In his column at the Wall Street Journal William Galston tries to explain why the youngest cohort of voters support Bernie Sanders as much as they do:
In one respect, at least, the Democratic nominating contest is running true to form: Sen. Bernie Sanders is getting the lion’s share of young adults’ votes. In New Hampshire, for example, voters under 30 represented 15% of the total but 28% of Mr. Sanders’s support. Voters 65 and older were 25% of the total but only 13% of the Sanders coalition.
The youngest voters haven’t always leaned left. In 1984 Ronald Reagan won 61% of voters under 25, more than his 59% of the popular vote. Something deeper, specific to our time, is at work.
The percentage of primary voters under the age of 25 who support Sanders has been reported to be as much as 45%.
Basically, his explanations are that the young are unaware of the history, they have little stake in the present, and they are “demographically distinctive”:
Today’s young adults are demographically distinctive. Nearly half are nonwhite and many are children of immigrants from countries like India and Pakistan, which were long underrepresented in the U.S. immigration pool. Most young adults are comfortable with demographic diversity and don’t understand why their parents and grandparents find it troubling. According to a recent Pew survey, 71% of young adults believe that the growing number of newcomers from other countries strengthens American society, a proposition endorsed by only 47% of American 65 and older. Sixty-one percent of young adults believe Islam does no more to encourage violence than do other religions; only 41% of Americans 65 and older agree.
I would go farther than that. At least a quarter and, possibly, more of that cohort are first or second generation Americans and did not grow up in what we used to think of as the common culture. They don’t have mortgages to pay or families to rear. Most do not have satisfying careers. Much is made of “work-life balance”, a concept that would have been deemed absurd 50 years ago.
They have few stakes to the future and precious few in the present. Their ties to things as they have been and as they are are quite tenuous.
“They have few stakes to the future and precious few in the present. Their ties to things as they have been and as they are quite tenuous.”
I don’t think that’s the case at all. Rather, I think they are angry, justifiably so, that previous generations are leaving them with a big pile of dung to clean up. The only future the Boomers and Silents have a stake in is ensuring the house of cards they’ve built doesn’t collapse until after they are dead.
What “house of cards” have Baby Boomers built? To the best of my knowledge the Congressional leadership has either been composed of Lost Generation, Greatest Generation, or Silent Generation since the Baby Boomers have been old enough to vote. The present leadership is almost entirely Silent Generation. The leading Democratic presidential candidates are all Silent Generation.
I think the complaint that Baby Boomers didn’t fix the mess they have been consigned is a fair cop but not that they created it.
Most federal government spending goes towards old people and or benefits wealthy people. Those two groups overlap quite a bit. Once again we are “growing” the economy by running up the debt. I am not surprised that they are unhappy, just wish they weren’t choosing such a stupid way to approach it. AS we have seen with the GOP following some loud mouth idiot who pretends to care about your out group doesn’t accomplish much other than make you feel good.
Steve
IMO running up the debt has little or nothing to do with “growing the economy” and everything to do with asset inflation. Such growth as we are seeing is probably due to relaxed regulation and time-shifting.
Few of our generations saw jobs as a way to achieve self-fulfillment. They were f**kin jobs to earn the cash to get personal satisfaction outside of work.
Too many of the younger generation seem to want to have fun and get paid for it. Or just be given an income so they can go out and have fun. And complain that life is so hard and nobody likes them and what did they do to deserve this and it’s not they’re fault they’re miserable because of White straight Male Supremacy or something. Some of little of the 60’s and 70’s counterculture now mainstreamed.
They also have been taught the fallacy of perfectibility. That America sux because it isn’t living up to the ideals of the Founding Fathers (who were white supremacist bigoted racist bastards) or the utopia their teachers have told them is their due. So they glom onto the idea that the imperfect must be destroyed to make room for the perfect. Not realizing that they are the cannon fodder of the revolution.
I see a lot of disappointment with life due to high expectations. It’s pretty standard now for parents and educators to tell children that they can be anything they put their minds to. Advertisers pile it on with little children growing into NFL quarterbacks in 8 second commercials.
Delayed gratification is a thing of the past, don’t sell yourself short, reach for the stars. In a world of A listers , millionaire sports stars, and people made rich just by being notorious who wants to be a diesel tech?
https://youtu.be/bWG1Zgv459o
Progress for women, but look what they are selling.
” To the best of my knowledge the Congressional leadership has either been composed of Lost Generation, Greatest Generation, or Silent Generation since the Baby Boomers have been old enough to vote.”
