-- Andrae Bailey, director of the Community Food and Outreach Center in Central Florida, as quoted today in the New York Times.
"They don't know if it's Obama's politics that failed them, or if it's the Republican conservative platform that they're told led to the recession. When the 20-somethings figure out who to blame, that's going to shift the electorate for years to come."
-
Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:11 AM EDT
Leave a Comment:
"Twenty somethings" are old enough to read about GWB or is it necessary to make it a video game? That was one thing about the draft. It made you think about war and the possibility of having to go.
Maybe someone should explain it to them, eh, New York Times?
You say "twenty somethings" like it is a voting block.
Is it a PhD from Harvard, making $100K on Wall Street?
An illiterate ghetto gang banger?
An unwed drug addicted mom?
Your son or daughter, still living at home?
It is all of the above, and many more. Just as "Senior Citizen" is a food stamp grandma, and Warren Buffett.
I'll add three:
One thing for sure, they all know ti isn't the "Obama agenda" because they read the news and know what a "filibuster" is.
Don't forget the recently discharged soldier who is having a hard time finding a job because there isn't a private sector demand for an "indirect fire infantryman".
One person's pronouncement about 20-somethings does not an authoritative position make.
I neither agree nor disagree. It just strikes me as an unsupported truism in the making.
The Times story strikes me as one of those "fake trend" newspaper features that get whipped up every so often to over-generalize from polls and anecdotal data.
Writers who get really good at it turn into Malcolm Gladwell or Jonah Lehrer.
One more thing about these "temperature-taking" stories about "young people."
Why do pollsters ask ANYONE their response about stuff they actually have little information about?
I mean, what is the value of asking people in a Wal-Mart parking lot if they think Saddam Hussein has WMD? People in Wal-Mart parking lots have NO detailed knowledge of WMD and who does or doesn't have it. Their "views" on the subject mean very little.
Asking people who is more responsible for getting Osama bin Laden, and the number who responded "Mitt Romney" is just another case in point. The only people who have any information of any value are those who were involved operationally or as eyewitnesses.
We can take a poll of sixth graders to see who they will vote for for president, but none of them has any influence on the vote, nor are they particularly apt bellwethers.
Yes, political campaigns have incentives to reach out to untapped constituencies, to ask for their votes, and to serve them as representatives. So it does behoove their demographers to try to nail those groups down like finding a rare butterfly and sticking it in the box with a pin.
So the story has that for a frame. And journalism has an obligation to "give voice," particularly those whose voices are not often heard, who are marginalized.
But I still see it casting about for some larger sociological generalizations about a disaffected "generation." That's just such an overworn trope.
Each new generation that comes along tries to find new ways to resist the demographers and their oppressive generalizations. And then newspaper stories distort them further in the same way they mess up most science stories, by just skimming the gloss. Which makes the next generation try harder to resist generalizations... and so on.
One more thing (geez, I really am trying to avoid work today, eh?).
On the "struggling" angle and how those who struggle, regardless of age, can be politically up for grabs.
This much we know: It's a tale as old as democracy that if you give someone what they need, they'll vote for you.
Tammany Hall gained political power very quickly by catching hungry immigrants right off the boats in NYC and promising warm meals, beer, a place to stay and a job.
It's also part of the reason so many communities ban the sale of alcohol on Election Day.
Because when it comes to basic needs (food, water, shelter, clothing), votes can always be bought.
Think about it. If you were in need, if someone offered to give you those things, wouldn't you sell your vote? And feel considerable gratitude?
As a political principle, it has gotten a bit lost in the modern media age, along with good old garden variety populism.
I mean, politicians generally want to do ANYTHING to get your vote. I think this is the first time in history that a politician (Romney) is expecting to get elected without asking for the vote of 47% of the electorate. It boggles the mind.
But then he comes from a party that uses a calculus of winning elections by keeping voters away from the polls.
I'm sure they'll be installing moats with alligators next, around all polling places.
Video game, eh? Looks like it's time to make a Flash game about the GWJ administration. It'll be a RPG, and Rachel can be a summon character with the "logic" attack.
This is why the obstruction of the last four years needs to be a campaign issue. I've been working on a list of things about obstruction. If anybody's interests, I'll post it. It's really remarkable the extent to which Republicans tried to hold the country back from recovering from the economic mess their ideas and policies caused.
