|
If people's political views and such are indeed 'set fairly early in life', it makes perfect sense people start voting more conservatively as they grow older -- after all, the progressive policies of a few decades back are today accepted as status quo for the most part.
|
I am sure there are also studies of what happened to the mamy young, and often radical leftwingers in Europe in the 60s and 70s once they got older. My gut tells me most calmed down, but I also doubt that many of them voted right-wing later in their lives.
|
You have to keep in mind though, in the 60s and 70s in the US, if you were white, you could expect to age into a pretty fantastic fuckin' life, the latter generations? Significantly less so. Theres less to preserve for yourself when you dont own a home, cant own a home, dont have kids, cant afford to have kids, etc.
|
On November 07 2020 19:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 18:33 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On November 07 2020 18:13 mahrgell wrote:On November 07 2020 18:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2020 17:59 Russano wrote:On November 07 2020 15:22 Shingi11 wrote:
So i think it funny that if you compare the two stronghold for its party it tells a much different story. Biden is going to win CA by 4-5 mil votes about 30%. Trump won texas by 600k about 6%. IT the past 3 election it goes down every time. 15%, then 9% now 6%. THe dems just need to find a candidate that work for texas. While the current GOP is never going to threaten cali. Texas isn't even in the top 10 red states, it's not really the stronghold people think it is. That said, flipping it makes elections nearly unwinnable for Republicans, so your primary point still stands. The true impetus for political change in America is simple demographic shifts. Maybe but while it's easy to extrapolate how demographics will change it's kind of hard to predict whether or not a given demographic will keep voting the same way in the future. The shift in latino vote in Texas this election could be a one off or maybe, as latinos grow more dominant in the demographics, their voting pattern also changes. In addition to that, usually there is this wrong assumption that generations will stick to their voting behaviour. You hear so often that once those old conservatives are gone and new young lefties can vote it will be an easy game... But its just that it is in the nature of things that the older people grow the more conservative they get, completely denying this "They just have to die out" argument. I think, at least as far as what's been studied in the US, this shares something in common with a lot of "common sense" wisdom: it's close to being nonsense. People's political opinions at 30-40 seem to be a pretty decent barometer for their political opinions for the rest of their lives (at least as good as any other). Pew has a nice write-up discussing how generations of Americans have tended to vote: The politics of American generations: How age affects attitudes and voting behaviorOne of a handful of key quotes from the piece
On an individual level, of course, many people’s political views evolve over the course of their lives. But academic research indicates not only that generations have distinct political identities, but that most people’s basic outlooks and orientations are set fairly early on in life.
I think you are both right. People do get more conservative with age, but being conservative mean something different for each generation. Conservative in the 50's probably meant you would be horrified by an interracial kiss on television. Conservative in 50 years might mean you are still pro gay marriage, with only the most radical being against it. You can see it as society moving and "leaving behind" people of course. I can totally believe that our core set of of ideas and values is settle early in life, but our "solutions" tend to change a lot. People do tend to get less "radical" with age as they gain more experience, learn why things are the way they are (being outraged by something until you realize there are very good reasons for it and cool down quite a bit is something that happens to everyone reflected), and maybe lose a bit of the fiery enthusiasm of the youth.
This is a mix of unsubstantiated opinion and vaguery, to be a bit blunt.
The actual data is complicated enough you could argue for anything if allowed to define 'conservative' and 'liberal' differently for different generations at different times.
On issues like interracial dating and gay rights, each individual generation, as a group of people, have become more 'liberal' with time in the absolute sense of percent supporting (despite more of them identifying as conservative). This arguably supports your point, but I think it's still a little too vague.
The second paragraph I don't know, that needs data to justify, and the anecdotal progression of your own beliefs is not very much data.
