A Boomer Finds Hope in the Millennials

In his recent Luntz Global Memorandum, GOP pollster Frank Luntz states, “If you’re looking for a breath of fresh air in this increasingly noxious political environment,wherein anger-driven voters permeate both political parties, look no further than America’s youth. They’re refreshingly, resoundingly sunny about America’s future.”

We see in the survey a big block of young voters who are socially concerned yet much more optimistic and progressive in their views than the populace at large.  I was a bit surprised at the gleeful tone of his memo, since Luntz is a right-wing political strategist. Speaking as a baby boomer who remembers the struggles of the 1960s and 70s, I see signs of hope among the millennials as shown in the survey findings. If we can make it over the shoals of the current election cycle, there may be smoother sailing ahead! 

Luntz Global surveyed 1,000 young Americans from ages 18 to 26 (he calls them "The Snapchat Generation). “These first- and second-time voters,” he writes, “see things much differently and with much more genuine hope than the older eyes that will mostly read this memo. And they’ll be bringing their own ideas to the polls – in droves!”

Some Hopeful Signs

Here are some of the things I was particularly glad to read (quotes from Luntz are in italics):

1. They don’t buy into American exceptionalism. The young are more likely to see themselves as “citizens of the world rather than citizens of America.” A much healthier view, I would say, than those who claim America’s greatness must be defended with an ever-increasing military budget, and with constant bellicose stances. We have to learn that we are a nation among many nations in the world, and therefore we must recognize military engagement to be an archaic form of negotiation.

National boundaries and nationalism just don’t mean the same to younger Americans as it does to their parents. A third of the Snapchat Generation (35%) define themselves as Citizens of the World rather than Citizens of America (65%). Among first time voters, the gap is even narrower: 42% citizens of the world and 58% citizens of America. This is a radical departure from what their parents and grandparents think about America and the world. Perhaps even more dramatically, nearly six in ten (58%) of the Snapchat Generation believe “America isn’t any better or worse than most other countries,” while just 42% believe that “America is exceptional. It’s better than every other country in the world.” First and second time voters simply reject the American superiority messaging in favor of the more global approach of the Democrats.

2. They put compassion above capitalism. By seeing the need for a caring community, they are freeing themselves from an ideology that extorts the poor, suppress the workers, and fills the coffers of the wealthy.

[T]hey didn’t rank “capitalism” as a top problem, but that doesn’t mean they’re in love with it. Quite the contrary. We asked them which is the most “compassionate” system, and an overwhelming 58% chose “socialism” over “capitalism” (33%). Heck, even “communism,” drew 9%. By a 2-1 margin, young voters see compassion in collectivism, not capitalism.

3. They just might be the key to wresting our democracy away from the corporate oligarchy that currently holds sway. Luntz’s survey found that young American are highly suspect toward business leaders and politicians, ranking them at the bottom of respected professions, while they place nurses, doctors and teachers at the top.

The hostility of young Americans to the underpinnings of the American economy and the American government ought to frighten every business and political leader as much as they excite activists for Sanders and, to a lesser degree, Clinton activists.

4. Most important, of the young Americans Luntz Global surveyed, 87% are likely to vote in the upcoming presidential election.

The Obama youth turnout was not just because it was for Barack Obama. This election cycle has clearly captured the imagination of first- and second-time voters. In fact, two-thirds (65%) are “extremely likely” to participate. Politicians, ignore young voters at your own peril. Because they sure as hell aren’t ignoring you.

Why Millennials Matter

I speak as one of those “Baby Boomers” – those born after WWII who came of age during the 1960s and 70s – when I say that millennials matter. They just might be the key to carrying forward the ideas that found fruition in our generation. We are, after all, at a point where we must begin handing over the reins of leadership to the younger set, and some of these young people are reminding us of the dreams we had for a better way.  

We saw big transitions with Elvis and then The Beatles when Rock began to hold sway. We saw "Peace and Love" at Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco and a music revolution at Woodstock, NY. We protested the Vietnam War and saw Nixon come down. I thought that my generation was bringing in that “New World Coming” that the Mamas and the Papas sang about. We were the ones who would make the world stop and take notice.

Our generation saw the birth of the Civil Rights Movement and the Women’s Movement. We witnessed the drive for inclusion of the LGBT community and the recognition of Indigenous Peoples. Social change was in the wind.

Then the reality pendulum began to swing. Reagan was elected and back came that era we thought we had put behind us. Suddenly we found ourselves in a world where discrimination was once again okay, fossil fuels could again be exploited (forget the energy saving policies of Jimmy Carter), unions could be busted.

Executives no longer needed not worry about equality and fairness, they could give themselves raises and ship jobs overseas to exploit cheap labor. Worst of all, the working class and the working poor bought into the plan because it was patriotic, and it was “Morning in America,” by golly! It was a big step backward for the visionaries of the 1960s.

