A dissipating liberal youth?

Yesterday, I attended an interesting forum at the Center for American Progress that hosted multiple Harvard University researchers from its Institute of Politics who recently conducted a national poll of 2,923 18-24 year olds between March 8 and March 26.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some General Highlights: (the most interesting)

Note: There was a 31% increase in voter turnout among 18-24 year olds from 2004 – 2006. The Harvard researchers actually attributed the victories in 2006 of Jon Tester in Montana and Jim Webb in Virginia directly to the sizeable increase in turnout among 18-24 year-old voters. Without them they said, “the Republican incumbents would still be in office.”

The poll showed that young Democrats favor Obama for President over Clinton (35%-29%), and young Republicans favor Giuliani for President over McCain (31%-18%).

It also showed that young people are as dissatisfied with the job President Bush is doing in office as the rest of the nation, with less than one-third (31%) approving of his performance.

Likewise, the poll indicated that a measly 13% of young adults believe the country is heading in the “right direction” while 59% say the President has led us “off track.”

With this too, half of young people today (50%) say that either “Iraq,” “the War,” the “War on Terror,” or “domestic security” is the most concerning national issue, with no other issue registering higher than six percent (6%) including education, health care and global warming.

Nearly 6 in 10 young adults (58%) favor either decreasing the number of troops (29%) or removing all US troops (29%) from Iraq.

Surprising to note too, is that when asked “which of the following do you think should be the next foreign policy priority for President Bush,” among college undergraduates, the obvious first priority was Iraq (29%), but the second was “dealing with the genocide in Darfur” (19%). Likewise, among 18-24 year olds not in college, the results were strikingly similar with 22% stating Iraq as the first priority, with Darfur as a close second with 16%. No other issue including “fighting terrorism” or “Iran” was even close in preference. In most national polls, Darfur in contrast, is barely even on the radar screen.

Almost 3 in 4 young people (74%) state that the US should let the UN and other nations take the lead in solving international issues.

Young adults today have a very “internationalist” mindset, with a majority saying they are considering working or studying abroad, while nearly 2 in 5 (37%) say they favor globalization.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So those are some of the more interesting results of the poll. However, the most interesting result of the poll I thought was the subject of a “New Ideology” that has emerged among the younger voters in our country. In general, most people in the United States usually regard young people as the most liberal among our society, with college campuses serving as “bastions” of liberalism. However, the results of this Harvard poll were at least for me, surprising.

Included among the study’s “10 Things Politicians Should Know About Young People,” number 10 was this:

“10. Traditional labels like “Liberal” and “Conservative” are no longer sufficient to describe the political view of young people, since a majority fall outside the traditional liberal-conservative divide. Many young people—whether very religious or staunchly secular—are still developing their political beliefs and therefore make up a critical part of the political center, which candidates on both sides of the aisle would be unwise to ignore.”

Researchers’ conclusion from the survey:

“Through data, both quantitative and qualitative, we now know that the traditional political ideology of the last century does not neatly fit this generation of young Americans. Forty percent (40%) of 18 to 24 year-olds in our survey report that they are “Independent”—not Democrats or Republicans and 46 percent describe their political views as “moderate”—not liberal or conservative.”

As it turns out, barely one-third of young people (35%) describe themselves as “Traditional Liberals” with more than half of the rest (54%) falling into the middle of the political spectrum, either as Secular Centrists (37%) or Religious Centrists (17%). I guess the best news is that barely 1 in 10 young adults (11%) would describe themselves as “Traditional Conservatives.”

So here we are, 35% Liberal, 54% Moderate and 11% Conservative. So my questions is who the hell are these so-called “Moderates” and where did all the liberals go???

The researchers said that the moderates are “defined as much by moral and religious views as by politics.” So with the Religious Centrists, thy apparently are more concerned about “the moral direction of the country.” And though the majority of them are morally against homosexuality, there are in fact the most supportive of universal health care of any other group within the 18-24 age range and are “known to be very green” on environmental issues—these being traditionally liberal stances.

And by contrast, the “Secular Centrists do not believe that political issues should be cast in a moral light and are generally less supportive of government’s role in providing health care and protecting the environment. However, they generally support domestic gay partnerships.” These people, the poll stated, are “the least dispassionate about their political views” and are “the least likely to vote.”

So there you have it: A generation of young moderates in a politically divided world.

Maybe it’s because there are so many decisive issues out there today. Maybe it’s because people simply just don’t care anymore. Or maybe, as members of a generation raised by the rebellious “baby-boomers,” we’re rebelling against society’s common assumptions and refuse to be simply “labeled” or confined to certain ideological designations.