This scorched-earth obstruction of the last four years story needs to be told.
The DNC, for every House race, for every Senate race ought to take 10 seconds at the end of every ad and say:
"A vote for a Republican is a vote for obstruction." And provide a list of important items that were obstructed.
Consider this one "vote" in favor of you posting that list - it sounds like it could be helpful!
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
I would also like to see that list, definitely.
"Twenty somethings" refers to the majority of people in their twenties that don't "gang bang" and aren't "drug addicted" and most probably don't need a "video game" to explain things to them.
But they don't have all that much life experience, and they are growing up in a time when you can believe whatever you want, and find some pretty strong supporting evidence. Look at the two major parties... either follow this blog or The Oreilly Factor. Completely opposite views, both with major efforts to convince people they are right.
So all the quote says is that the battle is over young people. This isn't really news... the older you get the less likely you are to change your views. The younger your are, the more likely you can be persueded to change your political views.
All together now:
"Teach... your children well... they're fathers' Hell..."
Once more, with feeling!
Vulture/Voucher 2012
Proving Two Rights DO Make a Wrong!
;-)
Given that mine gave me a copy of another CSY song lately:
D.C
Pretzel's lyrics are from a CSN song (Teach Your Chidren Well) not a CSY song. You wasn't in the group yet. I mean how could you leave out Graham Nash! After he David Crosby performed for all those OWS folks last year. And Old Man is a Neil Young song sans all of CSN. Sorry it's some of my favorite music ever.
In all fairness, I've been referring to them for years as Crosby, Stills, Nash and/or Young! Fine music in all their various configurations...
Get Enraged and Engaged:
Mooch the Vote 2012!
;-)
These kids are not stupid, and they are not undecided either.
I concur. There were a lot of young people involved with the Occupy movement. I think many of them already have a good idea about which party is responsible for the recession. The only thing they have to figure out is how trickle down economics for the last 30 years has destroyed the middle class. That requires a more sophisticated analysis but a couple years in college and they will figure that out too.
Ask yourselves who are no longer in your twenties were you and uniformed idiot then? I know I wasn't. Really I find this statement condescending to people in their twenties no matter what their situation is.
I am less optimistic that "20 somethings" will ever collectively figure anything out, including our fubar economy and then become a unified voting block.
More likely, if past cohorts are a guide, most people born into Republican households will accept the Republican view of how the economy and society works and conversely the same for Democrats.
A small number of people from each background change over their life time and accept the opposing view but they are consistently a monitory phenomena and the perpetuation of the inherited perspective is one of the most consistent relationships I have observed.
Rachael...Your show is about as close to "Main Stream" News that many of us view on TV. Why haven't you, or MSNBC given this any attention?
http://october2011.org/blogs/kevin-zeese/appeals-court-judge-reinstates-indefinite-detention-now
Is this too hot to talk about? As this election will be a defining moment in our history as a Nation, the NDAA, and section 1021 specifically, may also determine our direction. If the people that sign your pay check have you handcuffed to the point of controlling you, then I wonder, is it time for you to re-examine your purpose...just wondering...
+1
I am new to TRMS. I do not know what the topics were on her show before the election. I respect RM and the work that I see her do.
I also wonder what she thinks about things like this lawsuit. I was suprised when Chris Hedges, et al won this case. An then not suprised when the appeals judge set aside the win.
Good link Richard-2883516, thanks.
The headlines could read "Another failed attempt on the part of the Repubertycans who are trying to brainwash Americans into believing that we are failing", we are not, we are on the path of success, the word has no place in American vocabulary except when it pertains to the Tea Party Republicans. They should stop saying it noone believes it especially when there is no evidence to back up their claim.
You want to talk about the economy?
Ok CONS, let's do some ARITHMETIC...
First, Name the Obama POLICIES and the AMOUNTS that you say added trillions to the debt.
Then, deduct that amount from the current $16 TRILLION.
The balance = GOP spending.
Remember the following…
Expenses to FIX the GOP unfunded and failed policies like the stimulus are still GOP spending and NOT Obama's fault so DO NOT count those.
INTEREST on the GOP TRILLIONS of debt is NOT for Obama to be responsible for either, it is GOP spending too.
Also, Bailouts are LOANS to repair more GOP screwed up policies, Bush was going to make those FREE as his going away gift to the Banks and Wall Street.