The bold sentence for example is definitely not true for everyone on every issue. Rather often learning more about the state of things or reasons for them has had very much the opposite effect on me, but I also accept that my own experience is not a lot of data - it's just enough to show that our anecdotes or personal feelings about this can support contradictory conclusions.
|
On November 07 2020 20:14 Slydie wrote:
I am sure there are also studies of what happened to the mamy young, and often radical leftwingers in Europe in the 60s and 70s once they got older. My gut tells me most calmed down, but I also doubt that many of them voted right-wing later in their lives.
Yeah. At least in France former maoists are a very big contingent of the Lepenist boomers. Alain Soral for example was a hardcore communist before he turned into far right conspirationism. I think my signature quote is relevant to explain that.
I think people are into far left politics for different reasons; some are idealistic and their politics come from a sincere place, but for some it has more to do with anger and resentment. That can be redirected without changing much.
|
Things that are true for boomers aren't true for all humans. The Greatest Generation voted for the left well into their 90s.
I don't think it's especially likely that millenials and Gen Z people in the US, who grow up in a world where it's increasingly difficult to own a home or live a decent life, are going to turn 40 and suddenly decide that the system is awesome for them.
Another factor that is not talked about enough is that conservatives are richer on average, so they tend to live longer. Less leftwing people in their 80s because more of them are dead, that's actually a real thing.
|
True. Also from the boomers that voted communists in their youth, only a portion turned to the far right later. Many became left wing moderates, and a lot of the modern far left has life long time partisans in it.
Although my experience is that old communist boomers are usually staunchly conservative in their own way. Alain Badiou is a great example of that tendency.
|
I'd argue that instead of people getting more conservative as they get older, it's instead the progress of societal culture that makes their (mostly unchanged) values seem conservative for the modern age. You could be mostly ideologically comparable in your 20s and your 70s, however in those 50 years, a lot has changed in society, and a lot of battles for rights and representation have been fought. On an absolute scale, the once-progressive views of the person might be considered more conservative now, however that's not neccessarily because the person became more conservative, or that their views have changed.
Progress makes most of us seem old-fashioned in time.
I suppose lack of change is a conservative value, but if it is ever-present but only recognizable after a set number of years, its probably a trait most share, even those most feverently progressive today.
|
On November 07 2020 20:18 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 19:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2020 18:33 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On November 07 2020 18:13 mahrgell wrote:On November 07 2020 18:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2020 17:59 Russano wrote:On November 07 2020 15:22 Shingi11 wrote:
So i think it funny that if you compare the two stronghold for its party it tells a much different story. Biden is going to win CA by 4-5 mil votes about 30%. Trump won texas by 600k about 6%. IT the past 3 election it goes down every time. 15%, then 9% now 6%. THe dems just need to find a candidate that work for texas. While the current GOP is never going to threaten cali. Texas isn't even in the top 10 red states, it's not really the stronghold people think it is. That said, flipping it makes elections nearly unwinnable for Republicans, so your primary point still stands. The true impetus for political change in America is simple demographic shifts. Maybe but while it's easy to extrapolate how demographics will change it's kind of hard to predict whether or not a given demographic will keep voting the same way in the future. The shift in latino vote in Texas this election could be a one off or maybe, as latinos grow more dominant in the demographics, their voting pattern also changes. In addition to that, usually there is this wrong assumption that generations will stick to their voting behaviour. You hear so often that once those old conservatives are gone and new young lefties can vote it will be an easy game... But its just that it is in the nature of things that the older people grow the more conservative they get, completely denying this "They just have to die out" argument. I think, at least as far as what's been studied in the US, this shares something in common with a lot of "common sense" wisdom: it's close to being nonsense. People's political opinions at 30-40 seem to be a pretty decent barometer for their political opinions for the rest of their lives (at least as good as any other). Pew has a nice write-up discussing how generations of Americans have tended to vote: The politics of American generations: How age affects attitudes and voting behaviorOne of a handful of key quotes from the piece
On an individual level, of course, many people’s political views evolve over the course of their lives. But academic research indicates not only that generations have distinct political identities, but that most people’s basic outlooks and orientations are set fairly early on in life.
