When, during or just after last year’s presidential campaign, I talked to or read about young voters enthusiastic about Barack Obama, I found that a healthy percentage, perhaps as high as 80%, had little idea what their man stood for. They were enthusiastic about the “new kind of politics” he was going to bring to Washington, how he was going to change the ways things were being done in our nation’s capital.
When I asked for specifics, I either got blank stares, repetitions of campaign clichés or discourses on how Obama was different from George W. Bush.
It wasn’t just the young Obama supporters who had little idea what their candidate stands for. Lately, I’ve been hearing from some friends in Hollywood that their liberal Obama-supporting colleagues are dumbfounded by the amount of spending their candidate is proposing as president. They didn’t think he’d so increase the federal debt.
Given the spending and regulation inherent in the Obama governing agenda, the Republican Party has a golden opportunity to pick off a good number of Obama supporters, particularly among the young. That’s why I believe Michael Barone’s Examiner column which I quoted yesterday should be must-reading for anyone who wants to rebuild the GOP. (I hope he sent a copy to Chairman Steele.)
Pointing out that voters over 30 esssentially broke even in last fall’s presidential contest, Barone notes that Obama won younger voters by a margin of 66-32. But, he also finds that younger Americans “are used to making their own choices, setting up their own networks, taking their own initiatives.” This is not the first time he has addressed this issue.
And the Obama agenda discourages individual initiative.
If the GOP can succeed in reaching these voters and showing that Republicans prefers private to government solutions, they could pick up at least a quarter of Obama’s youth vote, perhaps more. (Private sector solutions mean more choices for individuals than do government ones.) And with modest gains among voters over 30, that puts us back in the majority (and comfortably so).
I’m not saying it’s going to be easy. And don’t yet have any specific ideas how to do so, but that is the task at hand.
While Barone advises Republicans against channeling the Gipper, contending he is “a remote figure to the young,” there is one thing about Ronald Reagan abundantly clear to Americans of my–and Bruce’s–generation. Although a septuagenarian in the 80s, he inspired the young of that era.
It’s not necessarily youth we need in our leadership, but those who can communicate ideas which resonate with younger voters.
A couple of things. First all, people’s view of progressive politics tends to shift once they segue from “tax-user” to “taxpayer.” A number of younger voters who identify as “progressive” or “liberal” today will migrate to the right as they gain more life experience.
Second, I look at the faces of the modern Democrat party… puffy mincing Barney Frank, hideous botox casualty Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid … who, in a calico dress would be a dead ringer for Granny Clampett … and I just don’t see the connection to youth and vitality the party so often trumpets.
I wish the Republican party luck. I’m in the target demographic. I’m 21, and a big advocate for small government. As things stand right now, there’s no way I’ll vote for either a Republican or Democrat President. Neither actually supports small government – they just want a big government under THEIR control. Once they start representing the people instead of representing their party, then I’ll consider voting for them.
I voted for Barr in the last election, and voted about evenly between republicans and democrats for other positions.
Problem is, the youngest voters don’t often think all that clearly… until they get older. The GOP might have to wait for Obama’s actions to alienate such voters. E.g., when Obama’s 20-point misery indexes hit in a couple of years (hardest hit: the young), or when Obama creates the ‘service corps’ draft that he promised in 2008, or when Obama signs the military draft bill that Charles Rangel periodically tries to bring back.
Voters under the age of 30 shoulder most of the burden for the war. And simply put, the Iraq War was very unpopular. That’s the primary reason why the Republican Party lost young voters by a 2-1 margin.
The other reason is that Obama symbolized a repudiation of our nation’s social history. It was a chance to say — “We are not like them.”
Not only the youth voters, how many adults and the so-called “educated” have any idea why they voted for the TelePrompter in Chief?
I know I can’t find any.
Bullcrap. There was no draft.
Erik, you completely missed the point of my comment. *Republicans* ended the draft, and kept it away even during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. *Democrats* want to bring it back. Obama promised a civilian ‘service corps’ draft in the 2008 campaign. Rangel, a Democrat, has been trying to bring back a military draft for years – possibly decades (i.e., Iraq having nothing to do with it). Sooner or later, Obama will implement one or both of those drafts – and THEN, all the sudden, you’ll see young people waking up and turning on Obama.
#4 – A few questions for Erik:
How exactly did voters under 30 shoulder the burden for the war? Were their taxes paying for it? How many people under 30 make more than $250,000 per year? Were they disproportionately taxed versus those over the age of 30?
And if the war was so unpopular, why didn’t The Snob – who was campaigning against Bush, not McCain – win by that percentage of the vote instead of a measly 52%? Or why, if he were running against Bush – who could not succeed himself – did he not win the inverse of Bush’s popularity at 35%, which would make it 65%? (I did the math for you, just in case you went to public school.)