Backlashes to Equality

Though we were never lacking in advocates for peace and justice, uncertainty and fear began to hold sway in public life. “No More Taxes” became the slogan of the day, along with, “Government is the problem.” As a result, social supports became hobbled. Equity in public life was fading as corporate greed continued on the ascendancy. We feared that the corporate oligarchy might squelch the hope for an equitable society.

Next came Barack Obama. Was there ever a more hopeful and exciting time than that inauguration in January of 2008? Then the backlash of racism and hatred set in. We had thought that we were ready to move beyond our prejudices and divisions, only to find that the hatred that had been simmering just below the surface was asserting itself was coming into full bloom once again.

Nothing to Offer but Fear Itself

Looking back, we boomers saw a torrent of conflict growing up as various social movements clashed with the establishment. We witnessed the call for civil rights, women's rights and gay rights. Many of us found hope in the successes of those movements as legislation was enacted and attitudes seemed to be changing, but in recent years, all of that work seemed in danger of being reversed.

We saw politicians tapping into people's fears instead of offering solutions. There were increasing backlashes that decimated labor unions, ignored worker's rights, and incited renewed racism and hatred. In FDR's first inaugural address, he said famously proclaimed, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Too many of today's leaders and would-be leaders seem to be saying, "The only thing we have to offer is fear itself." 

Welcome to Our World

With the Luntz Global memorandum, we now hear a more hopeful voice if we will but listen, and it is coming from the young. Who would have thought that a conservative GOP pollster and strategist would bring such good tidings of great joy? Welcome to the political world, millennials! I hope you do a better job implementing hope and social change than we boomers have done. We must not only find better ways to govern with equity and fairness, we must also effectively care for the environment. Judging from the survey, you have the vision and the votes.

-

Ayn Rand Redux

Ayn Rand is the natural spokesperson for Libertarian ideals.  Her novel, Atlas Shrugged, portrays a dystopian society in which the government suppresses individualism, creativity and initiative. The turning point comes when protagonist John Galt leads the people to stop productive activities, thereby starving the government of its revenue and bringing down the oppressive system. The idea being that human achievement should not be suppressed, and that oppressive structures only exist with the tacit approval of those being oppressed. When the structure collapses, then people will be free. Thus Ayn Rand presents her ideal of a world in which those who work hard get what they deserve, and those who are lacking in worldly goods are poor because they are lazy or morally defective. 

"Objectivism" was Rand's philosophy; individual rights along with the pursuit of one's own happiness was the essential morality that she espoused. She saw laissez-faire capitalism as the most logical milieu for nurturing the values of her philosophy.  Little wonder that Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan was enamored with Ayn Rand and loved her book so much that he gave it out to people. Rand was voicing what the right wing Tea Partyers are extolling: no more government handouts, no more taxing away our money that belongs to us because we earned it.  Government bureaucracy is inefficient and bad, private enterprise is good.  All of these ideals are to be found in Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

Paul Ryan is now backtracking because he found out that Ayn Rand was an atheist, or maybe it’s because she favored a woman’s right to an abortion.  The whole Ryan/Rand incident exemplifies something that I see that is wrong with politics and the media sound bites of our day. For one thing, Paul Ryan should be able to articulate which aspects of Ayn Rand’s philosophy he agrees with and why, and which ones he disagrees with. The problem is that such articulation would require a sophisticated understanding of the world that is not made up of simple black-and-white issues.  Such an explanation would also require more than a 20-second sound bite and unfortunately Ryan’s followers may not attend long enough to hear an explanation.

Ryan has made his political capital on Tea Party issues of private enterprise, no taxes, no government handouts, and family values. He is free to hold his economic and political views, though they are not views that I hold to. As much as I would love to make an issue of the “Godless Free-Market Capitalism” of Ayn Rand and pin that on Paul Ryan due to his past exuberant embrace of her philosophy, and as much as I would love to point out to Tea Partyers that their family values have been sold down-river by the money-mad right-wing politicians, I shall refrain.  It is important, however, for anyone to take stock of what they say they believe and to consider what the consequences of political actions would be.  The ethic that I hold to affirms that we are to take care of one another. The morality of a society is seen in how the weakest and most vulnerable are treated.

Blogger Bob Gifford has very succinctly written about his own conversion from Ayn Rand libertarianism in “My Politico-Religious Journey.” Darrell Grizzle, who has read extensively from the works of Ayn Rand, posted a timely piece on his Blog of the Grateful Bear just last week. I have talked about my views of what makes a society work for the good of all its citizens in “Politics and the Common Good.” Check out each of these short essays and ask yourself what it is that you envision for our society, and how can we get there?