I think you are both right. People do get more conservative with age, but being conservative mean something different for each generation. Conservative in the 50's probably meant you would be horrified by an interracial kiss on television. Conservative in 50 years might mean you are still pro gay marriage, with only the most radical being against it. You can see it as society moving and "leaving behind" people of course. I can totally believe that our core set of of ideas and values is settle early in life, but our "solutions" tend to change a lot. People do tend to get less "radical" with age as they gain more experience, learn why things are the way they are (being outraged by something until you realize there are very good reasons for it and cool down quite a bit is something that happens to everyone reflected), and maybe lose a bit of the fiery enthusiasm of the youth. This is a mix of unsubstantiated opinion and vaguery, to be a bit blunt. The actual data is complicated enough you could argue for anything if allowed to define 'conservative' and 'liberal' differently for different generations at different times. On issues like interracial dating and gay rights, each individual generation, as a group of people, have become more 'liberal' with time in the absolute sense of percent supporting (despite more of them identifying as conservative). This arguably supports your point, but I think it's still a little too vague. The second paragraph I don't know, that needs data to justify, and the anecdotal progression of your own beliefs is not very much data. The bold sentence for example is definitely not true for everyone on every issue. Rather often learning more about the state of things or reasons for them has had very much the opposite effect on me, but I also accept that my own experience is not a lot of data - it's just enough to show that our anecdotes or personal feelings about this can support contradictory conclusions.
Yes, I can't argue with any of that, and my post is certainly not backed by any piece if scientific evidence. The bold part is personal experience and observing people around me. I believe I have enough data from experience to be quite certain that people become less radical with age, but I am also aware that it's all anecdotal evidence, and if anyone wants to show me data that says the opposite I am totally ready to rest my case.
You also have to know that I also believe that radicalism very often (not always) stems from a simplistic views of complex issues. That might colour a lot of my judgment.
EDIT: Ok, I think I found what I tried to formulate: it seems to me that it's not so much people's opinions that change but rather their attitude. And our politics are a mix of both.
|
In the US specifically many, many, radically left people from the 60's and 70's were targeted by the federal government for harassment, imprisonment, and death. That includes people from MLK jr, to Fred Hampton, Fannie Lou Hamer, to Angela Davis.
The radical Black liberation movement didn't age out, the federal government in collaboration with others did everything they could to stomp them out. Despite Biden's consistent lying about it, he was on the wrong side of that and it's not a coincidence he (the quintessential white moderate) is in power and Black Panthers are still in prison.
|
On November 07 2020 21:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
In the US specifically many, many, radically left people from the 60's and 70's were targeted by the federal government for harassment, imprisonment, and death. That includes people from MLK jr, to Fred Hampton, Fannie Lou Hamer, to Angela Davis.
The radical Black liberation movement didn't age out, the federal government in collaboration with others did everything they could to stomp them out. Despite Biden's consistent lying about it, he was on the wrong side of that and it's not a coincidence he (the white moderate) is in power and Black Panthers are still in prison.
I'll be honest, I don't know enough about them to answer, but I do believe you. The racial component here adds a totally different layer that is absent when we talk far left in Europe for example.
|
On November 07 2020 21:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 21:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
In the US specifically many, many, radically left people from the 60's and 70's were targeted by the federal government for harassment, imprisonment, and death. That includes people from MLK jr, to Fred Hampton, Fannie Lou Hamer, to Angela Davis.
The radical Black liberation movement didn't age out, the federal government in collaboration with others did everything they could to stomp them out. Despite Biden's consistent lying about it, he was on the wrong side of that and it's not a coincidence he (the white moderate) is in power and Black Panthers are still in prison.
I'll be honest, I don't know enough about them to answer, but I do believe you. The racial component here adds a totally different layer that is absent when we talk far left in Europe for example.
Fred Hampton would be 6 years younger than Biden and could be a political powerhouse right now had the FBI, Chicago PD, and a Democrat AG not conspired to assassinate him in his bed next to his pregnant girlfriend and then cover it up.
|
On November 07 2020 21:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 21:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2020 21:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
In the US specifically many, many, radically left people from the 60's and 70's were targeted by the federal government for harassment, imprisonment, and death. That includes people from MLK jr, to Fred Hampton, Fannie Lou Hamer, to Angela Davis.
