PDA

View Full Version : A Rising Generation of Libertarian Democrats




TER
07-17-2014, 12:18 PM
not sure if posted yet... coming from the NYT...


The Coming Democratic Schism

JULY 15, 2014



http://static01.********/images/2013/10/04/opinion/edsall-contributor/edsall-contributor-thumbLarge-v2.jpg (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/contributors/thomasbedsall/index.html)
Thomas B. Edsall (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/contributors/thomasbedsall/index.html)




There is a striking generational split in the Democratic electorate.

This deepening division is apparent in a June Pew Research Center survey (http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/6-26-14-Political-Typology-release1.pdf) of more than 10,000 people, “Beyond Red vs. Blue.” The Pew survey points up the emergence of a cohort of younger voters who are loyal to the Democratic Party, but much less focused on economic redistribution than on issues of personal and sexual autonomy.

Back in April, Pew researchers (http://www.pewresearch.org/packages/the-next-america/) wrote that “huge generation gaps have opened up in our political and social values, our economic well-being, our family structure, our racial and ethnic identity, our gender norms, our religious affiliation, and our technology use.” These trends, Pew noted, point “toward a future marked by the most striking social, racial, and economic shifts the country has seen in a century.”

I asked Andrew Kohut, the founding director of the Pew Center, what he made of these results. He emailed me his thoughts: “There is a libertarian streak that is apparent among these left-of-center young people. Socially liberal but very wary of government. Why? They came of age in an anti-government era when government doesn’t work. They are very liberal on interpersonal racial dimension, but reject classic liberal notions about ways of achieving social progress for minorities.”

One reflection of the confused state of generational politics today is that an earlier Pew poll, which I wrote about (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/is-rush-limbaughs-country-gone/) during the last presidential election, revealed that younger voters were less hostile to socialism than their elders.

Two other studies document the broad trends that the most recent Pew survey identified. A research paper (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2404046), “Generational Difference in Perception of Tax Equity and Attitudes Towards Compliance,” by three professors of accounting — Susan Jurney, Tim Rupert and Martha Wartick — found that “the Millennial generation was less likely to recommend progressive taxation” than older generations.

In addition, a July 10 YouGov poll (http://reason.com/assets/db/2014-millennials-report.pdf) of young adults (ages 18 to 29), sponsored by the Reason Foundation, a libertarian research organization (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/business/how-broccoli-became-a-symbol-in-the-health-care-debate.html) — “Millennials: The Politically Unclaimed Generation” — did not directly compare younger and older voters but does shed light on the views of younger voters generally. “Social and cultural issues are currently more central to millennials’ political judgments than economic policy,” the report says. “When asked to explain the reasons for their ideological identifications, social and cultural concerns largely defined their labels.”

Returning to the Pew data, even though younger Democrats are less committed to the central tenets of traditional economic liberalism, there is a strong body of evidence suggesting that the partisan commitment these voters made to the Democratic Party when they first came of political age will endure.

A paper (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/%7Egelman/research/unpublished/cohort_voting_20140605.pdf) published last month, “The Great Society, Reagan’s Revolution, and Generations of Presidential Voting” by Yair Ghitza, a doctoral candidate at Columbia, and Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political science there, found that the “political events of a voter’s teenage and early adult years, centered around the age of 18, are enormously important in the formation of these long-term partisan preferences.”

My Times colleagues at The Upshot have produced an interactive graphic (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/08/upshot/how-the-year-you-were-born-influences-your-politics.html?rref=upshot&_r=0) to demonstrate the lasting power of the partisan loyalties that men and women establish in their late teens and early 20s.

Although a majority of younger voters today are reliably Democratic, there are key issues on which they differ notably from their elders within the center-left coalition. The July Pew survey identifies two predominantly white core Democratic constituencies: the “solid liberals” of the traditional left, which is 69 percent white, with an average age of 46, who exhibit deep progressive commitments on both economic and social issues; and younger voters, 68 percent white, with an average age of 38 (http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/typology-detailed-tables/), which Pew calls the “next generation left.”

