As a 23-year-old millenial, could I ask the older DUers something?

[Dark]

Why did so many vote for Republicans when they destroyed their http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=9&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.policyalternatives.ca%2Fdocuments%2FNational_Office_Pubs%2F2007%2FRising_Profit_Shares_Falling_Wage_Shares.pdf&ei=u2YCSqXdMZSgM5LW6M8E&usg=AFQjCNEmqoMzE3GhRbW9MlLi4doEdV9Q3w&sig2=fnqNkdG3asYz439RnKrkyw">wages (warning PDF) (among many other things)

Why do I hear so many among the previous generations acting like Gen Y's attitude of "We expect a decent wage and respect at our jobs" is ridiculous?

Why should we be happy to "just have a job"?

[Jennicut]

1. I don't know. I am a Gen Xer (33) and question my conservative parents all the time as to why they

vote Repub over and over again. They are caught up on low taxes and less government. I think Reagan brainwashed them in the 1980's.

[Dark]

4. I've asked my conservative parents that also. They tell me that "Oh, but it's only fair to

lower the everyone's taxes by 10%!"

Besides that not actually being true (see capital gains tax), why is it fair to say to say to someone who makes $10 million a year "you get to keep an extra ten million" and to someone who makes $20,000 a year "you get to keep $2,000"?

[Jennicut]

26. Hang in there. I have ten years on you dealing with it! I rebelled a long time ago.

They call Obama socialist and I just laugh. They did not like Carter and voted for Reagan and he is their hero. Hence, they stumbled upon Rush and have been listening to him for years. I think they are disappointed that I am still a Democrat and still a liberal. My older brother is one too. I think the younger Gen Xers, Gen Y, and the Millenials all dislike the Repubs. I detested the way they treated Clinton back in the 1990's and it solidified that I would be a Dem.

[Dark]

38. Oh honey, you have no idea.

The pendulum is swinging. And, keep in mind, that the baby boomers were rather conservative (overall, not individually) and the Gen x'ers were rather apathetic.

So the Gen Y'ers are very liberal (rebelling against the baby boomers and dominant paradigm) AND very involved (rebelling against the Gen X'ers' general apathy).

Basically, you have a REALLY LIBERAL, REALLY INVOVLED generation (overall).

Think about that. :-)

[Jennicut]

69. It gives me hope. My own kids will at least grow up with liberal parents!

They love Obama, but they are only 3 and 4. :)

[Dark]

83. Lol. I'm sure they're darlings.

But yeah, my generation doesn't like Repubs. We've seen how pathetic they are. Also, alot of the gay members, including me, have asked our friends why they want to vote against our rights to marry. That always leaves them speechless. That, and when we present them with evidence as to why the GOP is wrong, they can't defend it.

Oh, that and we consider Reagan a fucktard.

[Jennicut]

93. I live in CT and we have legalized gay marriage here.

:)

[Sebass1271]

5. it is kind of stupid... if you think about it..reagan and bush

actually INCREASED government spending and increased the Deficit.. Clinton was the only president to decrease deficit...

republicans are stupid.. they just don't think. they claim smaller government as support for gop and their party has actually done the opposite wiht the government..

[Dark]

21. Actually, the stupidest part is that they're omplaining about the defecit but

of the last 8 presidents, only Democrats reduced the deficit.

That includes the demon of right wing talk radio Jimmy Carter.

[Jennicut]

36. Clinton totally cleaned up after their mess. A Dem always has to clean up.

[Dark]

40. Too true.

n/t

[Occulus]

47. Get them a copy of SimCity 4 and let hilarity ensue.

They'll get a lesson in economics at the very least.

[OmahaBlueDog]

49. The reasons people I meet keep voting Republican

<<The Dems will tax you to death>>

One one hand, someone making $500K with 4 kids sends $240K to the government. OOH, he still gets a helluva salary. I think a family of 4 making a household income of 50-60K pays something under $1K once the standard deductions and child tax credits are figured in. That seems pretty low.

<<A whole bunch of variances on "the Democrats are soft on Defense">>

We see how the well the last administration did in the War department. Nevertheless, there are a lot of people who are dead set in the my-country-right-or-wrong mindset....that is, until Obama needs to send troops somewhere -- then they'll whine like 3 year olds.


<<we need less government>>

This is a catch-all that basically equates to "I don't want to pay to help anyone other than myself". It often has nothing directly to do with Democrats, but encompasses a whole lot of stuff your typical FReeper doesn't like. For example:

- Workers Compensation ("Some dumass gets hurt at work through his own fault, and I gotta pay for it?")
- Unemployment Tax ("Why do I have to pay so he can lay around the house and do nothing")
- Employee Health Insurance ("I keep telling my guys I can't pay for health and workers compensation. I tell them to get one of those Health Savings Accounts, and not to go to the doctor over every little stinking thing)
- Lawsuits
- Affirmative Action
- OSHA (buncha bureaucracy is all that is)
- EPA (that gasoline come from the ground...dumping it on the ground ain't gonna hurt nothin')
- USDA (exception: when those subsidy checks roll in)
- FMLA

<< say the following words in the most derisive tone possible "stimulus" &/or "bailout" >>

"I wish someone was sending me a stimulus"; "you don't see any stimulus here, do you"; "how 'bout a bail out from that payroll tax, or workers comp -- I want a bailout from that"; "they ought to bail out small business - it's the backbone of America, you know, but nobody in Washington gets that"

I hear all of the above a lot. What is funny is that all of this started with the TARP -- which was brought to us by George W and his trusty sidekick Hank.

I can't tell you how many business owners that I meet who sit in their office parked all day 3' from a plasma playing FAUX News. It's a step up from having the radio blaring Limpballs, but not much. Apparantly, if they all had there way, this is what they want:

No payroll tax
No workers compensation
No unemployment insurance
Virtually unlimited liability protection
No EPA, OSHA, or USDA
No Americans with Disabilities Act
The right to discriminate at will
The right to hire and fire at will
Employees are on their own for health insurance
If that minimum wage and overtime thing could go away, that'd be great too
Outlaw all unions
Could we, maybe, look into bringing that indentured servitude thing back? It'd be a great way for folks to get out of debt....note to self -- should suggest that to Dave Ramsay.

[Dark]

52. So basically, go back to the 1800s in terms of labor rights?

I've heard that too. I just can't understand why so many agree with it. Don't they realize that the improvement of the vast majority of Americans' lots in life are because of pro-union and pro-labor policies?

As far as the taxes go, I kind of understand that one (don't agree mind you). It's like someone who makes $2 million will fire his employees if he has to make an additional 3% (yes that's what they're claiming, as socialism lol) payment in taxes.

[OmahaBlueDog]

62. At least pre-Roosevelt

OBTW, in addition to everything I mentioned, they'd like to emiminate all of the great society measures ("Churches can handle social aid much more fairly and efficiently than government"), public education ("look, give everyone a voucher, and let them choose a private or religious school, which can educate children much more efficiently than government"), public regulation of utilities ("look at Enron: they showed clearly how the private sector can meet energy needs much more efficiently than government").

Why? Because they'd be rich if it weren't for government holding them back. Look, when they were in college, they read a book called "Atlas Shrugged", and if you'd read it, you'd understand just how silly the idea of a government helping people is.

I shouldn't need to add this but :sarcasm:

[Dark]

71. You make an excellent point.

Yes, they want to undo everything Roosevelt did. But your point about why was even better.

I have had so many conservatives tell me that "Oh, if they'd just let me keep Social Security and invest it, I'd be making so much more money."

Of course, that was before 2008.

They quote interest rates like crazy. I tried (and failed) to make them understand that SS is a SECURITY. It's not for gambling on the stock market. SS exists to make sure that you have something to retire on. It's there no matter what (and it will be there til 2044, w/o adjustments). They are greedy. I honestly am starting to think that was the problem.

Also, what happens to people who put it in the stock market and then, 2-5 years before they retire it crashes. What do they do? (Not to mention all the failed examples of attempts at tihs in the past).

/On edit: just clarified a point.

[LooseWilly]

70. The funniest part is that these folks don't seem to realize that by gutting pay of their workers

... they're also... eliminating potential customers... and as "everyone" does it... well, everyone runs out of customers... hence a stimulus package to promote spending is required...

[Dark]

73. That's something I've never understood.

If all the good paying jobs go overseas, and have a 90 percent pay cut, who's going to buy the crap we import?

If the poor can't afford it, who can? The middle class is dwindling. The rich ain't going to buy a walmart blanket when they could get a silk one from Pakistan.