The radical Black liberation movement didn't age out, the federal government in collaboration with others did everything they could to stomp them out. Despite Biden's consistent lying about it, he was on the wrong side of that and it's not a coincidence he (the white moderate) is in power and Black Panthers are still in prison.
I'll be honest, I don't know enough about them to answer, but I do believe you. The racial component here adds a totally different layer that is absent when we talk far left in Europe for example. Fred Hampton would be 6 years younger than Biden and could be a political powerhouse right now had the FBI, Chicago PD, and a Democrat AG not conspired to assassinate him in his bed next to his pregnant girlfriend and then cover it up.
Yeah.
In France, ironically, racism was basically not a political issue until the socialist party (moderate reformist left) gained power in the early 80's and kind of replaced the old class warfare by a more identity politics-like ideology. The anti racist movement (and the far right) gained traction as the more marxist inspired, class-oriented leftism died out.
The US and Europe are politically completely different universes.
|
On November 07 2020 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 21:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2020 21:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2020 21:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
In the US specifically many, many, radically left people from the 60's and 70's were targeted by the federal government for harassment, imprisonment, and death. That includes people from MLK jr, to Fred Hampton, Fannie Lou Hamer, to Angela Davis.
The radical Black liberation movement didn't age out, the federal government in collaboration with others did everything they could to stomp them out. Despite Biden's consistent lying about it, he was on the wrong side of that and it's not a coincidence he (the white moderate) is in power and Black Panthers are still in prison.
I'll be honest, I don't know enough about them to answer, but I do believe you. The racial component here adds a totally different layer that is absent when we talk far left in Europe for example. Fred Hampton would be 6 years younger than Biden and could be a political powerhouse right now had the FBI, Chicago PD, and a Democrat AG not conspired to assassinate him in his bed next to his pregnant girlfriend and then cover it up. Yeah. In France, ironically, racism was basically not a political issue until the socialist party (moderate reformist left) gained power in the early 80's and kind of replaced the old class warfare by a more identity policy-like ideology. The anti racist movement gained traction as the more marxist inspired, class-oriented leftism died out. The US and Europe are politically completely different universes.
Not going to pretend to know much about French politics, but intersectionality has always been something some leftists struggle with. Class reductionism and Democrats bastardizing intersectionality is certainly something we're struggling with on the left in the US currently.
|
On November 07 2020 18:13 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 18:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2020 17:59 Russano wrote:On November 07 2020 15:22 Shingi11 wrote:
So i think it funny that if you compare the two stronghold for its party it tells a much different story. Biden is going to win CA by 4-5 mil votes about 30%. Trump won texas by 600k about 6%. IT the past 3 election it goes down every time. 15%, then 9% now 6%. THe dems just need to find a candidate that work for texas. While the current GOP is never going to threaten cali. Texas isn't even in the top 10 red states, it's not really the stronghold people think it is. That said, flipping it makes elections nearly unwinnable for Republicans, so your primary point still stands. The true impetus for political change in America is simple demographic shifts. Maybe but while it's easy to extrapolate how demographics will change it's kind of hard to predict whether or not a given demographic will keep voting the same way in the future. The shift in latino vote in Texas this election could be a one off or maybe, as latinos grow more dominant in the demographics, their voting pattern also changes. In addition to that, usually there is this wrong assumption that generations will stick to their voting behaviour. You hear so often that once those old conservatives are gone and new young lefties can vote it will be an easy game... But its just that it is in the nature of things that the older people grow the more conservative they get, completely denying this "They just have to die out" argument.
Those aging generations also benefited pretty well from the status quo after being able to feed a family with only one working parent, easily buy a card/house, and being able to send oneself to school via a summer job. Why wouldn't they want to keep what things the same?