I presume you are alluding to your belief that the vast majority of the US Military is under 30, that they’ve all been drafted, and that they hate to serve in an “unpopular” war. Check your facts, Erik – there is no draft today and I daresay the vast majority of servicemen and women voted GOP because of the DNC’s track record of defense issues. And I can point to literally a bunch of examples of enlistees who re-signed for repeat tours of duty in the Middle East.
Finally, what exactly was “repudiated” with the election of Count Baracula? Was it our sense of decency and fairness, since we elected probably the most unqualified candidate ever to office? Are we now dealing with the first “affirmative-action” president, who solely won based upon his skin color and not the content of his character?
To send the message “we are not like them” is tantamount to saying to our enemies “come on over and bomb us into the Stone Age, because all the grown-ups have disappeared.” Is that the kind of message you want to send to our enemies?
Erik, for what I consider the most ignorant posting I’ve read today, I think you deserve the “Billy Madison” speech in its entirety:
“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
#4, Erik:
The vast majority of members of the all volunteer military who are under 30 DID NOT vote for Obama. If the war in Iraq is unpopular with people under 30 who have no worries about conscription, what is the message?
How is Obama a “repudiation of our nation’s social history?” I am a relatively well read person, so I am not looking for an explanation of slavery and segregation.
GPW, this last line of yours, “It’s not necessarily youth we need in our leadership, but those who can communicate ideas which resonate with younger voters.” is EXACTLY what I believe about the greatness of President Reagan. I was but a young person in 1984-20 years old-when he was the first president I could vote for. And did so proudly. It was the way he explained conservative ideas. Simply, succinctly and with the knowledge that he BELIEVED what he said. Unlike President Obama, with President Reagan, he took decisive action and stood by it. No qualifiers. I think we have that in people like Govs. Jindal, Palin, Sanford, and the like. Throw in Sens. DeMint, Sessions and my favorite on Globaloney Warming, Inhofe. Congressman Cantor is one in the House we should look at. I do not think we can “chanel” President Reagan but follow his lead.
Because they had to listen to aging hippie professors whine about it constantly while reliving their Marxist sixties glory days. This hurt their self-esteem, which they were raised to believe was the most important thing in the world.
Younger voters under 30 hardly pay any taxes. As a matter of fact people making less than $26,000 pay no taxes and get an earned income rebate check from the producers of the country. That is why most young people when they “grow up” and are higher earners at the age of 30-40, start paying real taxes…..then they become conservatives.
How is Obama a “repudiation of our nation’s social history?â€
Obama represents a complete repudiation of the American social history of valuing intelligence, competence, and hard work over circumstances of one’s birth, one’s beliefs, or one’s skin color.
It should be no surprise that a generation that was produced by parents who ditched them to get in touch with their feelings, received grades based on self-esteem rather than performance, and thinks it perfectly normal to be age 30 and totally financially dependent on Mom and Dad would support Obama.
How is Obama a “repudiation of our nation’s social history?â€
Obama represents a complete repudiation of the American social history of valuing intelligence, competence, and hard work over circumstances of one’s birth, one’s beliefs, or one’s skin color.
It should be no surprise that a generation that was produced by parents who ditched them to get in touch with their feelings, received grades based on self-esteem rather than performance, and thinks it perfectly normal to be age 30 and totally financially dependent on Mom and Dad would support Obama.
OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi
Yes, the people who arent old enough to remember Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton and a Democrat congress.
We really ought to raise the voting age. Young people are too stupid to vote.
Dan,
You are right. The young acted on emotions and treated the Obama campaign as though it were a rock concert and imputed star quality to him. I would hope our young Republicans are committed to the principals and not on just what the family has always been.
I experienced the same thing here in El Salvador. A young person, who my family treats like family, supported Mauricio Funes because his family in another part of the country are all members of the FMLN. When questioned he knew nothing of communism. His goals in life are the complete antithesis of communism. He has never read Marx and Lenin Das Kapital nor Revolution of the Masses. He repeated only the sound bites that he has heard. In the closing days before the election Funes used photos of Barak Obama and compared the attacks on his candidacy the same as was said of Obama. The U.S. asked him to cease using Obama´s photo in his campaign. When I was asked for my opinion, I said I had no problem with Funes using Obama´s photo because they do have things in common; both are opportunists, communists, liars and corrupt.
Humm…remember the “Day Without a Mexican” in Los Angeles when Hispanic students “walked out” of school to protest. The news could not find one individual who could “articulate” why they were “walking out.” I attended Third College at UCSD in the 70’s that specifically targeted third world students – guess what – they could cut the mustard and get grades that allowed them to remain in college. UC changed the name of the college to Warren College after their idea failed. This is what awaits the Obama experiment.