How can this continue? It's unsustainable.

[LooseWilly]

79. I don't think it can.

I think that the managerial class is so out of touch that they don't even realize this is happening. i've been pointing out this trend to people I know for years.. and we've all collectively assumed I was pulling some weird collation of trends out of my ass. I mean.. how retarded do the professionals have to be to not see this and do something about it?
And yet, my half-ass sarcastic predictions become less half-assed every year... it boggles my mind. Those predictions were supposed to be bullshit.. not revelatory.

On the plus side, I hear that Berlitz has a nice set of Punjabi dvds... for those who are willing to go after their jobs.

[OmahaBlueDog]

140. Here's the other thing I don't get along the same line

I hear small business owners knock single-payer (or any other National Health Plan) as "more socialism" "more govvernment interference" etc. These same business owners also complain that, "I can't compete with (insert name of local, large employer here) because they have benefits i can't even begin to afford. Do they not realize that a National Health Care Plan instantly levels that playing field when competing for talent?

[rufus dog]

85. A person making 500k does NOT send 240k to the gov't N/T

[Dark]

99. I know.

Believe me I know. It's called the capital gains tax (at least)

[OmahaBlueDog]

142. Rufus dog, I have an acquaintance who's an accountant, and that's what he states he has to send

He may be lying (why?) he may be exaggerating (possible) he may have other taxable investments he's not mentioning in the equation (entirely likely).

[raccoon]

121. Great post. I could almost hear some right-winger saying this:

"
- Workers Compensation ("Some dumass gets hurt at work through his own fault, and I gotta pay for it?")
- Unemployment Tax ("Why do I have to pay so he can lay around the house and do nothing")"

It never seems to occur to the fuckheads and these things could happen to THEM. :grr: :shrug: :eyes:

[OmahaBlueDog]

143. Those aren't quite direct quotes, but they are darn close to stuff I hear every day

...and that stuff never happens to THEM...and when it does, it's never THEIR fault.

There business is in the toilet -- "it's the GOVERNMENT'S FAULT"

High insurance costs -- "It's FRAUD -- and all them ILLEGALS. "

A lot of people get hurt at their workplace -- "it's impossible to find someone to work for you with half a brain now"


on edit: want to have some fun? discuss illegal immigration with a group of conservatives of this stripe; they don't know what to do with themselves. One one hand, they love the dilligent, cheap labor; OTOH, they want closed, secure borders.

[Hannah Bell]

2. Why do you think those attitudes are characteristic of "older DUers"?

[Dark]

8. I don't

But they were around when I was a baby (or younger, lol). I don't know what it was like in the early 80s. Or even the early 90s. They do. I want to know what possessed so many Americans as to think that GOP principles were true.

They have a perspective I lack. So I want to ask them why people at that time felt that way.

[Sebass1271]

15. the media..the powerful media

selling their garbage.. and republicans always hired good communication campaign managers to twist the meaning of their platform..

such as Compassionate Comservatism.. - which really meant, fuck you..

Axis of Evil


and some other words and "logos" i don't remember at this time..

[Dark]

30. I don't think it was the media. After all, the WWII gen and the one before

had seen how much good Dem rule could do for them. They'd been used to high taxes (91 percent at one point for upper brackets -- under a Repub -- for some time). I don't think the media could have changed that in 20 years, especially considering one generation prospered under a Democratic government (Truman) and another went all out liberal (60s baby boomers).

There was something else.

[Hannah Bell]

66. um, i think you're wrong; you're perceiving events through a filtered lens which cuts out

all the messiness & presents a simplified storyline.

91% tax rate was not for the masses, but only for the very rich. taxes on the proles were (comparatively) low in the 40s/50s/60s & goods were cheap. college was dirt cheap compared to today.

things tightened up a great deal in the 70s, starting with the first oil shock. recession, stagflation, the volker recession, 17% interest rates for mortgages...

there were a lot of pissed off people in the 70s - sometimes it seems they were more pissed off then than today.

there was *definitely* a good deal of media involvement in explaining the economic problems as being due to the laxity of the 60s ethos, too many free rides, too much slacking, not enough hard work, too many taxes, etc.

i think most people who lived through the times would agree.

[Dark]

81. I said that the 91 percent tax was for the upper echelons of society.

But I am interested in hearing your description. What I understand is that there was a lot of anger toward whoever was in power.

Honestly, I can't say one way or the other about the media. It sounded like the media wasn't to blame, but then again I wasn't alive. So from your description I can't say.

What I will say is it seems like there was a lot of anger at Carter for the state of the country then, so I'll ask this: I've heard that Carter and Reagan were equal for most of the race. Why is that?

And also, why did Carter, after Nixon's Southern Strategy, only really have success in the south.

[Hannah Bell]

89. People outside the DC orbit have few ways of getting info on national events *outside* the media.

Media is *always* crucial.

To take the most noted instance, during the Iranian hostage crisis there was nightly reporting on TV, headlined "america held hostage, day 100" (or whatever). this was talked up as demonstrating carter's weakness, the decline of the US (due to carter's weakness) & this kind of coverage continued right up to election day! It's considered one of the main reasons Carter lost the election.

Now if you're out in podunksville & you see this every night, what do you think? Consider there was no internet, no cable, only 3 national tv channels + pbs. Wider viewpoints can be found mainly in obscure magazines at specialty bookstores in big cities or colleges, not in podunksville.

What you think is: hey, this must be important, cause it's on tv every night & they're making such a big deal & that little 3rd-world country is snubbing their nose at us - & carter's not fixing it.

as we later learned, reagan cut a deal with iran *not* to release the hostages until after he got elected, which pretty much undercut carter's diplomacy. the ruling class was backing reagan; they control the money & the media, & that, more than anything, is why reagan won.

He was by no means as popular as he's made out to be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. The propaganda didn't start in 1980

it started in 1955 with the birchers, and then went mainstream

the repubs organized to take over the media after they got their shirts handed to them in 1963

by the by the same process has already started

that pizza parlor party is part of it

[Overseas]

138. 50 media companies in '83 down to 5 conglomerates in conservative hands today.

Here's a link to the media ownership chart to look over, and there is further information regarding consolidation of US mass media into large conservative corporate ownership on that site. (The documentary "The Corporations" explains a lot more about the rise of corporate power in the USA.)

http://www.corporations.org/media/

================================
Furthermore, there has been a long, concerted campaign to push the national political discourse to the right, while pretending that the media remains liberal.

Check out "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman for extensive background information on that large scale campaign that continues to this day.

The right wing was disturbed by the freewheeling counterculture and its ridiculous talk about sustainable growth, ecology, economic justice and equality-- they took concerted measures to turn that all around and succeeded quite well.

Here's a link to an intro to his book: http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/

=================

Those of us who hated Ronald Reagan and have been concerned about environmental destruction since we discussed sustainable development in the 70's are very glad to have the Millennials talking green and understanding more about economic justice than some of their predecessors and many in our generation did. Many in our generation succumbed to the anti-60's propaganda that pretended it was all about sex, drugs, rock & roll.

There was a big push in the 1980's to popularize getting rich at all costs. Junk bonds. S&L bailouts. Short term profits. Screw limits to growth. "It's morning in America" -- Peggy Noonan's claim to fame. Grandpa Reagan popularized anti-government sentiment. Screw limits to growth-- we're America ! Forget those dumb recyclers and preachy human rights folks-- we're America! Entitled to rule the world!

Reagan ran up the biggest deficits in US history to that point, giving tax cuts to rich, running expensive illegal wars, busting up labor unions and pushing the appealing but totally false idea of Trickle Down Economics. We now know it was Trickle Up Economics, but Republicans are still out there pushing for more tax cuts for the super-rich and demonizing labor unions.

Pro-corporate propaganda is a powerful force, operating at many levels, with an ever-expanding variety of techniques.

Corporate lobbying is also a dominant force. It takes tons of money to run for office and corporations are ever ready to help those who understand their needs. And to provide funding against candidates who believe in pesky regulations.

[Hannah Bell]

19. Backlash from the chaos of the 60s + well-orchestrated propaganda

plus economic tightening (oil shocks/stagflation/wage stagnation).

My mother once told me the 60s were a nightmare for parents.

But I didn't perceive them that way; i perceived them as exciting & creative. Your social role/age affects your perception of events.

[Dark]

28. 'Your social role/age affects your perception of events.'

Very, very true.