This debate between us is beating a dead horse, but I’d just point out again a few relevant facts:
– Boomer House and Senate members elected those leaders.
– I haven’t looked at the Senate number recently, but Boomers became a majority in the house in 1998, which continues today where they are about ~54% of members if I remember correctly.
– Every President since George HW Bush was a Boomer
– Boomers have been the most influential voting block for a long time and I think they still are the largest voting cohort.
So the argument that the Boomers have zero responsibility for the current state of the nation merely because they haven’t (yet) occupied the two top leadership positions in the House and Senate simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
The Congressional party structures don’t work the way you think they do. They’re not democracies. They’re tyrannies of the most senior members.
I completely support blaming Mitch McConnell (78) and Nancy Pelosi (79) for the pathetic situation in the Congress right now. You could add Steny Hoyer (80), Jim Clyburn (79), and John Thune (59). Thune is the only Baby Boomer in the majority leadership in either House. There are more Boomers in the minority leadership of both Houses including Chuck Schumer but minority leaders fall into the “bucket of warm spit” category.
” They’re tyrannies of the most senior members.”
Except there was Paul Ryan (Gen-X).
It’s only a tyranny of the most senior members because the members allow it and a majority of those are Boomers.
And again, the seniority system in the House and Senate, which definitely does privilege older, senior members, does not negate the collective actions and preferences of the entire Boomer generation, good or bad, nor the actions of boomer politicians collectively or individually.
Half the Boomers are already past retirement age, the other half should be in their prime earning years. In your view, at what point do the Boomers start to share responsibility for the state of our country? Especially compared to Millenials who are in their 20’s and 30’s and Gen-Z who are just reaching adulthood?
So your view is that Congressmen presently between ages 55-72 should have been willing to fall on their swords to challenge what the Congressional leadership dictated while Lost Generation, Greatest Generation, Silent Generation, and Gen-Xers didn’t? That would have been very statesmanlike of them.
The record is pretty clear on this. Members who go contrary to the leadership tend to get challenged in primaries. You go along to get along. That isn’t particular virtuous but it isn’t particularly vicious, either. The underlying problem is the whole party and seniority systems but those have been in place for a very long time.
Another issue: in both chambers rules are in place such that nothing can come to the floor without at least the tacit permission of the leadership. In other words the leadership can prevent rules changes that would diminish its power.
I would not be a bit surprised if the Congressional leadership skips Baby Boomers altogether. It would be pretty typical.
Basically, I think that Baby Boomers get an unfairly bad rap. There are plenty of things for which they can be blamed including a general decline in standards, drugs, and disco. But they shouldn’t be blamed for Social Security insolvency, tax cuts, or endless war, just to name a few.
People are born every year so it’s artificial to designate “generations” anyway. In our political system there is no reward for running on “sacrifice now for later”. But not to worry, we have immense resources and when crunch time comes, the will to act will be found. IMO
“So your view is that Congressmen presently between ages 55-72 should have been willing to fall on their swords to challenge what the Congressional leadership dictated while Lost Generation, Greatest Generation, Silent Generation, and Gen-Xers didn’t? That would have been very statesmanlike of them.”
No, I’m simply saying you can absolve the Boomers from responsibility for the current state of the country soley by pointing out that the no Boomer has served as the House or Senate leader.
And it’s particularly obtuse – to be frank – to suggest that our youngest generations “have no stake” in a system that older generations built and explicitly benefited from.
You generally have a very keen eye when it comes to looking at our country’s problems but your defense of the Boomer cohort is exceptional. I know you are a Boomer and I’ve said before that I don’t think my criticisms of Boomers apply to you, but it just is bizarre to me that you cut your generation so much slack and blame everything on the Silents as if your generation were helpless bystanders while, at the same time, disparaging Millenials and Gen-Z. Frankly, you and I should hope they don’t vote us into the poor house.
I don’t see my argument as cutting Boomers slack. I think of it as putting things in proportion. There is a presently a tendency to blame the Baby Boom cohort for everything but, in general, like every other cohort, they’re just coping with the hands they’re dealt.
I think there’s far too much adulation of the “Greatest Generation” and the Silent Generation continues to fly under the radar but, honestly, let us all, and I do mean “us” and “all” realize that there’s plenty of blame to go around.
Most of the people with whom I work are Millennials. They know I’m older than they are but they don’t know how much older. I look at least 20 years younger than I actually am. I like them and we get along fine. I do not preach. I teach, mostly by example, and I lead, mostly by default.