The two groups were asked to choose whether “most people can get ahead if they’re willing to work hard” or whether “hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people.” A decisive majority of the older “solid liberal” group, 67 percent, responded that hard work is no guarantee of success, while an even larger majority, 77 percent, of the younger “next generation left” believes that you can get ahead if you are willing to work hard.

According to Pew, the older group believes, 73-20, that “government should do more to solve problems.” Only 44 percent of the younger group agrees — and of younger respondents, 50 percent believe that “government is trying to do too much.”

read rest here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/opinion/thomas-edsall-a-shift-in-young-democrats-values.html)

LibertyEsq
07-17-2014, 12:32 PM
Sounds like the Democrat party is about to get a lot smaller then. "Libertarian Democrat" seems to be an irreconcilable oxymoron.

Ronin Truth
07-17-2014, 12:36 PM
Sounds like the Democrat party is about to get a lot smaller then. "Libertarian Democrat" seems to be an irreconcilable oxymoron.

Yeah, it sounds like an anti-statist statist. Or would that be a statist anti-statist? :confused:

ravedown
07-17-2014, 12:41 PM
liberty for all...regulated by the state!

jmdrake
07-17-2014, 12:47 PM
Sounds like the Democrat party is about to get a lot smaller then. "Libertarian Democrat" seems to be an irreconcilable oxymoron.

Kinda link antiwar republican?

William Tell
07-17-2014, 12:50 PM
I don't buy it, sure some of them agree with us on some issues. But they voted for Obama, and they will vote for Hillary because they care more about men being allowed to marry men, And lots of other stupid things, than anything that matters. My generation sucks:mad:

heavenlyboy34
07-17-2014, 12:53 PM
Sounds like the Democrat party is about to get a lot smaller then. "Libertarian Democrat" seems to be an irreconcilable oxymoron.
Not really. Certainly no more so than "Libertarian Republican". Both parties are hostile toward liberty generally. I've found that "liberals" are more interested in liberty than "conservatives". It was much easier for me to find pro-RP D's than R's in the last few POTUS elections. Of course, D's have a very limited definition of liberty like R's, but not as limited. Another cool thing about D's is that they tend not to be into patriotism and founder-worship and such, so they look at issues somewhat more objectively.

heavenlyboy34
07-17-2014, 12:55 PM
I don't buy it, sure some of them agree with us on some issues. But they voted for Obama, and they will vote for Hillary because they care more about men being allowed to marry men, And lots of other stupid things, than anything that matters. My generation sucks:mad:
Meh. I got a D to vote for RP in the '12 primaries. Don't write off a whole generation because the nogoodniki get the most publicity. You'd have to write off the Boomers too if you do that sort of thing.

LibertyEsq
07-17-2014, 01:02 PM
Sorry, but how exactly are Democrats more antiwar than Republicans? "Libertarian Democrat" is a farce of a term, which is why driving the neocons from the party will allow Rand to play in many more states than Bush/McCain/Romney did

heavenlyboy34
07-17-2014, 01:10 PM
Sorry, but how exactly are Democrats more antiwar than Republicans? "Libertarian Democrat" is a farce of a term, which is why driving the neocons from the party will allow Rand to play in many more states than Bush/McCain/Romney did

So is "Libertarian Republican". ;)

William Tell
07-17-2014, 01:11 PM
So is "Libertarian Republican". ;)

Tell that to Ron Paul.

LibertyEsq
07-17-2014, 01:13 PM
So is "Libertarian Republican". ;)

Not even close to the same extent. Not everything has an equivalent. All the Republicans have to do is drive out the neocons and take the approach of federalism on social issues, and it is back to being the natural home of libertarians. The Democratic party would literally have to do a 180 on almost every position that doesn't involve social issues...