I can see the 60s as being alarming, but wasn't it the baby boomers (the ones who voted, and still vote, for the GOP) who helped get Reagan into office.

Why would they rebel against themselves?

[Hannah Bell]

53. Your question seems to assume boomers swung the 1980 election. not the case.

First, the liberal vote was split between Carter & John
Anderson, who though he was originally a liberal Republican,
ran as an independent & included liberal appeals (e.g.
antiwar) in his campaign, & ran a "youth"
campaign a la bobby Kennedy style as well.


     %all voters    %Carter    %Reagan  %Anderson   %lib

18–21 yrs    6       44        43        11         55%
22–29 yrs   17       43        43        11         54% 
30–44 yrs   31       37        54         7         44%
45–59 yrs   23       39        55         6         45%
60 yrs+     18       40        54         4         44%


Someone who was 18 in 1980 was born in 1962, tail-end of the
boomers.  The oldest of the boomers were 34.  That age group
was about 1/3 of 1980 voters.  

They voted more liberally than any other age bloc.

Boomers aren't monolithic, never were, but it was older voters
who were the strength of Reagan's vote in 1980.

[Dark]

61. That is very illuminating.

So, they voted against Reagan initially. Why did the Repubs keep control then? The boomers were coming into power, and Gen X was known as the apathetic generation.

Why did they change positions?

[John Q. Citizen]

78. Generation X didn't exist in 1980. It wasn't a generation yet. Look at who voted for Reagan. Former

Democrats from the rust belt, mostly who supported the war. Reagan Democrats.

Boomers mostly opposed the war. Ever hear of the generation gap? That was the demographic realization that boomers opposed the war.

So, a majority of boomers opposed the war, but a majority of non-boomers supported the war, and so did a minority of boomers. And it's that majority of non-boomers and that minority of boomers who voted in Reagan, both elections.

There were always some asshole boomers. i'm just glad they were in the minority.

[Hannah Bell]

80. 1984

Birthyr  age      % voters  Reagan Mondale 

1960-66 (18-24)      11%      61%     39% 
1955-59 (25-29)      12%      57%     43% 
1935-54 (30-49)      34%      58%     42% 
1920-34 (50-64)      23%      61%     39% 
pre-1920 (65+)        9%      64%     36% 


Again, your assumptions are getting in the way.  Look at the
data - what do you see?

The boomers were older, which tends to = more conservative,
once people start families & have to hold down jobs.  But
I still see the boomer cohorts voting more liberally than
those before or after them (though this doesn't break it out
well).

Reagan got more votes his second term because he was riding an
economic upturn & the media supported him.  Plus Mondale
was uninspiring/boring as a candidate & ran a bad
campaign.  Boomers were still only about 1/3 of the
electorate: 1946-1961.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

129. And it was older voters who were voting against the social trends

of the 1960s and 1970s.

[Overseas]

139. Thanks for this data. I was wondering about that. //nt

[merh]

32. I blame Reagan and Alex P. Keaton

The "me" generation, the instant gratification society of the yuppies and the preppies - the ones that believed and still believe that they are entitled to wealth and that they don't have to work hard or sacrifice to achieve wealth.

[Dark]

41. He looks like Michael J. Fox. Was he the inspiration for Gordon Gecko?

(Yes, I've watched a few movies in my time).

[merh]

48. That is Michael J. Fox - it was his character, Alex P. Keaton

in the sitcom Family Ties that made it desirable to be a young republican. *ick* - that was before Gordon Gecko.

[Dark]

50. Oh god. I feel stupid now.

Going to go sit in the corner.

:dunce:

[merh]

59. Oh, please don't feel stupid

You were only 3 when the show went off the air.

:hi:

[Dark]

63. Lol, but I do remember Back to the Future. I watched it so many times.

I loved it as a kid, lol. Too bad he played such a bad character.

[Fumesucker]

116. Umm... Alex Keaton was a *caricature* to a big extent..

He was not played as a particularly sympathetic character most of the time.

[John Q. Citizen]

65. Reagan reminded people of their grandfather. He was optimistic and had a twinkle in his eye.

The lie, the wound, the pain, that was Vietnam proved to people just how fucked up government could be.

"Tweeter was a boyscout, when he went to Vietnam, found out the hardway, nobody gives damn.

Mostly, people didn't want to think about it, and Reagan fit the bill. He was the 'Why don't you look away" president. He was the guy who split the public from their government. He said, "American people good, American government bad," and it had legs!

I come from a family of Reagan critics. My mom couldn't abide him as governor, my Dad worked against Reagan and for his Dem opponent, Jessie Unrue, in Regan's first term in California.

So at the time he was elected Prez, i was rather amazed at how many people actually voted for him.


I figured it was because he came across as likable. It wasn't because of his keen intellect or his new ideas. But it was because he was good at telling jokes.

[Dark]

86. I have heard that before. He provided hope.

Hope is a powerful emotion, as we learned last election cycle. Hope can rise us from despair.

However, it can be false, and yet still have the same impact. People in a dark time, as was with Carter, can turn to someone who offers hope that things will get better.

Evil people can manipulate that emotion as well as good people.

[John Q. Citizen]

135. It wasn't so much hope as it was comfortable. Granddad; not inspiration but familiarity.

As some of the other people have mentioned, Americans held hostage on TV each night and our pain and shame from Nam led some older rust belt Dems to run to the security and comfort that a grandpa figure could provide them.

They weren't looking for a problem solver; They wanted someone to lie to them and reassure them.

[LooseWilly]

94. There was also the whole Iranian Revolution thing.

Carter was seen as weak in the face of it, largely because his rescue attempt of the hostages was taken out by a sandstorm.

Even my Iranian father felt like Carter should've done more to free the hostages.
Add that on top of the gas shortages, and the economic doldrums... and Carter was in bad shape. I remember being 10 years old and my mom cheering when Reagan won. I also remember feeling ill at ease for no particular reason. I also remember her telling me that I should pretend to be Italian, rather than half Iranian, when the Mickey Mouse flipping off Khomeini shirts went into mass production.

Reagan was a nationalistic, almost jingoistic spokesman... and the country seemed to respond. It was a strange time to be a kid... especially a half-breed Iranian kid. I personally think that there was a reaction from those who remembered all the cold war years to Reagan's jingoism... and a promise to not let having our national ass kicked in VietNam get in the way of us being a bunch of John Waynes... and the OPEC dudes who were causing gas rationing were willing to play along and let Reagan look like some sort of hero.

On the whole though, as a kid in Reagan's time, none of us thought about him too much. He was just another asshole in the White House...

[Hannah Bell]

104. yep, the hostage thing was big. ironic, since reagan had cut a secret deal with iran

to keep the hostages until after he got elected.

treason, i'd say. but we didn't know it at the time.

not with "america held hostage! day 300!" on the tv every night.

[Occulus]

56. When our parents say it, they MEAN it.

When we say it to each other, we roll our eyes.

"Be glad you have a job", when spoken sincerely, almost always comes from the mouths of those who grew up with strong unions, livable wages, a strong job market, and a pension.

IOW- older people.

I've noticed a marked tendency among older people- say, 55 and up, to be arbitrary about it- to think that because X was true economically when they were getting started, the same is true for today's generations. For example, I can't begin to relate how often my own parents harped on me about having a college job- despite the fact that, as a music major, I had virtually no free time for a job- if I wanted their help through school. Their reasoning? They did it when they went to college (35 years ago in 1993!), and they paid their way out of their own pocket, so I should be able to do the same.

Actually, with them, it went further- their parents pay their way through school, so why should they pay for me to go?

However, I digress- I think it's related to being completely out of touch with reality. People of a certain age were raised under much more favorable conditions, and unfortunately some of them seem to believe the world still works the same, and that simply having a job- any job at all- guarantees some measure of security.

It doesn't, of course, but some of them seem to think that way. I think it's generational.

[Dark]

68. I have heard that so many times.

"My dad paid his way through college, so why can't other people?"

First of all, I ask "Why should they?"

I mean, shouldn't they, like at any other level of school, focus on scholastic achievement?

Secondly, real wages have been declining since '73 (see up in the thread). It's getting harder and harder to pay for stuff.

I have to say, you seem to be right. They reason that because "they" managed to do something, everyone else can too. Nevermind all the medical, social, economic and demographic differences.

[LooseWilly]

100. Heh, paying for your own school...

... Is a fantasy in this day and age.

