Progressive Streak Within "Generation Next" Bodes Well for Dems

Back before the election, I noted trends within younger voters that augured well for Democrats hoping to tap the age cohort for support not only in the 2006 midterms but also in years to come. Indeed on election day last fall, those under the age of 30 supported the Democrats by a 60 percent to 38 percent margin according to exit polling -- the largest margin, either way, for any age group listed. And judging by polling released yesterday by The Pew Center, it appears that the political views of younger voters, who the pollster refers to as "generation next", could place them firmly in the progressive tent for some time to come. Among other things, Pew finds that:

  • About half of Gen Nexters saw the growing number of immigrants to the U.S. strengthens the country -- more than any generation. And they also lead the way in their support for gay marriage and acceptance of interracial dating.
  • Beyond these social issues, their views defy easy categorization. For example, Generation Next is less critical of government regulation of business but also less critical of business itself. And they are the most likely of any generation to support privatization of the Social Security system.
  • In Pew surveys in 2006, nearly half of young people (48%) identified more with the Democratic Party, while just 35% affiliated more with the GOP. This makes Generation Next the least Republican generation.
  • They are significantly less cynical about government and political leaders than are other Americans or the previous generation of young people. A majority of Americans agree with the statement: "When something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful," but most Generation Nexters reject this idea.

Of course not all of these findings bode well for the Democrats. The fact that this generation (age 18 to 25, according to Pew) is more supportive of the partial privatization of Social Security indicates that they are not wholly in line with the policies of the Democratic Party. Yet at the same time, their embrace of government -- and particularly government's capacity to do good -- indicates that Democrats might not have quite so far to go to restore Americans' faith in government, thus buttressing progressivism. What's more, the social views (or cultural progressivism) of this age cohort -- being repelled by the nativism and discriminatory language embraced by many in the Republican Party, for example -- could cause real problems in the future for conservatives should they (as I assume they will) continue to wage a culture war in this country.

We need not overstate the meaning of this polling. Opinions can be fleeting, and the Democrats can quickly lose the support of these voters. Moreover, although people's voting patterns tend to solidify once they have supported one party or the other in a number of consecutive elections, new cleavages within the electorate can emerge rather quickly that reshape the partisan playing field. That all said, the Democrats do have a chance to tap this generation for support -- perhaps like none other in recent memory.



Display:


Will The Streak Stick? (none / 0)

There's a lot of potential here, but Democratic youth operations are chronically under-served and underfunded. I have high hopes that this generation, which is the first to be native to the internet, doesn't need a bunch of foundation money to get itself together, but it certainly wouldn't hurt in building a lasting Future Majority if even slightly more attention were paid.

http://www.futuremajority.com


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 04:19:35 AM EST

Re: Will The Streak Stick? (none / 0)

Yes... That democratic streak will serve them well in Iraq in 10-15 years.


by Tatarize on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:37:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

social security (none / 0)

I'm not in the 18-25 group, but I work at a university and so have a lot of contact with them, and if I had to guess, I'd say the support for privatization of Social Security in this group has fairly little to do with any sort of conservative ideals of self-sufficiency and anti-big-government sentiment, and more to do with the fact that they're convinced that Social Security won't last until they retire.

Retirement seems a long, long, way off to an 18 year old, and they constantly hear debate about the terrible crisis of Social Security. Why should they want to pay into a system that it sounds like will never possible last until they could take advantage of it?

Of course, the "crisis" is largely fictional. But we need to reassure this group that Social Security is a viable program well into the near future and beyond, or they're going to want to replace it with something they do think will be around when they need it. (I personally am worried Social Security won't be around when I retire, and not because it'll be insolvent, but because there's a lot of time between then and now for a bunch of Republicans to screw it up...)


by Elakazal on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 07:54:55 AM EST

Re: social security (none / 0)

You're 100% right.

That's why the Democratic Party should take the lead in fighting to maintain solvency beyond the 75-year CBO (or OMB?) budgeting window.

The simplest solution, of course, is to raise the cap on FICA taxation from $92,000.  I've heard that raising it to $150,000 will maintain solvency through the 75-year window.

We could probably bring some Republicans along by raising the cap on tax-free retirement savings contributions.  Not all savings, just those for retirement.  We could also increase the penalties for pulling those funds out, with a series of exemptions for medical/family emergencies.  Heck, maybe throw in matching funds for those who have an annual salary less than $XX,000...as your salary goes down, the percentage of matching $$ goes up.

Not only would it buttress our arguments to continue to win over the under-30 set, it would bring along a lot of middle to upper-middle class voters who are the mythological "swing" voters.


by radical centrist on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:48:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: social security (none / 0)

True... I used to assume that it wouldn't be there for me, too.