Ronin Truth
07-17-2014, 01:14 PM
Sorry, but how exactly are Democrats more antiwar than Republicans? "Libertarian Democrat" is a farce of a term, which is why driving the neocons from the party will allow Rand to play in many more states than Bush/McCain/Romney did

Well the Dem boomer kids did sort of lead the charge against the war in Viet Nam.

jmdrake
07-17-2014, 01:16 PM
Sorry, but how exactly are Democrats more antiwar than Republicans? "Libertarian Democrat" is a farce of a term, which is why driving the neocons from the party will allow Rand to play in many more states than Bush/McCain/Romney did

Republicans are just now figuring out the Iraq war was a mistake. Anyway, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two parties.

heavenlyboy34
07-17-2014, 01:20 PM
Tell that to Ron Paul.

RP is a lifetime member of the LP. He himself advises people to run with whatever party will win and is a Larry McDonald (D) fanboy. I assure you, he is living proof that parties have nothing to do with libertarianism.

heavenlyboy34
07-17-2014, 01:23 PM
Not even close to the same extent. Not everything has an equivalent. All the Republicans have to do is drive out the neocons and take the approach of federalism on social issues, and it is back to being the natural home of libertarians. The Democratic party would literally have to do a 180 on almost every position that doesn't involve social issues...Bah, humbug. Parties are a scam. Not even the FF's were fond of them. They're run by those who hold the purse strings. (IOW, not you or anyone you have influence on)

William Tell
07-17-2014, 01:23 PM
RP is a lifetime member of the LP. He himself advises people to run with whatever party will win and is a Larry McDonald (D) fanboy. I assure you, he is living proof that parties have nothing to do with libertarianism.

Larry McDonald was more Conservative than anyone in the Republican Party. He called out MLK as a Communist, I would support a Dem like him in an instant, he had more guts than anyone else. But the D behind his name tells you NOTHING about the modern Democrat party. Name the last libertarian Democrat who won a primary AND general election. I can name dozens of GOP liberty incumbents.

LibertyEsq
07-17-2014, 01:23 PM
To this day the Democrats' most revered presidents are FDR and Lyndon Johnson, a few of the worst presidents in American history and the exact antithesis of libertarians.

Look I'm not saying I'm a big fan of the Republican party as of late. The point is, we need to show these "libertarian democrats" how ridiculous it is for them to be voting for these clowns so we can get them to register Republican and vote for people like Rand, Amash, Massie, etc. in primaries and in the general.

heavenlyboy34
07-17-2014, 01:24 PM
Republicans are just now figuring out the Iraq war was a mistake. Anyway, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two parties.

This^^

heavenlyboy34
07-17-2014, 01:27 PM
To this day the Democrats' most revered presidents are FDR and Lyndon Johnson, a few of the worst presidents in American history and the exact antithesis of libertarians.

Reasoning from parts to whole again. Older dems tend to revere JFK and the Kennedy dynasty more than either of those. By your reasoning, Republicans' tendency to worship Lincoln and Reagan makes them antithetical to libertarianism. As was pointed out earlier, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Red and Blue teams.

enhanced_deficit
07-17-2014, 01:29 PM
liberty for all...regulated by the state!

yep

LibertyEsq
07-17-2014, 01:33 PM
Reasoning from parts to whole again. Older dems tend to revere JFK and the Kennedy dynasty more than either of those. By your reasoning, Republicans' tendency to worship Lincoln and Reagan makes them antithetical to libertarianism. As was pointed out earlier, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Red and Blue teams.

I think the second half of my post which you didn't quote is more relevant to the discussion

heavenlyboy34
07-17-2014, 01:35 PM
Larry McDonald was more Conservative than anyone in the Republican Party. He called out MLK as a Communist, I would support a Dem like him in an instant, he had more guts than anyone else. But the D behind his name tells you NOTHING about the modern Democrat party.
And the R behind RP's name tells you NOTHING about the modern GOP.


