Does
ideology shape life experience, or does life experience determine
ideology? The future direction of American politics depends on our
response.
In response to the disappointing results of November’s elections, I have argued
that conservatives should take heart from the undeniable aging of the
electorate, which will tilt future contests toward Republicans. 2012
exit polls showed Mitt Romney sweeping voters 65 and older in a 12-point
landslide, and among all those above age 30 (81 percent of the voting
public) the Republican nominee prevailed by a solid margin. President
Obama won the overall vote solely on the strength of his crushing
60-to-36 advantage with the 18-to-30 crowd. If official projections
prove accurate, low birthrates and rising life expectancy will produce a
much higher percentage of elderly Americans in the electorate,
conferring a significant edge for conservative candidates in future
close elections.
But
Democrats hope that young Obama enthusiasts will maintain their
overwhelmingly liberal orientation even as they grow older and their
life circumstances change. In a provocative piece for New York magazine
that calls conservatives “doomed,” Jonathan Chait argues that the
president’s support from young voters in the last two election cycles
went “beyond the usual reasons—social issues like gay marriage and
feminism, immigration policy or Obama’s personal appeal—and suggest a
deeper attachment to liberalism. The proclivities of younger voters may
actually portend a full-scale sea change in American politics.” He goes
on to cite a Pew survey suggesting that “Americans form a voting pattern
early in their life and tend to hold to it.”
That
conclusion, however, contradicts the evidence of 40 years of exit
polls. In 11 presidential elections since 1972, voters over 65 have
voted more Republican than voters under 30 in every contest but one
(1988, for some reason). In none of the 11 elections did young voters
tilt more Republican than the overall electorate; their levels of
support for Democratic candidates in each campaign topped those of the
general electorate by an average of five points.
These
figures conclusively rebut the progressive hope that youthful liberals
generally maintain their fervent commitment to liberalism as they age
and mature. The voters who lean Republican in middle age and beyond are
the same people, after all, who leaned Democratic in their younger
years. For all their diabolical cleverness, Karl Rove and other cunning
conservatives haven’t yet developed a scheme for creating new voters in a
lab who emerge pre-aged to a seasoned 65 with an unstoppable instinct
to vote for members of the Bush family.
My own experience could serve to illustrate the point.
I cast my first presidential ballot in 1972 for the Democratic nominee, George McGovern.
(I also worked professionally in the McGovern campaign, but that’s
another story entirely.) At the time, I joined my fellow baby boomers,
then 18-29, in giving McGovern 46 percent of our support—vastly better
than the truly pathetic 38 percent he received from the overall
electorate on his way to crushing defeat in a 49-state landslide.
Twelve
years later, my cohort had moved on, and so had I. The youngest of the
old group had now reached age 30 and the oldest of us were well into
their 40s. Like 58 percent of all voters between ages 30 and 49 in 1984,
I proudly cast my vote for Ronald Reagan (I had also supported him in
1980.) This time, the boomers who had given McGovern an eight-point
advantage compared to his showing in the broader electorate gave
Democrat Walter Mondale only one point more, 42 percent, than his
percentage of the nationwide popular vote. In other words, as we moved
toward middle age, the progressive tilt that had characterized our youth
had all but disappeared.
Few of those who are single, irreligious, and economically challenged before age 30 will stay that way as they progress through middle age and beyond.
Of
course it’s too early to determine with any certainty whether the same
maturing process will work its magic on youthful Obama cadres from 2008
and 2012, but there is some indication that the shift has already begun.
As the hope-and-change candidate of four years ago, Obama swept voters
between 18 and 29 by a truly stunning margin of 34 points, 66 to 32
percent. Four years later, a significant portion of those true believers
had moved into the 30- to 45-year-old segment of the population, a
group that chose Obama with a much more modest majority of 52 percent.
It was exactly the same percentage, by the way, that he received from
the same age group four years before.
Chait
suggests that the progressive inclinations of this year’s under-30s
will remain steady and unshakable as the years pass, citing polling data
showing 33 percent of young voters calling themselves liberal in 2012,
compared to 25 percent of the larger electorate. But that’s a reflection
of their circumstances as much as their ideological commitment. People
under 30 are disproportionately single, religiously uncommitted, and
earning incomes below the national median. Such voters combined to
deliver Obama’s margin of victory.
Among
the unmarried, who make up 41 percent of the electorate, Obama won by a
margin of 24 percent. Among the 17 percent who say they “never” attend
religious services, he won by 28 percent. And with those earning less
than $50,000 a year, who comprise 41 percent of the voting public, he
enjoyed a 22-percent edge.
The
most salient point about all these characteristics is that, like youth
itself, they count as temporary: the statistics show that few of those
who are single, irreligious, and economically challenged before age 30
will stay that way as they progress through middle age and beyond. And
it’s no accident that Romney won big majorities of those groups—the
married, the religiously engaged, and the economically
prosperous—associated so clearly with the middle aged and the middle
class.
Chait
expresses admiration for the 59 percent of young voters who agreed with
the statement that “government should do more to solve problems” and
assumes that this opinion stems from thoughtful analysis of the issues
of the day. But it’s at least as plausible that the youthful preference
for activist government stems from the relatively small number of those
between 18 and 29 who’ve ever been asked to pay for such initiatives.
IRS figures indicate that they are vastly under-represented among the
bare majority of Americans who pay personal income taxes, and even more
under-represented among those who pay at the highest rates. It’s also
safe to assume that under-30s include a substantial number who benefit
directly from subsidized student loans, either as current students or as recent graduates struggling with debt.
None
of this means their liberal leanings are inappropriate or unworthy, but
they are often fleeting, polling data suggest. And for those who
suggest that the modern university provides such a thorough brainwashing
that college graduates will never escape its influence, it might be
worth considering that Romney, not Obama, won a majority of the 29
percent of voters with undergraduate degrees. The great majority of
those students attended university since the 1970s, well after the loony
left had captured control of the Ivory Tower. After all, it was 1986
when Jesse Jackson led 500 Stanford students in the memorable chant “Hey
hey, Ho Ho, Western Civ has got to go!”
Not
even the most incurably optimistic conservative could expect that all
youthful leftists would make the liberating journey from darkness to
light, from callow adolescence to responsible maturity, and join the
enlightened armies of the right. But even a relatively small
portion—say, 10 percent—managing to follow that well-worn path would
push most elections in a Republican direction in a future nation where
the percentage of the young remains steady or slightly shrinks, and the
numbers of the old vastly and consequentially expand.
READ THE FULL STORY HERE.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for leaving comments. You are making this discussion richer and more beneficial to everyone. Do not hold back.