20 years ago I managed it, mostly. I did it with a combination of financial aid because I declared myself financially independent by age 19, and by working washing dishes and getting free meals in the cafeterias... I worked nearly 40 hours a week... 2- 3 meal shifts per day during the week, and 2 meal shifts a day on weekends... in other words, working 7 days a week in addition to my classes... before them, after them, between them. And all that working just managed to pay for meals and rent. Maybe books. Tuition I still needed financial aid to cover.

In the last 20 years though, pay hasn't increased, but all costs of living have... and tuition has... and financial aid has, if anything, diminished.

I won't even bother with addressing the idea of what would happen if all students tried to get jobs in the cafeterias working 40-50 hours a week... let alone how ridiculous the idea would be for many majors of trying.

I'll continue to buy my clothes at the Salvation Army for a few more years, while my son does his undergraduate work. He needs the money more than I do right now.

[ContinentalOp]

97. Yep, my parents bought their house in '72.

Had union jobs with guaranteed raises and a union pension. Now they are retired and make way more in a month than my wife and I and they have no concept of our financial situation. They always lived in debt because they had such a steady predictable income that it was safe for them to live beyond their means. They used that debt to do things like buy luxury cars, and remodel their house and they always knew they could make the payments because the job would be there.

I see a lot of people here criticize younger people for taking on huge credit card debts. The difference is that older generations could take on debt as a luxury and then could plan for that debt accordingly thanks to job security. Young people are taking on debt as a necessity and they are often unable to pay for it since there is no longer any job stability for anyone.

I think a lot of older people also buy into this whole "hedonics" myth that drives our screwed up inflation numbers. That is, they see young people with lots of toys like ipods and xboxes and think that they're a bunch of irresponsible spenders. And because these things are technological advancements that weren't available 30 years ago we are "better off" than them. The trouble though is not in these little $200 purchases but the fact that essential things like housing, energy and transportation are VASTLY more expensive than they were 30 years ago.

[raccoon]

126. As an over-55 year old Du'er, I've seen some my age and older who are as you describe.

People who are really out of touch with the way things are today, economically.

I've been underemployed for years, haven't had group medical insurance since early '90's. One thing that really pisses me off is people who are over 65 and have Medicare, saying we can't afford a national health plan. Or gloating because they have Medicare and I don't. Yes, gloating. I think next time I'll say to the gloater that if we had a national health plan, her granddaughter and two young great-grands would have coverage too.


"I've noticed a marked tendency among older people- say, 55 and up, to be arbitrary about it- to think that because X was true economically when they were getting started, the same is true for today's generations. "

This one knows it isn't true. I have co-workers who are 20- and 30- something. Maybe because of them, maybe not, I know that now it is much more difficult for a young person just starting out in life than it was when I was a young adult in the 1970's. Which was no picnic, BTW.

Social security paid for my college. Yes, SS! my father died when me and my sibs were little kids and in those days SS would pay while you were in college. That came to an end when St. Ronnie and his minions were in power.

" I think it's related to being completely out of touch with reality. People of a certain age were raised under much more favorable conditions, and unfortunately some of them seem to believe the world still works the same,"

Out of touch with reality, and having one's head up one's ass. I certainly can't understand people who think this way who have children or grandchildren going to college now, or looking for a job.

[CountAllVotes]

149. you were fortunate to have your education paid for

because your father died (sorry btw; hell of a way to get your education paid for!). :(

My father became totally disabled in 1972 and couldn't help me with my education financially.

I began working a full-time job that paid $2.88 an hour on the graveyard shift when I was 19 years old. I did this for a few years and then eventually got a better job that paid $4.00 an hr.

You are so right - the '70s were no picnic financially. St. Ronnie nailed the coffin shut once he got in.

I never expected anything from anyone personally. I took me *cough* 17 years to complete my Bachelor's degree. I had no student loans to pay off being I went to college at night and on the weekends.

:dem:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. It seems to me that often they were voting contrary to their own

best interests...

Because they had been convinced that gay marriage and pro-choice measures would destroy their way of life. And there were other issues too, that played into their fears.

I'm sure there were other factors, but I can't remember them now.

[Hannah Bell]

6. I don't get where you get this idea that generations are monolithic, or that older

DUers are worried overmuch about gay marriage.

Stonewall & the birth of gay lib = 1969.

[Believing Is Art]

12. I think you might be misinterpreting the OP

It came across to me like s/he was asking older DUers why other people their age thought certain things and felt certain ways, not that those DUers themselves had those beliefs.

It could have been worded better, but I don't think it was an accusation.

[Hannah Bell]

20. ok.

[Dark]

74. Yea, I meant what the above poster said.

Sorry, I've had two socos and coke's so far.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

25. I don't see generations as monolithic.

I was saying that some older people voted against their own best interests because they'd bought into the ideas that would harm them.

And two examples of issues that alarm some older voters were gay marriage and pro-choice issues.

I'm not talking about DUers.

And neither is the OP.

:shrug:

[Maru Kitteh]

60. You don't think some younger voters vote against their own best interests for similar reasons?

Just today a 21ish YO guy got up in my Seminar in Health Sciences class and let all of us know what a stand-up, strict constitutionalist he was and how there was already too much gub'ment and national health-care was going to be the end of freedom.

I found this rather rich, coming from a guy who plans to walk the line on Friday and accept his diploma, funded in part by the big, bad gub'ment and those poor, hapless taxpayers.

Some young people are anti-gay bigots, more than a few in my experience, actually.
My own step-daughter calls herself a feminist - but is anti-choice. She's 20. We don't talk about it much anymore.
Some young people are anti-immigrant.
Some are like Mr. Constitutionalist in my HSS class.
And so forth and so on.

See? There's some pretty thick weeds on your side of the fence too.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

64. I'm sure there are...nt.

[Dark]

76. Thank you.

I'm not talking about DUers. I just dont' know what it was like in the 80s and early 90s. I want to though. I want to know why so many people voted against their own interests.

[heidler1]

95. I'm 83 and voted for Carter & Clinton & against Reagan, Bush1 & Bush2.

If I had to use one word as to why so many people old or young voted other wise I'd say fear of reprisal. These same people are overly fearful of a vengeful God, Government, being in dire need of help and thus fall for the charity ruse too, readily.

You can't permanently fix this problem because in the next go around it could very well be that the Democrats have gotten so screwed up that they need to be kicked out of office. This time it's the Republicans who blew it and our only defense against incompetence is to vote them out.

[heidler1]

144. I voted for Obama too.

[Jakes Progress]

122. What about 2000 and 2004?

My mother always said she was never rich enough or mean enough to vote republican. Age can make some more conservative. Wealth also does it. People want to start protecting what they have. Where the media has contributed to the conservative trend is through promulgating the neocon message that poor people are taking money form the middle class. The rich have convinced the middle class that the poor and not the rich are those that threaten them. It is more classism than generational.

Here in Texas, the tea bag rallies were filled with twenty somethings. With my work in public schools I see a gamut of political leaning from concerned liberal to raging red neck to just don't give a damn. I think with the internet and specialized communications, we often have a tendency to think that most people are like those we spend our time with.

[Hannah Bell]

96. gay marriage wasn't on the map in 1980. abortion, yes, that was big.

[Dark]

45. I don't think generations are monolithic. But there are general trends.

Each generation is marked by certain trends. They don't apply to every member, but they're general traits. For example, my generation, the millenials, have several traits. Some of them (such as being overconfident) don't apply to me. But others, like the need for praise, do.

I'm not saying everyone fits this mold. It's a generalization.

[Bluenorthwest]

120. Marriage equality was not even an issue when Reagan was

elected. In fact, during the Reagan years, we endured the opening chapters of the AIDS crisis under a President that would not so much as say the word 'AIDS' for years on end, living in a population that seemed ready to put us in camps.
At that time, marriage was far away from even being mentioned in our own community. We had to invent and fund an entire fight against a public health threat with Insurance Companies that would not pay for treatments, a government that was ignoring the crisis.
Choice was a big issue. Marriage equality was not even being spoken about.

[leftstreet]

7. What makes you think DUers voted for Republicans?

:shrug:

[Dark]

10. See post # 8.

Basically, I don't think they did. But they knew what it was like then, and I don't. I want to know why people of that time voted that way -- against their interests.

[leftstreet]

23. "Where Have All the Voters Gone?"

Good article here:

http://hnn.us/articles/1104.html

Lots more people voted in, say, 1960 than in 1988.

When your interests aren't being represented, you're less likely to vote.

[Dark]

88. Sadly, that's a self-destructive cycle.

If you don't vote your representatives won't care about you.