I think part of it is also that they (and most older cohorts, as well) are inclined to think of SS as a really lame and limited investment/savings program, when it's actually closer to insurance, which the young tend to dismiss as unnecessary.  


by latts on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:07:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: social security (none / 0)

I came here to say all sorts of stuff, and you guys pretty much said exactly what I was going to say.  I guess I'm obsolete.


by skintigh on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Social Security (none / 0)

  I agree with Elakazal's analysis of young people's attitude toward Social Security. Conservatives have been pushing the "Social Security is going to go bankrupt - soon" theme for decades. It's one of the most entrenched myths in our political system and if I were 30, I'd have some serious doubts too. Fortunately, Bush's attacks on SS have prompted a flood of good information which we can use to defend the program.  


by MarvToler on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:32:41 AM EST

Re: Social Security (none / 0)

A friend says that raising the minimum wage boosts Social Security receipts enough to push back the balance point another 10 years.


by joyful alternative on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 03:48:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Progressive Streak (none / 0)

When I was 18, I was certain that Social Security would never be around for my retirement either.  It's not easy to picture a lot of things being durable enough to last 40 or 50 years from today, but moreso when you're young.

Now that I have a few years on me, I know that Social Security is doing just fine and will continue to do so for many years, barring the literal insolvency of our economy or, of course, a Republican takeover.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 08:51:24 AM EST

As a 22-year old... (none / 0)

I have to say that most people our age don't really much care what happens to Social Security because we know we aren't going to be getting any of it. If privatization were to occur, we'd at least see less of our money leaving our pockets.

(Yes, privatization could very well lead to the ruin of Social Security, but see the first sentence for rebuttal.)


by falsified on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:34:20 AM EST

Re: As a 22-year old... (none / 0)

Not to be too caustic, but maybe even 22 year olds should care whether SS exists for their parents and grandparents, even if they don't get anything out of it themselves?

Just a thought.


by HSTruman on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 12:40:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a 22-year old... (none / 0)

Well, yeah. And I don't doubt it'll be there for them - and yeah, it'll probably EXIST, in some form, when I retire. But it sure as hell isn't going to cover what it covers now, and I imagine not everyone will collect. I expect it to resemble end-stage welfare more than anything else. And, despite whether or not the pessimistic view is VALID, it exists and isn't going to go away. And as I said, nobody my age expects to rely on it, either.


by falsified on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 03:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a 22-year old... (none / 0)

Yes, and you don't expect to have a stroke or get hit by a car at your age and be too disabled to work for the rest of your life either. That's what happened to my husband about the time he finished graduate school, and it could happen to you.

Social Security is disability income insurance, too, and you don't have to buy a special insurance policy for it.


by joyful alternative on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 03:54:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

True. (none / 0)

I was referring to the retirement component of Social Security, and I should have made that clear. Even a worst-case scenario, in my opinion, has the disability insurance still around, and thank God for that.

My generation, though - and maybe this is just the typical angsty cynicism that this poll doesn't otherwise reflect - just doesn't expect it to be there like it has been. Our rulers have been too inept, and as far as I know even the Democrats don't have plans to remove the income cap or anything this year. (Correct me if I'm wrong, and I realize that we have some time to remove the income cap.)


by falsified on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Also.. (none / 0)

The bratty Young Republican types that would actively dismantle Social Security either have the mentality that their parents could never ever need help, or they're so loaded that their parents and grandparents honestly will never need assistance.


by falsified on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 05:04:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As a 22-year old... (3.00 / 1)

Your belief is a myth. My mom said this all the time as I was growing up, and now she's 60 and in a couple of years will be able to pull benefits.

As long as a large majority of people want social security, it will be there. That's what the government is for, in large part. That's why it's social and that's what it's secure. We can keep it as long as we think its important.

The financial situation of the SS Trust Fund fluctuates as the population balance changes, but it's not headed for bankrupcy. Unlike markets, which are inherently unstable, a guaranteed fund can be maintained with cautious stewardship and minor adjustments over time.

For instance, currently wages above $90,000 are not taxed in to the Trust via the payroll tax. That doesn't make much sense. Removing the wage ceiling to the wealthy pay the same proportional share as the poor would make the system solvent for much longer than we can accurately forecast economics.


Me | My Work | Future Majority
by Josh Koenig on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 01:56:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And no, it's not a myth. (none / 0)

We're the generation of only children that has two aunts and three uncles - on each side of the family. That money is coming from somewhere - if it all came from present taxation, we'd be taxed into a recession (yes, it can happen, but not at the tax levels we've ever really had here). So it'll come from future taxation - and guess who gets shortchanged on that.

Not that the conservatives are right on this issue - but I think twenty years from now someone is going to have to grow a set and establish a cutoff date.  


by falsified on Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 10:36:45 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.