As the researchers concluded:

“Democrats seeking the Religious Centrists must openly talk about their faith and position some issues in starkly moral tones. Republicans seeking the Secular Centrists must respect their views on domestic gay partnerships and inspire them to get engaged and vote in local and national elections. If engaged, this new center could well make the difference in 2008.”

So after thinking about it, although I am personally a die-hard liberal, and will stand firm on most progressive issues out there, I don’t know if this emergence of a “youthful moderate” demographic is entirely a bad thing. Here we have 54% of young people openly refusing to stand labeled by the right or the left. Rather, they have decided to conform to their personal held beliefs, and have actually created an environment in politics where the Democrats can no longer take those among them, who vote, for granted, and the Republicans will have to start paying attention. And in light of the 31% increase in voter turnout among them, it may have come to the point where the once young, liberal, yet apathetic voters of our country, have transformed into a more mature, headstrong, moderate demographic that demands that be attended to by both ideologies among both parties. To do otherwise, as Mr. Allen of Virginia and Mr. Burns of Montana found out, could be fatal.

With all of this, it does encourage me however that among the Moderates, each of the two groups held some aspect of traditional liberal views one way or the other. And with that, I find myself content with our 35% liberal base, and 54% more who are at least smart enough to consider both sides, and hopefully in the end, find that the liberal side is in fact, the way to go.

Oh What a Better Place the World Would be if David Horowitz Were Right

This post was inspired by David Horowitz's website www.discoverthenetworks.org, which, among other things, “defines the left's (often hidden) programmatic agendas.” You see, it would appear Horowitz believes there to be some sort of hidden unifying structure hidden within the left (the whole website is dedicated to the idea).
What I would give for this to be true. No, Mr. Horowitz, I can assure you, with a sad sigh, that the left is little more than a hundred different voices all competing to be heard. One would think the philosophical home of economic justice, socialism, and yes, communism, would be capable of dividing the pie more equally, but without the authoritarian structures of the right we seem to be better at practicing free market capitalism (in the marketplace of ideas) than the free market capitalists.
To illustrate this point I decided to break down the liberal activist movement in the United States. I want to model the the issues and groups that make up the activist branch of US liberalism. Note, it will not be perfect, many of these issues and categories will be debatable on a philosophical level, and in all honesty, liberalism has few bounds. I am, however, trying to get at a general theme which will make itself apparent towards the end end of the post.
I will start by defining the major branches of liberal activism as I see them: Civil rights/liberties, Equality, Environment, and Peace/Nonviolence. Each of these issues can then be broken down into an infinite number of smaller branches. The environment alone can be separated into dozens of smaller, interconnected, issues: Conservation, Water conservation, Pollution, Recycling, National parks Open space, Renewable resources, Animal rights, Wilderness protection, Clean air, Clean water, Global warming, Fossil fuels, Organic produce, Endangered species, the list goes on. It would also appear that for each of these smaller issues there are at least two groups (this may or may not be hyperbole). Among these groups are: The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Forest World, Surface Transportation Policy Partnership, Defend the Dunes, Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Earth Pledge, Population Research Institute, The Campaign for Political Ecology, The Left Green Network, and the National Resource Defense Council, again the list goes on (this took me five minutes to compile on line, imagine what I could find in an hour).
Given this lose breakdown one can only imagine how many groups both big and small are out there on every issue, competing to be heard. Could we please come up with a system, maybe a large organization willing to unite all of the voices into one. Just imagine our power if we did not have to bicker among ourselves to be heard.

Democrats' divided direction in Iraq

In this campaign season of democratic powerhouses heading full steam ahead in Iowa, New Hampshire and the rest of the early primary and caucus states, there seems to be a candidate for just about every democratic voter preference regarding what to do about the war in Iraq. From the LA Times:

----------------------------------------------------------
...the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, who have been nearly unified in support of universal healthcare, abortion rights and alternative energy, have begun an increasingly harsh debate over an issue that will probably define the early part of the campaign: when to remove troops from Iraq.

This week, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), in a departure from his own past statements, introduced legislation that would begin a phased redeployment of troops by April and require that all combat troops leave Iraq by March 2008.Obama's announcement set him at odds with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who has declined to specify a date for the removal of all troops from Iraq.

Last week, Clinton proposed placing a cap on the number of U.S. troops and threatening Iraq's government with a withdrawal of support. Clinton's approach, in turn, drew a caustic attack this week from Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) — a noteworthy development in a campaign that had been marked by collegiality. Biden said Clinton's proposed strategy for Iraq would "produce nothing but disaster."

Also coming in for Biden's scorn was former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), who six months ago offered a plan for withdrawal and became the favorite of many antiwar activists. Edwards called for an immediate reduction of 40,000 troops, with all forces to leave the country — though not the region — within 18 months.

