, or not at all, because they realized the choice was between someone who promised "No Taxes, Free Candy" and a 72-year-old whose campaign platform was vague and uninspiring. It was kind of an ugly choice: who wants to be a fanboy to a cult of personality, but who wants someone whose primary redeeming feature is that he's NOT a cult of personality?
If the Republicans want to regain control in 2010 and 2012, they're gonna need us. Will we want them?
27 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Nov 06, 09:54:00 PM:
Well said Tigerhawk Teenager. I too am a Republic (who actually voted for Obama this time around) who is very disappointed with Proposition 8. This is not what I feel my party, or any party, should be focusing on.
The next Rep. party needs to change, and I think that you are onto something with the generational difference....and I'm a crusty 31 year old.
-Carl
By 
TigerHawk, at
Thu Nov 06, 10:04:00 PM:
By SR, at
Thu Nov 06, 10:06:00 PM:
As somebody here in Cali. said (perhaps, the "governator"). "The people have spoken." Prop. 8 is now part of the CA constitution. It should be obvious that many Democrats also voted in favor of Prop. 8 because if it only carried the Republicans here, it would have lost big time.
By Aegon01, at
Thu Nov 06, 10:14:00 PM:
SR:
It seems that way to some extent. I read about the demographic that voted for it and apparently mainly blacks and Latinos voted for it. I also heard from someone in my history class that blacks are the most religious demographic, followed by Latinos, Asians, and whites.
However, the evangelical Christians that were McCain's base decided to make this their primary objective, so they went to California en masse to vote for it in a state that McCain couldn't possibly win in, in much the same way that Huckabee won the Iowa primary so long ago. In short, they did it wrong.
By Pile On®, at
Thu Nov 06, 11:03:00 PM:
You have not heard a good secular argument against abortion?
I am not a pro-life activist but I will try.
Have you heard any scientific consensus on when life begins? We can talk about when brain activity begins but that can obviously vary. The arguments for life beginning at conception are as convincing as any and lack that messy gray area.
That would make all abortion murder, which I am sure you have heard secular arguments against.
One day hopefully not too soon you may see an ultrasound of your squirming little progeny fetus at 11 weeks past conceptions. Trust me, that is an argument with no words.
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 11:22:00 PM:
Regarding secular arguments against abortion, try the following. I'm really surprised that no one has advanced this yet in your hearing, TT.
It can be safely assumed that the majority of pregnancies end in the birth of people that go on to become normal or better-than-normal citizens, in terms of economic productivity, intelligence, etc. Therefore, why would it ever be in the public interest to allow individuals that are expecting a baby to, entirely at their own convenience (i.e. elective abortion), eliminate future citizens in advance of their even having a chance to show up and do some good in the world? Those babies are the society's future taxpayers, soldiers, ... . Since Roe, abortion "rights" in America have thus eliminated quite a few million people, many of whom would now be coming into their prime working years had their parents left well enough alone. How much bearing, I wonder, does this have on the solvency of Social Security? There is surely some significance in these numbers of people that aren't around because they were aborted.
Try that out as a thought experiment.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Nov 06, 11:25:00 PM:
We don't take smack from anyone, unless they're cute.
Thinking about it, that's sort of a timeless value. I'm fairly sure it is not original to your generation.
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 11:26:00 PM:
An excellent post. I will concede that you know your generation far better than I ever will (I am 53). With all due respect, sadly, you will need me more than I will need you in the coming elections. Your generation will be saddled with the responsibility of dealing with the Social Security and Medicare debacle that prior generations passed on to you. Yes, age requirements will be increased, the benefits will be reduced and they will also be taxed, but an increasing amount of your hard earned pay is going to go to this also – on top of the taxes and new entitlements that this Administration will dump on those who produce. You obviously have some talent and so that would include you. I would probably add “pissed off” as number 5 to your list a few years after one joins the work force.
You can argue about the morality of abortion or gay marriage, but I believe that many conservatives think leaving this bill to the next generation is reprehensible, if not immoral. Honestly, every liberal I have ever discussed this with could care less.
Frankly, Proposition 8 is more about leaving decisions about gay marriage to the voters rather than the courts. If the voters in California had voted for gay marriage in the first place, that would have been the end of the story. If the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade tomorrow, the issue would go back to the states. Do you think the State of New Jersey would ban it? Realistically, how many states would?