My impression is that I don’t think they realize how hard my contemporaries and I worked when we were their age. In my twenties there were times when I worked 100 hour weeks because that’s what the job demanded. I don’t resent it. That effort gave me the skills I have today.
I do resent people thinking that I didn’t pay my dues or that everything should come to them effortlessly and that includes people in any age cohort.
By “no stake” I mean level of responsibility, commitment. Getting married and having children is responsibility. Buying a home is responsibility. My impression is that the latest cohort of adults is assuming responsibilities at a far slower and far lower rate than previous cohorts did. Maybe I’m wrong.
I hold an oddball belief. I don’t think that happiness derives from sex, drugs, watching TV, posting on Facebook, or novel and exciting experiences. I think that happiness derives from responsibility and I think there’s an urgent need for people in that youngest cohort to take paths that will lead to responsibilities. Group responsibility isn’t enough.
@Dave: “The present leadership is almost entirely Silent Generation. The leading Democratic presidential candidates are all Silent Generation.”
What’s amazing is that we had our first Boomer president, Bill Clinton, 27 years ago. He was followed by another Boomer, George W. Bush, who in turn was followed by anohter, Barack Obama, and yet another, Donald Trump. Indeed, Clinton, Bush, and Trump were all born in 1946—and elected, 24 years apart, in reverse birth order.
That we elected a guy slightly older than Clinton 24 years later is bizarre. That we’re going to do it again 28 years later is nuts.
I don’t think that Bill Clinton or Donald Trump are culturally Baby Boomers. I favor a more narrow definition of the cohort: those born after World War II and before the Vietnam War who don’t remember a time without television. I would favor a narrower definition of Millennials, too: born after Reagan was elected president but before the turn of the century and can’t remember a time without personal phones.
“By “no stake†I mean level of responsibility, commitment. Getting married and having children is responsibility. Buying a home is responsibility. My impression is that the latest cohort of adults is assuming responsibilities at a far slower and far lower rate than previous cohorts did. Maybe I’m wrong.”
I don’t think you’re wrong, but the reasons aren’t because younger generations are lazy.
In the 50’s and 60’s the median home could be purchased for twice the median household income and that was a salary that was typically from a primary earner in the household. Today the mediian house price is 4-5 times the median household income, which is usually two earners.
Many state colleges and universities had free tuition for residents well into the 1970’s. That’s certainly not the case today.
It’s not surprising that people in their 20’s aren’t buying houses at the rate that your generation could.
Workers of your generation didn’t have to compete with cheap immigrant labor, didn’t have to contend with globalization, HS graduates could get well-paying jobs with benefits and upward mobility right after high school and college graduates had a lot more opportunity. None of that is the case today.
That’s just the most obvious stuff. Today’s America is a lot different than when you were in your 20’s.
I’m not at all suggesting that you haven’t paid your dues, but it seems weird to me to blame younger cohorts for not meeting some arbitrary standard of “responsibility” based on wildly different economic, social and political conditions – conditions which the Boomers, as a cohort, has a huge hand in creating and which younger generations bear no responsibility for. The Boomers (at least the white males) lucked into the post-war boom which benefitted their early years.
Hell, Dave, it’s actually hard for youth to even get basic jobs and work experience today. When I was a teen in the early 80’s, getting a part-time minimum wage job compatible with a school schedule was easy. I started working at 16 and continued through college. My daughter just turned 16 and pickings are pretty slim. It’s even a lot more complicated, lenghty and expensive for my daughter to get a driver’s license than it was when I was her age.
It’s a different world from when I was a kid, and even more different from your youth.
I don’t think that I ever claimed that they were although I think they have different and frequently unrealistic expectations about work. I think they’ve been misled and have caught a lot of bad breaks.
But they’re not the only ones. Baby Boomers paid more for their homes than the Silent Generation did (supply and demand will do that) and will probably receive less for them.
I’ve frequently remarked on that myself and have always opposed mass immigration. When I was in high school any kid who wanted one could get a summer job that paid pretty darned well. Now adults, frequently immigrants, are trying to raise a family doing the jobs that kids used to do part time.
I could earn $1,000 in a summer just mowing lawns without trying very hard. That’s when the median income was $6,900.
I’m not blaming them—just pointing it out. I think the blame belongs to their elders who’ve embraced a lot of policies that sounded philanthropic but just turned out to be self-serving. But the Baby Boomers didn’t make most of those decisions haven’t been and still aren’t the most influential decision-makers. I would include mass immigration and integrating China into the world economy under that category. I think both were bad policies. China should have been integrated into the world economy over a period of 150 years not 30 years.