Name the last libertarian Democrat who won a primary AND general election. I can name dozens of GOP liberty incumbents.
Define "liberty incumbent". I've noticed that around here that term usually means someone who agrees with libertarians on enough issues that they're tolerable. I don't know how many libertarian D's win elections of any sort. Politics are irrelevant to real life (unlike political junkies, I have a real life), and I ignore what the Red and Blue teams are doing the vast majority of the time.

Kotin
07-17-2014, 01:42 PM
There is a liberty revival going on. Not just in one party. This is country-wide.

jmdrake
07-17-2014, 01:43 PM
To this day the Democrats' most revered presidents are FDR and Lyndon Johnson, a few of the worst presidents in American history and the exact antithesis of libertarians.

Look I'm not saying I'm a big fan of the Republican party as of late. The point is, we need to show these "libertarian democrats" how ridiculous it is for them to be voting for these clowns so we can get them to register Republican and vote for people like Rand, Amash, Massie, etc. in primaries and in the general.

*BWAAAAWHHHAAAAAHHAAAA* If you think that LBJ is more revered that John F. Kennedy, then you must be smoking something. The most revered Republican president was Abraham Lincoln. While I'm not a Lincoln hater, many here are.

LibertyEsq
07-17-2014, 01:50 PM
*BWAAAAWHHHAAAAAHHAAAA* If you think that LBJ is more revered that John F. Kennedy, then you must be smoking something. The most revered Republican president was Abraham Lincoln. While I'm not a Lincoln hater, many here are.

Uhm, I remember from the 2008 primaries when Clinton and Obama were trying to out-liberal each other, Clinton kept quoting the "great president" LBJ. So yeah.

And funnily enough, I also remember a few Republicans in debates citing Kennedy's tax cut.

Lincoln is equally revered by Democrats and Republicans. Just look at Obama's practical worshipping of Lincoln on the lead-up and after his inauguration...

The goal should be fixing the Republican party by purging the neocons (who are really perpetual-war Democrats in their beliefs) and thus making the Republican party attractive for the people mentioned in this article. Then we get more people to vote in primaries for Amash/Massie/Rand, rather than behaving like hipsters and making people stay home by whimpering about how both parties are evil and voting for Nader or the 2% libertarian candidate in the general.

NIU Students for Liberty
07-17-2014, 02:05 PM
To this day the Democrats' most revered presidents are FDR and Lyndon Johnson, a few of the worst presidents in American history and the exact antithesis of libertarians.

And Republicans love Reagan and Lincoln. What's your point?

LibertyEsq
07-17-2014, 02:09 PM
I don't understand why you would go out of your way to press Reply With Quote and then edit my quote to remove my point, and then ask me what my point is. You literally edited out the part of my post that said "My point is..." and then asked me "What's your point?" Lmao.

Guess I stumbled into the defeatist section of these forums again. If you want to leave the parties as they are and engage in the great political feats of perpetually complaining about the two-party system and voting for 1-2% third party candidates, be my guest.

heavenlyboy34
07-17-2014, 02:19 PM
I don't understand why you would go out of your way to press Reply With Quote and then edit my quote to remove my point, and then ask me what my point is. You literally edited out the part of my post that said "My point is..." and then asked me "What's your point?" Lmao.

Guess I stumbled into the defeatist section of these forums again. If you want to leave the parties as they are and engage in the great political feats of perpetually complaining about the two-party system and voting for 1-2% third party candidates, be my guest.
I'm a realist, not a defeatist. :cool:

Keith and stuff
07-17-2014, 02:20 PM
So is "Libertarian Republican". ;)

Both terms make a lot of sense, especially if the word libertarian is written correctly, without the l being capitalized. This is obvious to anyone that has been to Liberty Forum in New Hampshire. Heck, my guess is most of you know it is obvious (well, if you have being reading my writings over the years) and are just having fun ;) :toady:

heavenlyboy34
07-17-2014, 02:54 PM
Both terms make a lot of sense, especially if the word libertarian is written correctly, without the l being capitalized. This is obvious to anyone that has been to Liberty Forum in New Hampshire. Heck, my guess is most of you know it is obvious (well, if you have being reading my writings over the years) and are just having fun ;) :toady:
Ah, the infiltrating small l folks. :) Yeah, I agree with that. Murray probably would too.