My guess is that gay marriage will eventually be voted in, and as such, will be accepted or at least more readily accepted. Having it forced on the states by a series of 4 to 3 court decisions is only going to galvanize the opposition. In the meantime, gay couples live together with more legal protections than at any time in history.
Now if your generation wants to vote its conscience on the above two social issues that may be more symbolic than substantive at the risk of your financial future and that of your childrens’, then my hat’s off to you. You’re putting your money where your mouth is. I just hope you are doing it knowing the consequences and that you don’t suffer buyer’s remorse later on. However, if you eventually decide otherwise, I will vote to protect your future – by the way, no matter how you may vote on these social issues in the future.
a. moral
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 11:31:00 PM:
Tigerhawk teenager --
You are quite wrong in nearly ever respect. Let me explain why you are wrong.
First, declining demographics means there is no youth "wave" and in fact youth voted in nearly exactly the same proportions they did in 2004. Which was not much. The Census Bureau has a breakdown of voting by age groups, Youth votes 45% and Seniors 75%. Seniors outnumber Youth by 8 million.
So no, Youth are totally unimportant and Republicans should not waste ANY time on them at all.
Second, neither Blacks nor Hispanics increased their voting participation, and while Blacks changed from around 90% Kerry to 99% Obama, they are only 12% of the population, so the impact was minimal. Hispanics voted for Obama, over McCain the Amnesty Supporter, so Hispandering did not pay out when a Black guy preaches racial solidarity with Hispanics explicitly against White guys.
What did in Republicans was SINGLE Women. Who voted 70-29 for Obama. Married women voted 60-40 McCain.
It is single, mostly White women, who carried Obama to the White House. In an election that had about 4 million FEWER voters than in 2004.
No, single women don't like Patriotism, don't like the military, don't like fighting terrorists, don't like anything to do with blue collar men, or anything really Republicans stand for. They want high taxes, high social spending, soft on defense and terror policies, because all the "smart" people want that, and single women care only about positioning themselves within their core group of girlfriends in status/power with the right fashions and opinions, and competing for the most hunky guy.
Any casual perusal of any single-women oriented show or magazine or website will show you this.
Republicans need to get more single men, with the argument that Republicans will make them rich enough to compete with the hunky guys for the limited amount of attractive women.
This is by the way the basis for the Gender Gap -- single women vote vastly more liberal and left than their married same-age counterparts. Because of their goals -- positioning inside their girlfriend groups, and competing for Mr. Big.
Most guys just want a girlfriend, so they compete to get powerful and successful. This is why guys on the make upwards are more conservative -- they have to keep more of their money to afford displays to attract women -- flashy cars, watches, clothes, living space. Michelle Obama found Barack Obama a "loser" because his car and clothes and housing did not speak money -- until she saw him speak and move people and thought that he could be successful and powerful.
Are these ugly, un-PC realities? Sure but they are indeed the truth. Republicans will never get Black or Hispanic or Youth votes. The latter does not show up much anyway. What matters is getting more of the White vote, single women will never vote Republican but Single Men CAN be induced to vote that way, for reasons directly aimed at their own self-interest.
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 11:32:00 PM:
If memory serves the propositions in CA are not changes to the state constitution.
They can be reviewed by the state courts and tossed in the trash if they conflict with the constitution.
But they are law. And they are immune from the legislature.
Someone from CA may confirm or contradict. It has been decades since I took the survey course in CA government.
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 11:39:00 PM:
@TT: Well put. I think the youth vote might open up when Republicans stop pitching the battles where their supports, when talking to people of similar age, start at a steep argumentative disadvantage.
@ Pile On: Simplicity by erring on the side of coercive governmental intervention in ethically complex matters isn't a feature, it's a defect.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Thu Nov 06, 11:58:00 PM:
Anonymous, at Thu Nov 06, 11:31:00 PM~
Don't speak of single white women as some monolithic voting block. I am a single white woman and I voted McCain. I would have much preferred Thompson, or later, Romney, at the top of the ticket. Sarah Palin as VP made me enthusiastic about the ticket, rather than it being an "against Obama" vote. And, I don't patronize much any "single-women oriented show or magazine or website".
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 12:41:00 AM:
Whence the idea that abortion and gay rights have only a religious basis? And there is, nay cannot be, a secular argument against them?
All our laws are secular and simply state what the government currently and formally forbids.
Most religions discourage or condemn theft but we do not, for that reason, seek to repeal secular laws against it.
Religions do not approve of adultery and yet secular laws about it are mostly repealed.