Like Clinton, Dodd and Edwards, Biden voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the war but has long criticized the administration's conduct of the conflict. Democratic presidential hopefuls Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio and former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska have long opposed the war. Both advocate an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I guess the simple argument of withdrawing troops from Iraq just won't work anymore. However, with so many democratic Senators and Congressman running for President, how are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid suppose to set in place a united, democratic plan for the future of Iraq, when there exists so much political jockeying because of 2008? Who's to say the future of Iraq will not necessarily rest in what is best for the United States and the Iraqi people, but rather, in what is best for the political positioning of members of Congress?

Sure I think that each of the candidates do believe their strategies in Iraq would be successful if employed, but there’s always that side of me that wonders if each candidate is only providing a nuance to their Iraq plan simply to make them stand out and appeal to those democratic voters spread across the spectrum.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
…two Democratic governors seeking the presidency, Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Tom Vilsack of Iowa, also oppose the war. Richardson, who supported the war's goals initially, has called for a phased withdrawal. Vilsack says troops should be removed from much of the country, but he advocates leaving some forces along the Iranian border...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, more choices among the pecking order. I personally support Richardson, but again, is Iraq simply being politicized? Maybe it would be best if Pelosi and Reid and maybe even Dean whipped their members into place and declared, with one solid voice: this is how democrats are going to fix Iraq, no matter who is President.

Yeah, some republican’s remain divided as well, but the three front runners in the campaign have all come out in general support of the President’s plan. I only fear that with so many different plans and such disagreement on the issue among the Dems, the repubs in ’08 will simply stand up and say to the American people, “Do you really want one of these chickens pecking at each other’s heads about variances in a plan that simply will not work as your President?” I just hope the cock fights stay to a limited amount in the primaries, and that the Dems don’t make it that easy for a point for the repubs to make.

Pelosi's peculiar power problems

An article in the Washington Post last Tuesday, "Internal Rifts Cloud Democrats' Opportunity on Warming," uncovered the power struggle within the supposedly unified Democratic Party.

...Democrats, she [Speaker Pelosi] explained, had to show a sense of urgency about the carbon emissions that threaten the planet, and so she was creating a select committee on energy independence and climate change to communicate that urgency. The new committee, she said, would help the caucus speak with one voice -- even if it trampled the turf of existing committees...

...Pelosi's power play demonstrated her seriousness about climate, a complex issue that may be as legislatively difficult and politically treacherous as health care was in the 1990s. But it also reflected her seriousness about imposing discipline on her caucus and preventing a return to the days when long-serving Democratic chairmen ran their committees as independent fiefdoms...

...Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (Mich.) -- the longest-serving House member and a legendary defender of his committee's prerogatives as well as the carbon- emitting auto industry of his home state -- had made it clear that he expected to lead the party's global-warming debate in a rather leisurely fashion. Pelosi was end-running him.

Is this what we need? I have no problem with substantive debate about an issue, but struggles for power will ultimately kill good legislation, hurting the country. We (and by “we” I mean those elected to Congress—myself not included) were elected to make a difference, and while I don't mean to stifle the democratic process, these things need to be worked out in a way that won't harm our Party's power. Perhaps the problem won't come on this bill or this issue, but ten issues down the line, when each successive issue has split the party more and more, the new majority will come apart. If that happens then issues get ignored, and because legislators know this will eventually happen, there is also a fight about who's issue comes first, meaning greater division and less productivity.

...We've got Medicaid, Medicare, health insurance, prescription drugs," Dingell said.
"We've got leaky underground storage tanks."

Leaky underground storage tanks? When Glacier National Park is melting?

"Superfund isn't being properly administered," he continued. "We have safe drinking
water . . . what else?" His chief of staff, former auto lobbyist Dennis Fitzgibbons, mentions telecommunications, and Dingell is back to his list: Net neutrality. Universal service. "We have to address high-definition television, and a similar issue with regard to radio . . . "

Pelosi and her allies may think CO2 is more important than HDTV, but Dingell will
not be rushed...

Maybe my old fashioned TV is distorting the picture, but I thought my party had finally risen above petty bickering. All of the issues Dingell mentioned are important (yes, even HDTV), so rather than arguing about which one will come first maybe the Speaker and Rep. Dingell need to sit down and come up with a plan that will get all of them done. If they can't do that then they at least need to decide which issues they are going to allow to get stuck in gridlock, and come up with a strategy for explaining to their constituents why they let their egos get in the way of peoples lives. Madam Speaker, you have been given the opportunity to do an extraordinary amount of good, and I beg you not to waste it. Get this party together. Get an agenda that can be agreed upon, and get things done.