*

How the Republicans Could Win by Losing

(Full disclosure statement: this is the essay that my wife did not want me to write. She said, “Don’t tell anybody! Keep this one under your hat!”)

First of all, does anyone think that the Republicans are serious about winning the presidential race this year? The only serious candidate I see is Jon Huntsman, a man who seems to understand government and diplomacy, and he also seems to respect what science and education have to offer. He also cannot seem to get himself heard above the din and cacophony within the Republican Party.  All other players have nothing that appeals to voters for more than a week or two of sound bites on the campaign trail.

This is why I don’t think the Republicans want the White House this time around. Why should they? They have gotten just about everything they wanted under the Obama administration while being able to blame all the ills of the country on the Democrats.  If they play things right, however, they could stand to win big later by losing this year.

If the Republicans continue with their current field of candidates and the disarray within the Party, they will likely lose the 2012 presidential election. They may even lose some seats in congress. However, a loss could play to their advantage for the next election cycle. If Obama is reelected, then the Democrats will not be able to run an incumbent. They will have to find a new presidential candidate, of course. This will create a more level playing field for Republicans and Democrats. But there is an even better possible turns of events. The Tea Partiers may fall out of favor with the Republican Party leaders.

The Tea Party Line

As a Southerner, I can plot out a line from the provincial southern attitude to the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party has Dixiecrat written all over it (I know, it also has the Koch brothers' money all over it, but stay with me on this one). It all began in 1948 when the Southern Democrats decided to launch an alternative presidential ticket. There was only one viable party in the South back then – the Democratic Party. They formed a third party, the Dixiecrats, set on preserving the Southern racially segregated way of life. The official name was The States Rights Democratic Party and they wanted less federal government regulation (sound familiar?). Strom Thurmond from South Carolina was the presidential nominee, with Mississippi governor Fielding Wright as his running mate. Like all third party endeavors before and since, the Dixiecrats failed to win the election, and subsequently went into remission for a season, scattering back into the woodwork of the Democratic Party.

In 1964, the Dixiecrats' ire was raised again with the Civil Rights Act. President Lyndon B, Johnson, a Texan, stated upon signing the civil rights legislation, “We have lost the South for a generation.” He knew the legislation was the right thing to do, but he also understood the political fallout – he probably even underestimated the inherent racism in the South. Nevertheless, the Democratic Party began to lose ground. Richard Nixon quickly used this to his advantage with his “Southern Strategy” which would play upon the dissatisfaction of the segregationist South without overtly stating race as an issue. The South was still firmly Democratic in Party orientation, but held on to the hope of being different from those liberal Democrats in the north and on the east coast. 

Ronald Reagan was the next Republican to welcome disgruntled Democrats. With his election, many in the South and elsewhere proudly proclaimed, “I'm a Reagan Democrat.” And thus the sands beneath the Democratic Party in the South began to shift. Now it was not just okay, it was politically viable to be a Republican in the South. South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond (that Dixiecrat candidate) was one of the first to move from the Democratic to the Republican Party. The dominoes continued to fall. Some would get elected as a Democrat, then change party affiliation while in office, as did Alabama Senator Richard Shelby.

Today, the Republican Party is strong in the south, almost a one party system again, just like in the old days.  That one party continues with the flavor and essence of the Dixiecrats. The difference is that the Dixiecrats are all Republicans now. With the election of Barak Obama, that old Dixiecrat dissatisfaction came to the forefront again and was seen in the Tea Party movement. Just as the Republicans embraced the southern Democrats into their party to increase their power base, they have kow towed to the shouts and demands of the Tea Party extremists.  Even Mitt Romney, who as Massachusetts governor seemed sensible, recently said on the campaign trail “I am the logical Tea Party candidate.”

Back in 1948, the country was wise enough not to go with the Dixiecrats (and admittedly, many Dixiecrats wanted to make a statement rather than win an election).  Today, we have an even more diverse and pluralistic population in the country. I don’t think the country as a whole will be comfortable with the Tea Party in control. With virtually every Republican presidential candidate claiming Tea Party affinity the whole of the Republican Party seems captivated by the Dixiecrat/Tea Party reaction to a just, modern and informed society (with the exception of Jon Huntsman who accepts scientific findings and refrains from knee-jerk reactions to the theory of evolution and global warming).

The End of the Line?

By fielding a gaggle of none-too-viable candidates, and by staking such hopes in Tea Party voters, a stunning loss might wake up the Republican Party. It could bring the whole Tea Party reaction to a head, ready to be cast out with yesterday’s newspaper. It is not that the Tea Party's voice should not be heard, but it should not be the controlling dominant voice to the exclusion of all others (and to the exclusion of all reason).