To summarize. We have laws that agree with religious positions and others that definitely do not. And we have laws that seem unconnected to any religious teachings at all.
Laws are simply what we enact. To say a law one dislikes is forced upon us by religion is not true.
One never says that a law has been forced upon us by secularism. We simply say we don't like that law.
Laws are forced upon us by government. Whether that is good or bad is a topic for philosophy. Now in this land they are not forced upon us by religion.
The writer seems to feel that religious people shouldn't vote against things he dislikes. But he can vote for what they dislike.
As far as attacting his generation:
Why would a person wish to do that by changing their principles?
I hope future Republicans will campaign for what they believe, not for what will win or attract some generation.
The universe won't be bothered if the GOP vanishes. A vote count tells us nothing about the merits of a candidate or party. It just tells us how people voted.
Teenage says he was ashamed the the Dems won in so many places.......
Why? Is there shame in voting for the losing candidate? When a party is rejected at the polls, in this case the GOP, who is shamed?
I would say no one. But then I have lost an election or so. And won some. Shamelessly I felt no shame as a loser. And no shame for denying the job to another when I won.
And there was a birthday party I wasn't invited to. And I never felt shame about that either.
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 07:47:00 AM:
First, declining demographics means there is no youth "wave" and in fact youth voted in nearly exactly the same proportions they did in 2004.
Huh?? Anon at 11:31 you may want to check current voting stats and not census records when discussing elections.
Obama outperformed Kerry in almost all demographics including the 18-29 vote by 12. And BTW, he also carried Joe the Plumber's income bracket by 17. Oops.
The one bracket he didn't surpass Kerry was the over 65 group but no surprises there when you have a 72 year candidate without a message.
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 08:04:00 AM:
Exit polls show that the youth vote supported Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin 66% to 32%, which is the highest share of the youth vote obtained by any candidate since exit polls began reporting results by age categories in 1976.
Specifically, college towns in the battleground states of Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Florida saw increases of up to 92% in youth voter turnout in comparison to 2004. More broadly, 18-29 year-olds represented 18% of the electorate while those identified as 65 and older made up only 16%.
According to CIRCLE, an estimated 21.6 million-23.9 million young Americans voted in Tuesday's presidential election, an increase of at least 2.2 million compared with 2004, according to national exit polls, demographic data, and projections of total numbers of votes cast."
http://news.aol.com/article/18-29-year-old-voters-propel-obama-to/239195?icid=sphere
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 08:36:00 AM:
Nice post. But, if abortion is a religious issue and therefore not a proper subject for politics, what would you suggest our position be regarding sharia? That is entirely a religious matter which seems to me to be even more of a threat to our political structure than abortion.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Nov 07, 08:57:00 AM:
I find it amusing that people in the party who just got its ass kicked are saying, "We don't need any of you to vote for us!"
I may as well register as a Democrat.
Enjoy your time in the political wilderness, guys.
THT: Warning: You can't speak for all young Americans everywhere, as you seem to imply that you do. You're from New Jersey. Your brand of 'conservatism' would not be recognized as such in my hometown. (as mine wasn't)
By Andrew Hofer, at
Fri Nov 07, 08:59:00 AM:
Excellent post. I have a feeling Dreck Teenager would agree.
I'm just here to quibble with commenters:
"the majority of pregnancies end in the birth of people that go on to become normal or better-than-normal citizens"
This is tautological (the mean result plus the upper half of the distribution is a majority (50.x%)
*Unless* you've got a way of measuring the theoretical outcomes of aborted children, and you know thereby that they are all below average.
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 09:01:00 AM:
@Miss Ladybug
Say it, sister.
Sign me: another white, professional woman who proudly voted for McCain/Palin.
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 11:21:00 AM:
Great thead! Thanks to anon for thoughtful views. Instead of worrying about whether abortion or gay marriage can be supported on a secular basis, I prefer to worry about the fairness doctrine, which is galloping our way. When this happens, it will affect TT and TH and all of us, in that we will no longer be free to express our thoughts on the internet. That's something worth worrying about.
By GreenmanTim, at
Fri Nov 07, 02:31:00 PM:
The oryx gazelle of southern Africa endures extreme heat and scarcity of resources, but in exceptional years of privation scientists have observed that pregnant oryx, under elevated environmental stress, will reabsorb a developing embryo rather than attempt to bring it to term win survival of both parent and progeny are at high risk.
Evolution favored the development of the ability to self-abort at need in this species. Or God designed the oryx this way, as you prefer.