Again, it's a self-destructive cycle.

[leftstreet]

90. Representatives have to represent you, whether you vote for them or not

Although I see the point you're making.

[Dark]

91. I'm not saying you're ethically wrong, just pragmatically. Though, I must admit,

I'd rather you were right.

[MrMickeysMom]

13. I don't think that was the point...

In fact, DUers may be able to explain what they think is generational, but I'm not sure it is.

[MrMickeysMom]

9. As a 55 year old boomer, I'd say your parents missed the boat...

As I said somewhere in another thread, I'm not sure it's generational. I think some of us had better footing on reality.

We shouldn't just be happy to have a job. That is a defeatist attitude if I ever heard one. Challenge your parents to think. Introduce them to Thom Hartmann's books!

[Dark]

17. It isn't just my parents sadly.

I hear it all the time from people older than me (not here). It's like we should just be thankful that the rich, in their benevolence, decided to toss a few scraps my way.

No. We deserve a pay that we can live on at the very least.

[MrMickeysMom]

31. You deserve more than that

And this is the lesson. You'll be stronger for having to do the homework for those who might be older than you, but can learn from you.

You'll either gain their respect, or tell them to go pound sand up their ass (in a nice way, of course). They'll look back and remember your taking the high road to try to what it means to make a good life through honest work and advocating an increasing middle class, I'm thinking.

[Dark]

98. We all deserve more than that.

We all do.

[sandnsea]

11. Our parents went through the Depression

and drilled the "work ethic" into our heads to the point that some people don't have anything else to gain self worth from.

[bemildred]

14. Politics is rigged.

We got you civil rights, the freedom of information act, womens liberation, etc. So sue. You want better economic conditions, fight for it. We'll be glad to pitch in. I'm still annoyed with my parents generation ("The Greatest Generation") for their lack of enthusiasm about protecting their own benefits for the generations that followed them. THOSE are the people that freaked out about the Civil Rights legislation, became Republicans all of a sudden, and voted for Raygun and Bush the Elder, it wasn't just us.

[MrMickeysMom]

27. Oh dear... is that what you think?

You see, I don't think this is generational. My mother (rest her soul) was born in 1914 and went through the depression. She instilled basic values and wanted a better life for us, though we had to work for it and it wasn't handed over to us. She didn't understand me as a young sassy hipster when I was in my late teens and early 20's, but she came around AFTER I DID.

I'm glad I found the re-connect again before she died. We've much to learn between the generations, and I don't thing attitudes form generationally, I think they form from the unwillingness to deal with what were bumps along the highway. It generally takes the younger generations to start a re-aligning process with the preceeding one in order for use to accept what "these kids think today".

I call it evolution of thought.

[bemildred]

33. My mother was born in 1912 and was a flaming liberal.

So I'm with you all the way there. But we're talking stereotypes here, which I agree are bullshit. And I also had a lot of relatives etc. in that generation that would be considered racists, sexists, reactionaries, etc. nowadays. And the country damn well did take a hard swing to the right in the 70s, and you ask yourself who was in charge back then? It wasn't the hippies.

[MrMickeysMom]

51. True... there was quite a backlash after the Kennedy brothers, MLK, Malcom X...

Remember the "moral majority"? Pat Boone? The censors on network against the "Smothers Brothers"?

This was a struggle that many of us (like me) preferred to criticize while getting high. I delayed my understanding just in time to be witness to this country going through another flushing down the drain.

However, we are seeing that past generation go, and in so doing, many are out to lunch, some are not as to how we got there. Well, we, the children of the "greatest, who never questioned" had a chance to come swinging back, but didn't. Now that our own kids are left in a big shit hole... We know better than our parents.

WE have to evolve. Sometimes I feel that I'm re-born and want to slow down the aging process to allow enough time to "make it right", then age on. I feel a sense of rushing to duty, but not the same way my parents did.

:hi:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

101. I'm completely disillusioned about my values.

Hard work and education -- 12 years of college, 3 degrees including a J.D., never got me a decent job. Only degree that got me a decent but horribly stressful job was the 2 yr vocational degree.

Nobody noticed and gave me a raise. Nobody mentored me. It was all about competition and back stabbing and bullshit excuses to NOT give me a job.

There are millions of baby boomers who suffered from sex & age discrimination and really do not need to retrain. We're already overqualified and have advanced degrees and good skills.

America is drowning in mediocrity.The idea that if you get a good education you can do anything is a complete LIE. My education helped me learn to think, but it didn't get me a job. It was a burden, since many people are threatened by competence and intelligence.

My dad was born in 1911, my mom in 1921 and they were flaming liberals. Dad even voted for Norman Thomas in 1932 (Socialist) because there was no diff between the Dem and Repub platforms in 1932 (which Roosevelt won).

My grandmother voted for Roosevelt several times. I was raised as a yellow dog Democrat.

The baby boomers did not all vote for Reagan. I'd die before I'd vote for a Repub politician.
My friends who are all baby boomers, are all Democrats. I am not friends with Repubs.

It's class warfare, not generational. My parents just could not understand why I could not get a decent job with my great education.

It's about driving wages down and having an uneducated workforce, and lots of unemployment and no benefits or insurance.

[raccoon]

127. I second that emotion,

"The idea that if you get a good education you can do anything is a complete LIE. My education helped me learn to think, but it didn't get me a job. It was a burden, since many people are threatened by competence and intelligence. "

[bemildred]

136. Yes, I can relate to all of that.

Though I got into computers and that was a pretty good ride for a while. I think we muddle up vocational training (studies you pursue to get a job) and liberal education (studies you pursue to become an informed, well-rounded and intelligent person.) And I think that's a bad mistake, the one requires specialization, the other requires broad studies and interests. And higher education costs too much, it is a lousy deal, whichever goal you have in mind. Fortunately, a motivated person can still educate themselves fairly cheaply, but without the certificate.

[rockymountaindem]

16. Question two is one I have often asked

Some, *some* older folks act like I'm all uppity because I'm tired of seeing nothing but unpaid internships instead of real jobs that pay money like they used to have. Instead, we're supposed to be thrilled to have the opportunity to work for free. That got old after I turned 19.

[havocmom]

18. :sigh: It's not a generational thing, it's CLASS WARFARE. Stop falling for it.

The way the top class keeps winning, while greatly outnumbered, is by turning various segments against each other to keep us to busy to notice they are feeding on all of us.

My daughter is 36, so that makes me OLD. I am VERY liberal. Always have been, but even more liberal as I grow older. My mother was a liberal, my grandmother was a suffragette and one of the first, if not THE first female polling place judges in her state.

The older people who are very conservative or even reactionary are just not happy about being old and not being in charge... or they were cranky conservatives when they were young.

Look at tea-baggers, rush-bots, SKINHEADS for crying out loud. There are (sadly) LOTS of young conservatives and reactionaries.

Don't fall for the straw man that the battle is with some other generation. It is, and has always been, with the very rich who think they have some god given right to exploit everyone else. They stay in power by keeping us turned against each other instead of dealing with them and their greedy ways.

Peace, Love, Sex, Rock & Roll, and even some drugs are all good.

old protester from way back (and third generation),
hm

[bemildred]

24. Yep, divide and rule, there are suckers born every minute. nt

[Dark]

34. While I agree that ruling classes pit minoritie against each other, I have to point out that

Republicans didn't just http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1972.svg">win. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1980.svg">They http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1984.svg">freaking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1988.svg">conquered.

It couldn't have been simple class warfare. Not four elections, three of which were in a row. Reagan, Nixon and Bush got virtually every corner of America. You can't do that without tremendous support.

[havocmom]

42. LOL Their class OWNED THE MEDIA. They controlled the message for decades

When I was young, they put down hippies, 'peaceniks', women who wanted gender equality , men, women, kids of all races who wanted racial equality. They lied about us, they sent in agents to provoke violence within our protests and demonstrations so they could take names, kick butt, PROSECUTE and generally demonize us.

IT WAS CLASS WARFARE then and now. They do not want us trusting each other because we could learn so much from each other and be more effective at advancing liberal causes.

It is not generational. It is class warfare and they win because they have the most resources. We win when we stop falling for their ploys

:banghead:

[Sebass1271]

46. exactly.. The media was owned by their class..

a very good friend of mine who was a flight attendant for pan am tells me stories about this time. I was a newborn during those times. she tells me republicans owned the media and carter was destroyed by back stabbing big corporations who raised prizes on purpose to blame it on carter...