The Republicans could actually become Republicans again.  Even though I will vote Democratic for the foreseeable future, I would love to see a true Republican stand for office.  Where are the likes of Everett Dirksen, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Jacob Javits, Gerald Ford, and Nelson Rockefeller? These were sensible people, they were pro-business to be sure, but they knew they had to make accommodations to other views. Even Richard Nixon knew that with Republicans in charge, the water still had to be clean, pollution still had to be reduced, worker’s rights still had to be recognized, and taxes still had to be paid.  They were who they were. They did not claim to be speaking for the people while destroying unions and shipping jobs overseas. They had not heard of the absurd notion that corporations are people. They wanted a strong country and were willing to have some give-and-take for the good of the country.

So all of this is to say to the Republicans, if you lose, don’t be faint of heart, you may well see a great win ahead that could even benefit the country (if you quit your low down ways). And it is to say to the Democrats, if you win, don’t spend too much time gloating or resting on your laurels, you may yet see some real Republicans come to the forefront. 

                                                                                                                               ~ Charles Kinnaird

*     *     *     *     *

You might be interested in:

Politics and the Common Good

Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate Political Campaign Funding

Make Commerce, Not War

*

Death Takes a Bow at Republican Presidential Debates

On Monday night at the Tea Party Republican Presidential debate, which aired on CNN, there were cheers from the audience and shouts of “let him die,” when a hypothetical question was posed about how to handle the care of a man in his thirties who opts out of buying health insurance because he is in good health, but winds up injured and in a coma at the hospital. Those cheers erupted from the Tampa, Florida audience. It had been just a week earlier that death got a similar round of applause at the mention of 234 executions in Texas. That was when the Republicans were debating in California at the Reagan Presidential Library.

I found it odd that the party most associated with the right-to-life movement would be so gleeful about gruesome incidents of death.  I also was surprised that the Tea Party, which was appalled at the (false) notion of “death panels” in the healthcare bill, had people in its audience advocating that someone without insurance should die.

In another way, however, the cheers and applause we heard makes sense. The Tea Party advocates individual and personal responsibility and looks down upon any kind of government handout.  It’s an attitude of, “I work hard for what I earn, I want to keep it, if someone else wants a job and healthcare, let them earn it themselves.” Now that I’ve got that all worked out in my head, it sounds a lot like “survival of the fittest.”  And that makes me confused again, aren’t these the people who hate Darwin’s ideas?

At any rate, I get a little nervous when groups of people get so cavalier and even gleeful about the deaths of others. Does anyone remember reading "The Lottery," by Shirley Jackson?

*

Three Voices You Need to Hear

It can be frustrating living with a progressive mindset in a state where Republicans and Tea Party activists seem to hold sway. It is even more frustrating when I realize that most of the Republicans in my state are former “Dixiecrat” sympathizers. I’d much rather be contending with the old genuine-article Republicans like we saw in Gerald Ford, Everett Dirkson, Howard Baker, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and, yes even Richard Nixon.

When I see so many of my hard-working peers consistently voting against their own self interest because all they want is “no taxes and less government,” and when I hear of the Tea Party movement in Oklahoma wanting to form their own militia to “protect them from the government,” my frustration level increases. Yet as frustrating as it can get, I can say that it is not dark yet. When I see one of those bumper stickers that proclaims “Another bright blue dot in a really red state” I know there is hope.

There are other reasons for me to be assured that it is not dark yet. This week I read three voices of hope that I want to share with you – two from right here in Alabama. The first is Philip Watts, whose letter to the editor in The Birmingham News appeared Tuesday. My state legislatue recently rejected a proposal that would remove state sales tax from groceries. Alabama’s tax structure places an inordinate burden on the poor and the working poor. Mr. Watts’ letter states very effectively how faith should be at work in the market place, and how a state full of church goers can’t seem to hear the words of Jesus. (To see Mr. Watts’ letter, click on the link, then scroll down to the second letter.)

The second voice is that of public school teacher, Lynne Wilbanks. Ms. Wilbanks’ editorial, “Why I Don’t Hate My Government,” appeared in the Sunday edition of The Birmingham News. She enumerates all the benefits she receives by paying taxes. These benefits include food safety, water and air quality, air travel safety, and a social safety net. Click here to read her article. It is a wonderful, sane voice.

Jim Burklo, in his blog, Musings, made an entry last week, “The Blessings of Taxes.” He, much like Ms. Wilbanks, celebrates his privilege as an American citizen to pay taxes and to receive such benefits in return. Take a quick visit to his blog and read his entry. When will more people understand that we have a great gift in our democracy, even when our particular candidate is not elected? When will we realize that it is patriotic to support our country by paying taxes? Admittedly, there must always be give and take and debate, but when will we recognize that to have a country that works, we must all work together?



*