By Elise, at
Fri Nov 07, 03:25:00 PM:
TH Teenager, I think you’re being a little un-nuanced (pardon the expression) with your statement that abortion is an almost completely religious issue and therefore politicians should not control it. If we think of politicians as the embodiment of society’s concerns (difficult, I know, but they’re what we’ve got), then do you think society should have any control over whether:
1) a woman who is seven months pregnant can have an abortion even if neither she nor the fetus has any health problems?
2) a 15 year-old girl who has been impregnated by a 30-year old man can have an abortion without her parents knowledge? What if she’s 14? 13? What if he’s a teacher or a minister or her uncle?
With regard to Proposition 8 a couple of commenters said:
Frankly, Proposition 8 is more about leaving decisions about gay marriage to the voters rather than the courts.
If memory serves the propositions in CA are not changes to the state constitution.
I disagree on both counts. First, the ballot proposition was an amendment to the state constitution. According to Wikipedia Prop 8:
would amend the state Constitution, to restrict the definition of marriage to "only" a union between a man and a woman, overturning a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right. The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 was "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry"; the entirety of the text added to the constitution was: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Second, Prop 8 was almost certainly a reaction to the California Supreme Court decision which legalized gay marriage through the Court rather than the legislature. However, if Prop 8 was truly about leaving decisions regarding gay marriage to the voters, it would have been simple enough to craft a proposition that read, “Decisions about which marriages are valid and recognized in California shall be made by the voters not by the courts.”
I think Megan McArdle’s analysis of this is generally sound. To paraphrase very loosely: trying to force this issue through the courts scared and upset people who don’t like the idea. More politicking would probably have achieved the same result legislatively in a few years with little or no upset.
I’m sure this is cold comfort to those who consider gay marriage a Constitutional right but I’d point them to abortion. Yes, the Supreme Court made abortion a Constitutional right. But that has hardly settled the issue.
BTW, TH Teen, it sounds like in your comment you’re alleging voter fraud in California. Am I reading you right?
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 03:42:00 PM:
Nice post THT, but I'll beg to differ on abortion. I'd argue it's more a philisophical than a religious issue, and as such government regualtion or prohibition of same is no more religion-based than laws against robbery, rape or murder. All such laws reflect a view that injurious acts should be prohibited to protect the victim. The conclusion that a fetus can constitute a potential victim in need of protection is a philisophical one (open to debate, obviously, but a legitimate debate) that need not arise from religion, except to the extent that you think laws protecting the sanctity of life and property are inherently based on a "moral" code that requires religion (a conclusion I would reject). Goody
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 03:56:00 PM:
Hey THT,
If you are the future of the Republican party, then I'm very encouraged and optimistic. I vote Dem, but I have libertarian leanings, and if the gay marriage and choice issues that you mentioned were off the table, then I could see myself voting Republican, since I think some of their economic policies are better.
I think that you are spot-on on the gay marriage issue; in fact, I would say we should get government out of the marriage business completely, whether gay or straight. Two individuals of the same or different sex should be free to enter into a "marriage" contract and I don't see why government should enforce that contract differently than any other.
As a pro-choice advocate, I would add only that I think whether or not to have an abortion is a difficult ethical decision, and one people have to make for themselves. Why do we want the government to make it for them either way?
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 05:53:00 PM:
@ Dreck this a.m.:
<< This is tautological (the mean result plus the upper half of the distribution is a majority (50.x%) >>
That's essentially my point. I just wanted something to use as a starting point for the rest.
By BJM, at
Fri Nov 07, 11:03:00 PM:
The factor in the Prop 8 vote that you're missing is that California's largest voter block; Hispanic-Americans are social conservatives.
Evangelicals have been converting Catholic Hispanics at a brisk clip for the past twenty years and they are pro-family and pro-choice, but also pro-government distribution of resources. Thus top of ticket often doesn't match down ticket choices.
Backers of conservative causes are successfully mining this social dichotomy by mounting propositions addressing "values" issues.
Calfornia is and always has been a divided state, here's an informative site that provides context and an analysis of the Prop 8 demographics.
So the Dems have conundrum; how to keep Southern California in the blue electoral column and their progressive Northern base happy.
By , at
Sun Nov 09, 08:25:00 PM:
Dear THT: great essay. Remember, though, that we (the people) actually hire politicians to run our governments for us. So if we don't trust them why are they there?
Second: your excellent writing proves that the apple never falls far from the tree.
Grandpa Tom