[Dark]

57. But they had the most resources in 2008 and still lost.

I have a view of the classes, and it depends on who the middle class chooses.

If they support the rich, they have the numbers the rich don't. Thus, they win.

If they support the poor, they have the money the poor don't. Thus they win.

Why did the middle class turn on the poor? I know that there was a lot made of "Welfare queens, etc." Is that the class warfare you're referring to?

[Hannah Bell]

103. Here's what i'm getting from your post, forgive me if i've misunderstood.

you believe there's a (poor) people's candidate & a (rich) ruling class candidate, & the middle class might swing to one or the other.

is this a correct understanding?

[havocmom]

125. What I got from that reply is the poster wants to maintain the divide

in other words, to be a tool of the top

[havocmom]

124. And by 2008, THE PEOPLE had a better understanding of THE INTERNET

and we were (by then) pretty damned good at BEING the media with that particular resource as a tool'

But keep working on maintaining the divide. Do their work for them, that is how they stay on top.

[Sebass1271]

43. ok.. you got me.. i am anxious of knowing.. do you know the

answer and you are tricking us?? - they stole every single of those three elections.. : )

[Dark]

54. How?

I'm genuinely curious.

I know how Bush stole the close one in 2000, but how do you steal an entire country?

[Sebass1271]

55. The Media. Plain and Simple.

all you need is ppl telling day and night how good republicans are..and of course, this includes radio.. have you ever tried to listen to am radio where you live? if you haven't, try and tell me if you found a progressive radio station or show.

Good luck wiht that..

[billyoc]

58. Yes it could and yes it was.

It still is.

[Dark]

87. How? nt

[Hannah Bell]

102. yes, it could. & electoral votes don't tell the story of the popular vote.

reagan got 50.7% in 1980. not a landslide. & he more or less committed treason (iran hostage crisis) to get it.

johnson got 61.1% in '64, higher than nixon in 72 or reagan in 84.

clinton got only 43% of the vote in 92 - mainly because perot got almost 19%.

but bush got only 37%.


i think you're casting too small of a data net. there's nothing so exceptional about 72, 80, 84 in the big picture.

[OHDEM]

22. I'm Gen X, too ,but...

...I can't answer for why someone else voted GOP anymore than you can answer why many in your generation will probably vote that way in the future.

A decent wage and respect at a job is great and I expect it, too. To get it, I work hard, show up and expect to work my way up in a company. I don't expect to be handed everything upon my arrival nor do I think that my boss should kiss my ass. Employment is mutually beneficial to me and my employer and that's how I treat it. (Even says so on my resume.)

I'll agree with you that employers don't respect their employees nor can you count on loyalty. That's not just YOU, that's everyone since about the 60s, I think. That being said, I see this issues from both sides since my husband owns a business. He deals with a lot of people (usually guys in their 20s) who don't show up, show up late, have drug or alcohol problems, have personal problems, have 1 or more children by 1 or more women to whom they are not married and must pay support. When he has a decent employee, he's happy to give them regular raises and other perks of the job, but they are few and far between. You should be happy to have a job because otherwise you will live with your parents or starve. The fact is that unless you can find a way to work for yourself which is incredibly hard, you have to play ball for someone. You can either deal with that and move up and do well or be upset that your boss doesn't suck up to you and probably be miserable and eventually unemployed. Employers are trying to run a business and they just want people to come to work and do their job with a minimum of drama.

[snot]

29. Media brainwashing. (I'm "older"; but I don't get it either.)

[OHDEM]

35. Also...what years are a "millenial"

My sister was born in '82 and I thought she was Gen Y. If X ends in '78....when does Y end? (It's like new math.)

[Believing Is Art]

67. This might be useful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generations

Wikipedia says Gen Y/Millennial ends in '95.

[Believing Is Art]

37. I'm a 26 y/o X/Y cusper, and this is my take

Political positions aren't generational. The youth tend to be more socially liberal because from one generation to the next, we've always progressed a great deal and the conservative (I'm using this in its strict definition, not political one) establishment has not caught up to the pulse of those who will soon replace them. During youth, the socially liberal will tend to attach themselves to the whole package and will be economically liberal as well.

As we get older, this will change. Because of our upbringing, because of our inherent nature, because of a prominent figure (FDR in the 30s, Reagan in the 80s for example), experiences, job, spouse, whatever. For any number of reasons, many who once held liberal economic views will change their minds. This is only reinforced by witnessing the next generation. Though an exception may happen in our near future, the youngest generation always has had it "better" than the one that came before it. Less manual labor, more perceived wealth, less strict rules. We resent them because we are jealous. Many don't understand why the younger generation is more spoiled; they don't understand that they're no more spoiled than their own generation was. Then, members of the younger generation start advancing in their field and becoming bosses and some people can't accept that this is just how life works. They take what they perceive as unjust and turn it into resentment for anyone younger than themselves.

Some people are like this, some aren't. It has little to do with a particular generation.

[cali]

108. you are spot on. excellent analysis

from a 54 year old boomer who has never voted republican (except for dear old Jim Jeffords).

[madmom]

39. I'm a boomer (55) and non of my friends that I know of nor I

voted republican. The only thing I can think of was the ones that did where brainwashed (like so many today) with the fear of the red menace. Fear does amazing things to your psyche. As to the job thing, most of us had to start at a job starting around $1 an hour or less, and work our way up. This is called building a work ethic and not having things handed to you/us. We had to "prove" ourselves before we got anything better.At a time when some many people had little to nothing people where "happy to just have a job".

[Lugnut]

44. I'm 63.

I never voted for a Republican. I come from a family of liberals.

[omega minimo]

72. Don't believe all the bullshit you hear about what came before.

"Why do I hear so many among the previous generations acting like Gen Y's attitude of "We expect a decent wage and respect at our jobs" is ridiculous? "

That's not "ridiculous."

But it's unrealistic IF (like a lot of the voices on DU) you expect to phone it in at some fuckin mall corp job and then use that as an excuse to blame everyone else for your conformist crap life while wearing tatooes and sneers.

That's just lame, dude.

That's supportimg the system that serfs you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. CLASS WARFARE

get away from this shit... the distracting baubble

By the way, class warfare is tinged with a good dose of heavy propaganda

(Of course there are these studies they are pointing to some biology but that is another matter)

[datasuspect]

119. yep

all the back and forth, billions of words and ideas that surround the issue, are simply obfuscation.

the ruling class in this country wants all untermenschen dead, in the military, or in prison.

[TheMachineWins]

82. Combination of greed, propaganda and acceptable racism

The same greed seen now by people willing to sell out all of Americas morals so we can "fix the economy" was seen then by people who wanted to believe that deregulation was a good idea -- to line their own greedy pockets.

Propaganda networks were already refined by then, the republicans used them effectively, no internet to quickly fact check anything and again, greedy people wanted to believe any lie that would justify their greed.

Racism was a lot more acceptable then, the Archie Bunker type was actually admired by many and viewed as a "compassionate" conservative, a guy who could care about family and still hate minorities. There's absolutely no difference now in people who think they can torture the bad guys but still be a great family-type American.

The only thing that's changed since then is the entire financial system has collapsed now, this isn't just some economic downturn or recession. Yet, people are still just as gullible and stupid as they were then and flat out refuse to believe what's right before their eyes.

[ohheckyeah]

84. I think it had to do with

the financial disaster lots of people went through during the Carter administration. Interest rates were SKY HIGH, 20+% for car loans in some cases. I forget just what the mortgage loan rate was but I know it was way higher than it is now up around - 11% at one time if I remember correctly. I remember when it dropped to 7 1/5% and people who had previously been unable to afford mortgages were able to buy a house. Whether fair or not Reagan got the credit for the lowered interest rates. In all fairness, lots of the people who voted Republican didn't stay Republican for long. Bush cured even my die hard Republican father of ever voting Republican again - he voted for Obama.

Things don't happen in a vacuum. There are always circumstances that contribute to how people perceive things. I have never felt that I should be happy to just have a job. Even now when I don't have one and have been looking forever.

Personally I think it's ridiculous to lump whole generations together like there is no individuality within a generation of people.

[SoCalDem]

92. A pleasant con man (Reagan).. 30+ years of right wing radio/media

and mass-distribution of EZ-Credit

Those 3 things allowed the crooks in government to fleece us all.... and many people of "low-education" believed the stupid drivel about how they would all be rich..rich..,rich..if they only worked hard..

many in the south, "deprived" of their favorite pass-time of discrimination, blamed the "libruls", and voted republican to punish them for taking away their good-ole-boy "tradition & heritage"..