William Tell
07-17-2014, 02:57 PM
And the R behind RP's name tells you NOTHING about the modern GOP.
Define "liberty incumbent".

Justin Amash, or Thomas Massie on the national level, and Jonathan Stickland and David Simpson and allies on the State Legislature level. People who vote how I would want almost all the time.

heavenlyboy34
07-17-2014, 02:59 PM
Justin Amash, or Thomas Massie on the national level, and Jonathan Stickland and David Simpson and allies on the State Legislature level. People who vote how I would want almost all the time.

That's a very vague definition. Can you be more precise?

Keith and stuff
07-17-2014, 03:01 PM
Justin Amash, or Thomas Massie on the national level, and Jonathan Stickland and David Simpson and allies on the State Legislature level. People who vote how I would want almost all the time.

There are dozens of them. They are elected all over the place. This sentence is not in response to the person I just quoted but almost everyone here knows that there are dozen of liberty Republicans that are currently elected. Why must we play the game over and over again that there aren't when we all know that's not true?

William Tell
07-17-2014, 03:06 PM
That's a very vague definition. Can you be more precise?

:eek: People who vote like Ron Paul would about 90-95% of the time plus? Meaning they are with us on the major issues, I have few nits to pick with them:cool:

William Tell
07-17-2014, 03:09 PM
There are dozens of them. They are elected all over the place. This sentence is not in response to the person I just quoted but everywhere here knows that there are dozen of liberty Republicans that are currently elected. Why must we play the game over and over again that there aren't when we all know that's not true?

I dunno:(

56ktarget
07-17-2014, 04:50 PM
The article is confusing "libertarian" with "socially liberal".

NIU Students for Liberty
07-17-2014, 05:18 PM
I don't understand why you would go out of your way to press Reply With Quote and then edit my quote to remove my point, and then ask me what my point is. You literally edited out the part of my post that said "My point is..." and then asked me "What's your point?" Lmao.

Guess I stumbled into the defeatist section of these forums again. If you want to leave the parties as they are and engage in the great political feats of perpetually complaining about the two-party system and voting for 1-2% third party candidates, be my guest.

Because I was addressing your comment about liberals praising FDR and LBJ. If you're going to go out of your way to make that criticism, why conveniently ignore the tyrants that Republicans circle jerk around?

P3ter_Griffin
07-17-2014, 06:47 PM
The goal should be fixing the Republican party by purging the neocons (who are really perpetual-war Democrats in their beliefs) and thus making the Republican party attractive for the people mentioned in this article. Then we get more people to vote in primaries for Amash/Massie/Rand, rather than behaving like hipsters and making people stay home by whimpering about how both parties are evil and voting for Nader or the 2% libertarian candidate in the general.

Purging the neo-cons, the social republicans, and the religious right would probably do the trick, how many republican voters does that leave though? I find it tough to swallow that it will be easier to convince these individuals, who supposedly already think the government is bad, that their use of the government is bad, VS convincing individuals who think the government is good, that it is actually bad. The governments own actions make our case to the latter group (democrats)- they just need to have their blinders removed-, whereas throwing drug users in jail and bombing brown people, which we rightly consider the government acting badly, is exactly what the prior group (republicans) want. i.e., remove the welfare aspect of government ceteris paribus (with all else remaining the same) and the democrats will want to tare the government apart, remove the welfare aspect of government ceteris paribus and the republicans will think the government is perfect. That is not to say centrally mandated welfare is good, but on my list of government wrongs it is not high on my list, which I guess means I closer relate to democrat voters than republican voters.

Voluntarist
07-17-2014, 07:47 PM
xxxxx

Ronin Truth
07-17-2014, 08:10 PM
The libertarian theory for the last 40 years or so has been that we will attract the right folks with economics and the left folks with lifestyle.