Do not go back before Reagan because there was NO DEBT PROBLEM before that, he took office when the debt had ONE trillion and could have been tackled and fixed with comprehensive tax reform but he did not.
Entitlements are a tiny fraction of the debt and they always bring their own revenues thru premium deductions.
Saying that the Democrats had a “majority” doesn't count either, because we all well know the filibustering, obstructing, uncompromising, DO NOTHING GOP has had the “CONTROL” and those failed policies were drafted by the GOP and all passed with GOP majorities of votes going back to Reagan.
The CONS will NEVER have those numbers on the Democrats because they DO NOT exist.
I bet all you will get from the Fox-Rush-bots is NOTHING but diversions and ridicules.
This is NOT blaming the GOP or BUSH.
This is ARITHMETIC !!!!
20-somethings often want to lay blame at the foot of the entire system. They don't necessarily care which side is more to blame, because they aren't so entrenched in the mechanics of government at that point. When I was a 20-something in the late 90s, the detachment that many my age felt led to enough apathy that we had to spend half of our 30s listening to W give us a course in doublespeak and public manipulation.
I think a more effective tactic for engaging 20-somethings is to promote what policies have or will benefit THEM, i.e. health care, student loan interest, and marriage equality.
Unless the recession sticks around for a whole decade, it won't affect them the same way it affected those who lost homes or jobs they'd had for 15 years or more. However, 20-somethings are incredibly plugged in and thus the party politics of economic destruction won't be entirely missed. I think they are by and large wise enough to know what's going on, even if it doesn't directly affect them yet.
2Manchu: "Don't forget the recently discharged soldier who is having a hard time finding a job because there isn't a private sector demand for an 'indirect fire infantryman.'"
Years ago, when I worked briefly for the DoD, I learned that something like 80% of the MOS (Military Occupational Specialties) were NOT applicable to the civilian job market. I wonder how much, if at all, that has changed. One more hurdle that discharged service members face when trying to find a job rather than becoming a "victim" who is "dependent" and not able to "take responsibility."
Youth needs to doubt most of what adults say, and distrust the rest: (Listen to advice, but follow you own instinct)
Republicans push line "debt, doubt and decline" while driving economy over the cliff, and beating war drums for military stimulus.
Time-line Methodology:
The Republicans sabotaged the economy to defeat Obama.
The Republicans conspired to bail out the Bankers and Wall Street.
The Republicans seeing a new strategy proceeded to wreck the economy.
The Republicans set themselves up as strategic spoiler to trip up Obama at every opportunity.
The Republicans admit that this was their strategy.
The Republicans ran the midterms based on this strategy.
The Republicans sensing success doubled down in this strategy.
The Republicans developed and election campaign using this strategy.
The Republicans continue to undermine and wreck the economy.
The Republicans force the Federal Reserve continues to counter the strategy.
The Republicans refuse to allow the economy to grow and the Federal Reserve is nearly unhinged.
The Republicans could do very well to inherit the mess caused by the strategy, and still blame Obama.
The Republicans had only one strategy and that is to blame Obama.
The American public will bear the results, not knowing the rhyme and reason for blaming Obama.
If this makes sense, it should not have, because it 'really' does not make much sense.
(Hint: Explanation needed, the bigger the problem the bigger the explanation?)
When you've lived long enough you will want give this bit of wisdom,
A young person first time out on their own, needs to stop for about five minutes, just to remember that for most if not all of their life, information has been blasted at them, advice given, and reminders by the thousand.
Why stop? Because it takes times to find your voice, after having been gagged for decades. Don't expect anything of great value at first, to achieve value the listener has to shut up, and listen to the third or fourth version of that youth has to say. It reminds us of that old expression "pearls of wisdom from the mouths of babes", an observation that many times when youth is allowed to find its voice they will say things beyond their years
There's no fixed background for youth, some are raised by drill instructors, who shout orders, and don't listen, there those who don't say a thing but just stand there until you guess what is wanted, then there are few who are raised as thought there were adults, and everything carefully explained. Take good mix and give them drill sergeant instructions, and you get different results. But a conversational drill sergeant is unlikely creature. But somewhere in your young life you need to have a conversation with and adult as an adult.
Youth is wasted on the young. Period.