Other religious types bought into the "god-guns& gays" mantra..

The republicans used to "have it all"..and as long as people "felt" well-off, they got away with it, but now any more, because the bill collectors are calling, and the credit's being squeezed shut, and "the little people" are finally realizing that they will never be "rich", and may spend their final years in abject poverty..

But they learned a little late..and some are still trying to blame someone for their own decades-worth of ignorant voting..

[Union Yes]

105. If you can remember life before the internet, theres your answer.

We simply didn't have the means to counter the right wing propaganda machine until the net came along.

The internet has set collectivism free. And we are only seeing the beginning

[Beam Me Up]

106. I think you're asking the right question but perhaps not in the best way.

It's after my bed time, being over 60 so I'm not sure my brain can tap out something that will make sense. You've gotten a lot of good replies in this thread and each is from the poster's particular point of view. I haven't read all of them but want to share mine if I can articulate it a bit.

First of all, our perceptions about what the United States is or is supposed to be are not accurate. They aren't completely inaccurate but they are limited and, thus, not wholly accurate, either. One of the things that is very difficult for people to understand now is that when I came of age there was a real sense that things could change for the better. Yes, there were a lot of problems in the world but we could address them. I could give you many examples but the one that is most telling, to me, is the awareness shared by some that our civilization was approaching a crisis point. It was still, at that time, some distance in the future. We figured 30 to 40 years. In other words, the time we are in now. The specific example I'm going to point you to is one of the greatest thinkers of the last century, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson">Gregory Bateson. Bateson wasn't a politician, he was, well, quite frankly, a genius. Quoting from the link, "a British anthropologist, social scientist, linguist, visual anthropologist, semiotician and cyberneticist whose work intersected that of many other fields."

In http://www.rawpaint.com/library/bateson/formsubstancedifference.html">a talk delivered in the early 1970s, Bateson had this to say:

The cybernetic epistemology which I have offered you would suggest a new approach. The individual mind is immanent but not only in the body. It is immanent also in pathways and messages outside the body; and there is a larger Mind of which the individual mind is only a subsystem. This larger Mind is comparable to God and is perhaps what some people mean by "God," but it is still immanent in the total interconnected social system and planetary ecology.

Freudian psychology expanded the concept of mind inwards to include the whole communication system within the body—the automatic, the habitual, and the vast range of unconscious process. What I am saying expands mind outwards. And both of these changes reduce the scope of the conscious self. A certain humility becomes appropriate, tempered by the dignity or joy of being part of something much bigger. A part—if you will—of God.

If you put God outside and set him vis-a-vis his creation and if you have the idea that you are created in his image, you will logically and naturally see yourself as outside and against the things around you. And as you arrogate all mind to yourself, you will see the world around you as mindless and therefore not entitled to moral or ethical consideration. The environment will seem to be yours to exploit. Your survival unit will be you and your folks or conspecifics against the environment of other social units, other races and the brutes and vegetables.

If this is your estimate of your relation to nature and you have an advanced technology, your likelihood of survival will be that of a snowball in hell. You will die either of the toxic by-products of your own hate, or, simply, of over-population and overgrazing. The raw materials of the world are finite.

If I am right, the whole of our thinking about what we are and what other people are has got to be restructured. This is not funny, and I do not know how long we have to do it in. If we continue to operate on the premises that were fashionable in the prescybernetic era, and which were especially underlined and strengthened during the Industrial Revolution, which seemed to validate the Darwinian unit of survival, we may have twenty or thirty years before the logical reductio ad absurdum of our old positions destroy us. Nobody knows how long we have, under the present system, before some disaster strikes us, more serious than the destruction of any group of nations. The most important task today is, perhaps, to learn to think in the new way. Let me say that I don't know how to think that way. Intellectually, I can stand here and I can give you a reasoned exposition of this matter; but if I am cutting down a tree, I still think "Gregory Bateson" is cutting down the tree. I am cutting down the tree. "Myself" is to me still an excessively concrete object, different from the rest of what I have been calling "mind."

The step to realizing—to making habitual—the other way of thinking so that one naturally thinks that way when one reaches out for a glass of water or cuts down a tree—that step is not an easy one.

And, quite seriously, I suggest to you that we should trust no policy decisions which emanate from persons who do not yet have that habit.

In short, what I'm saying is, it isn't like knowledgeable people didn't know that if we -- meaning those of Western, post industrial society -- were going to end up here. Some of us understood that building a high-tech global civilization on non-renewable resources was not only a "bad idea," it was an idea that would inevitably lead to disastrous consequences. Try to imagine how very different today might be if, for example, 30 or 40 years ago the federal government had begun to subsidize the development not only of alternative and more sustainable and non polluting energy sources, but, moreover, begun to use technology to develop an entirely sustainable global civilization. I can't quite imagine what that would look like but I can tell you it would look very different from the world we inhabit today.

So, this takes your question to a whole other level. What I'm saying is that the current mess we're in didn't just "sneak up on us," as it were. Yes, it is true, a lot of bad decisions were made -- but the question is, why were they made and who made them? When I was in my mid Twenties, even though I'd already seen some of the dark things that can happen in this society and how they get covered up and put in boxes where people can only think about them in very controlled ways, I still believed that human ingenuity and necessity would 'win out'. But that isn't what happened. One of the first things Reagan did after becoming president, for example, was to have the solar panels his predecessor, Carter, had installed on the roof of the White House removed. It was mostly a symbolic gesture but it held enormous significance that most people could not grasp. From my vantage point, something was at work that wasn't "democratic," to use that phrase. It wasn't that there weren't people who could foresee trends and propose genuine solutions to them; rather it was that there were people who understood that these "solutions" were a threat to them and to the structures of wealth and power they had been instrumental in forming for generations.

Now, I know that sounds conspiratorial and I don't really mean it to. It's a simple matter of supply and demand, really. The value of whatever you are selling is determined by its demand. If there is competition in the market place, then you want to control the market. If you think about the amount of energy our civilization consumes every hour and then realize what enormous share of it comes from non-renewable hydrocarbon sources, it all begins to make more sense. Enormous -- almost incomprehensible -- wealth and power are associated with this commodity. It is the life-blood of civilization as we know it. The fundamental problem with most renewable energy sources is that they pose a direct threat to hydrocarbon wealth. Not simply because they are, or could become, competitors in the market place, but because they inherently "democratize" the market. In other words, a more sustainable energy market would be much more difficult for a very small handfull of people to control. Again, this isn't merely a threat to a particular market share; this would be the equivalent of a revolution in the entire global market system -- including the system of international finance itself.

I think this is where we are. The "precipice" concept as expressed in the most recent version of "The Day The Earth Stood Still," is a bit corny but I think, more or less, it is suitable as an analogy. This isn't only about the United States or any particular group of nations. As a species we're going to have to come to terms with ourselves as being part of a planetary environment. We're going to have to readjust our thinking about who and what we are, what we're entitled to and not. This "way of thinking," too, is a market place over which too few have too much control and that, I think, is the answer to the question you're asking. There is a struggle going on that is showing up in every sector of our society. We all know something is fundamentally wrong and that the "solutions" of the past are beginning to falter in the face of increasing pressures building along any line you may wish to look. Economics, ecology, politics, social dynamics, technology and its applications, right on down to our personal sense of who and what we are.

It is more than lamentable that so few were able to hear Bateson's words at a time when they could have made a significant difference. It may be that it is yet not too late but I fear it is already too late to prevent significant social dislocations and trauma, if not worse. I, for one, have lost any faith in those "good shepherds" who have driven us to this precipice.

[olegramps]

132. Thanks for the input. I had never heard of Bateson.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

148. He was an anthropologist married to Margaret Mead.

Who was quite cool.

[RebelOne]

107. i am 70 years old and have never voted Republican, always Democrat. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

109. The Hippies became the Yuppies....

The VietNam War ended, the Boomers graduated from college as a group and the competition for jobs became intense.

There was a sense that realigning your politics gave you an edge in your career.

[eShirl]

114. none of the hippies or ex-hippies I knew ever became yuppies

though they might have been born in the same 20-year post-war(WW2) period

I'm a Generation Jones btw, backing democrats since I lost my 5-cent allowance to my older brother, betting against Nixon's re-election. He was a boomer, NEVER a hippie.

[Junkdrawer]

123. It was a 10+ year process, but many of those I went to college with...

did just that.

The Big Chill.

[DainBramaged]

110. I though being a millenial meant being born AFTER Jan 1 2000?

so much for that scam.

[cherish44]

111. Because people who vote Republican are idiots who take orders from a radio host

That's the bottom line

[Orsino]

112. Because so many Americans love the right wing's macho swagger and bluster.

We are willing to sacrifice our lives, our health, our wages and our families to a politician who promises that we can kick fucking ass. We will pledge our loyalty to those who offer simple answers, swearing to us that we will never have to think again. And we love our ruling class, and wish them ever-greater power over us and our loved ones--as long as they tell us we're better than the minorities, the gays, the foreigners and the women.

They don't have to make sense. They just have to flatter us.

[dorkulon]

113. Tribalism.

Old white folk are fine with socialism when it's only going to them and theirs, but the idea that the "other" people could have it so cushy is disgusting to them.

[SammyWinstonJack]

115. Oh goody. Another Boomer bashing thread.

:eyes:

[LanternWaste]

117. If there was indeed a monolithic center...

If there was indeed a monolithic center of my generation which acts our name, votes in our name, and speaks for me, I would certainly ask it for you. However, as we are all individuals and can claim no responsibility for the deeds or actions of anyone other than ourselves and those closest to us, I cannot see who or how this your query could be validly answered.

Does one ask a drop of rain to take explain for climate? Does one ask a free-floating rock in space to answer for the universe? Should I ask you to answer for each and every person in your own generation?

Maybe there are indeed a few individuals who have the depth of wit and breadth of wisdom to answer your question, but I would be wary should they accept that responsibility-- it's probably nothing more than a mere guess couched as an absolute answer for a self-validating effect we're hearing rather than an actual and insightful answer.


Since time immemorial, every generation appears to blame the one preceding it, and denies credit to the one proceeding it. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

[datasuspect]

118. Ultimately, it all comes down to (in one way or form) to white elites' fear of loss of prestige to

any "untermensch" group: black, the poor, etc.

it's mind-boggingly simple when you ponder it.

[harun]

133. Sad I had to read this far down the posts to get the right answer.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

128. Nixon and Reagan were elected for cultural reasons, not economic

If you didn't live through the 1960s, you have no idea how rapid and disconcerting the cultural changes were for many people.

See if you can find pictures of the student protesters in Berkeley in 1963-64. You'll see that they look as if they walked off the set of Mad Men: women in dresses and coiffed hair, men in coats and ties.

Then look at pictures of student protesters in 1969: They sport the stereotypical hippie look.

When I started college in 1968, dorms were sexually segregated, and women students had a curfew. We even had to sign out every time we left the dorm after dinner, even if it was to go to the library. By 1972, when I graduated, my college had a coed dorm and no curfews.

Marijuana went mainstream.

It was also the era of black and Native American militancy and the first stirrings of feminism.

The old social order fell apart with amazing speed, and it was too much for Middle America. Nixon didn't specifically say that he was going to turn the clock back, but that's what people heard in his talk about "the forgotten Middle American."

Reagan, too, used cultural code words to appeal to white working class voters, who had been carefully prepared by (deliberately spread?) rumors that employers had to hire unqualified minority workers and could never fire them. Integration of Northern urban schools was also a sore point with many working class voters (and admittedly, if it was done in the same nitpicky way in other cities as it was done in Minneapolis, with attendance boundaries changed every year and small schools consolidated into large ones, I don't blame them).

The Democrats were no help, either. They were morphing into the yuppie party, seemingly agreeing with the Republicans on economic issues and going slightly ahead of the prevailing standards on behavioral issues.

During the Reagan administration, they failed to stand with the unions when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers. When farmers all over the Midwest were losing their farms to high interest rates and low crop prices, the Democrats did nothing, even though they had a majority in both Houses at that point and despite the pleas of their colleagues in farm states. (They could have pushed through a low-interest refinancing program, and the farmers would have loved them forever.)

Read "Whatever Happened to Kansas?" for a good explanation.

[Peace Patriot]

130. "Why did so many vote for Republicans?"--??

Maybe because rightwing Republicans own and control the 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code in all the new electronic voting systems, spread like a plague across the nation during the 2002 to 2004 period, with virtually no audit/recount controls?

Look into the background of Diebold (now called "Premier"), ES&S (brethren to Diebold and worse than Diebold) and Sequoia. Our voting system has been privatized. Its results are not verifiable. And it is controlled by people with a partisan interest in rightwing assholes being 'elected.'

So I would say, first, try to determine who people actually voted for, before accusing "so many" of voting Republican, and making broad generalizations on that basis.

I want to see the ballots. That is my right and your right as citizens of a democracy. But in half the voting systems in country, there is nothing to see. No verification is possible. It's all done with 'TRADE SECRET' code. In the other half, there may be a paper ballot that can be counted, but virtually none of them are counted. 99% of the ballots go into a box and are never seen again. A meager and very inadequate 1% audit cannot detect fraud in a privatized 'TRADE SECRET' system.

Our elections have been rendered 99% to 100% non-transparent. Josef Stalin would have loved this system. No need to stuff ballot boxes when you can easily--EASILY!--manipulate the whole thing with a couple of lines of code, in a few minutes time, without detection.

So, how many voted Republican in 2004? In 2006? In 2008? There is no telling.

I refuse to draw any conclusions about the American people when their right to transparent vote counting has been taken away, except that we have been less than vigilant about our most fundamental power as a people: our vote.

And, as long as this situation continues--near 100% unverifiability of our elections--we stand in great danger of another nazi Bushwhack junta coming to power.

[dysfunctional press]

131. "We expect a decent wage and respect at our jobs"

one reason it's ridiculous is that the 'new kids' want all of that right out of the gate, without ever EARNING it.
it's called 'paying your dues', kiddo.

[calico1]

134. As an "older DU'er"...

I am from the tail end of the Boom, these have been some of my observation:

When people are young, they tend to be more idealistic. As they get older, get a good job, make money, can afford a nice house, nice car, etc. they become less idealistic and more materialistic and I think they like that they are "upper class" from those at the lower level of the economic scale.

That said, I see this among all generations. And I think it happens in all generations.

You see us as the "older generation" because you are in your twenties. But you will see the same things happen when you are my age and then twenty something's think the same thing of your generation.

Also, there are always people from each generation that do not forget where they came from or who no matter how much money they have, never lose their idealism. So that's good.

I think parents and family also have to do with it. That has been my observation.

A lot of us Boomers voted for Obama. And we have always voted for Democrats and Progressives.

From people I know personally, it has been my experience that most of the more Conservative people that I know my age, either make a lot of money or come from families where they were Conservative and the views I guess rubbed off.

A lot of us older people (I am 51) never stopped being idealistic.

By the way, I was in my twenties when Reagan was President. I thought he was a jerk.

[sofa king]

137. That's been the GOP's trick for ages.

Their real agenda focuses on one thing: maximization of profits for a tiny ruling elite. To get away with that, they consistently play to the baser instincts of Ameircans: racism, homophobia, the irrational blame of social out-groups for all of society's ills, you know, the same shit the Nazis did.

The problem is that most people are suckers, and some of them fall for it every time. Very few of them can rationally connect their steady drop in quality of life with the actions of the GOP since 1981.

[LeftHander]

141. You KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!!!....nt

[young_at_heart]

145. You might want to read "What's The Matter With Kansas"

From Wikipedia:

Against this backdrop, Frank describes the rise of conservatism and the so-called far right in the social and political landscape of Kansas. He finds extraordinary irony in working-class Kansans' overwhelming support for Republican politicians, despite his belief that the economic policies of the Republican party are wreaking havoc on their communities and livelihoods for the benefit of the extremely wealthy. Meanwhile, he says, the party fails to deliver on the "moral" issues (such as abortion and gay rights) which brought the support of cultural conservatives in the first place -- deepening a cycle of frustration aimed at cultural liberalism.

[CreekDog]

146. because Republicans offered some utopian vision that many ate up

if you're good, nothing goes wrong that you can't handle.

if you work, you will make lots of money.

if you have problems, you deserve them.

the government helps people with problems, but why should your tax money help people who are screwed up?

therefore, take care of yourself and if you are good it will all be fine.

don't help bad people, it just encourages them. instead, keep the tax money you pay for yourself.

=================

it's remarkably compelling for the narcissist in all of us. it's just not how life works. :eyes:

[tjwash]

147. I know...it sucks that the world doesn't owe you a living.

I have a feeling you'll get over it though.