Thing is, that's a far shot from reality now. Why would Millenials want to keep want to keep around a system that over works them, under pays them, and has them buried in debt?
|
On November 07 2020 21:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2020 21:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2020 21:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2020 21:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
In the US specifically many, many, radically left people from the 60's and 70's were targeted by the federal government for harassment, imprisonment, and death. That includes people from MLK jr, to Fred Hampton, Fannie Lou Hamer, to Angela Davis.
The radical Black liberation movement didn't age out, the federal government in collaboration with others did everything they could to stomp them out. Despite Biden's consistent lying about it, he was on the wrong side of that and it's not a coincidence he (the white moderate) is in power and Black Panthers are still in prison.
I'll be honest, I don't know enough about them to answer, but I do believe you. The racial component here adds a totally different layer that is absent when we talk far left in Europe for example. Fred Hampton would be 6 years younger than Biden and could be a political powerhouse right now had the FBI, Chicago PD, and a Democrat AG not conspired to assassinate him in his bed next to his pregnant girlfriend and then cover it up. Yeah. In France, ironically, racism was basically not a political issue until the socialist party (moderate reformist left) gained power in the early 80's and kind of replaced the old class warfare by a more identity policy-like ideology. The anti racist movement gained traction as the more marxist inspired, class-oriented leftism died out. The US and Europe are politically completely different universes. Not going to pretend to know much about French politics, but intersectionality has always been something some leftists struggle with. Class reductionism and Democrats bastardizing intersectionality is certainly something we're struggling with on the left in the US currently.
I guess so. If anything, identity politics has replaced class warfare in France. To simplify enormously, we transitioned from the Communist party (which was a vassal of Moscow and totally authoritarian) versus the bourgeoisie, to the a rather compromised anti-racist moderate left versus the fascists of Jean Marie and then Marine Le Pen.
It's wayyy more complicated than that if you enter the detail, of course but I would say that intersectionality has been the main issue of the left in France too, and that it has botched the turn completely. Instead of seeing antiracism as an organic part of leftism, Mitterand has used it as a weapon to abandon the working class and displace the political battlefield entirely in a way that actually has in the long run only benefited the fascists.
|
On November 07 2020 21:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 21:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2020 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2020 21:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2020 21:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2020 21:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
In the US specifically many, many, radically left people from the 60's and 70's were targeted by the federal government for harassment, imprisonment, and death. That includes people from MLK jr, to Fred Hampton, Fannie Lou Hamer, to Angela Davis.
The radical Black liberation movement didn't age out, the federal government in collaboration with others did everything they could to stomp them out. Despite Biden's consistent lying about it, he was on the wrong side of that and it's not a coincidence he (the white moderate) is in power and Black Panthers are still in prison.
I'll be honest, I don't know enough about them to answer, but I do believe you. The racial component here adds a totally different layer that is absent when we talk far left in Europe for example. Fred Hampton would be 6 years younger than Biden and could be a political powerhouse right now had the FBI, Chicago PD, and a Democrat AG not conspired to assassinate him in his bed next to his pregnant girlfriend and then cover it up. Yeah. In France, ironically, racism was basically not a political issue until the socialist party (moderate reformist left) gained power in the early 80's and kind of replaced the old class warfare by a more identity policy-like ideology. The anti racist movement gained traction as the more marxist inspired, class-oriented leftism died out. The US and Europe are politically completely different universes. Not going to pretend to know much about French politics, but intersectionality has always been something some leftists struggle with. Class reductionism and Democrats bastardizing intersectionality is certainly something we're struggling with on the left in the US currently. I guess so. If anything, identity politics has replaced class warfare in France. To simplify enormously, we transitioned from the Communist party (which was a vassal of Moscow and totally authoritarian) versus the bourgeoisie, to the a rather compromised anti-racist moderate left versus the fascists of Jean Marie and then Marine Le Pen. It's wayyy more complicated than that if you enter the detail, of course but I would say that intersectionality has been the main issue of the left in France too, and that it has botched the turn completely. Instead of seeing antiracism as an organic part of leftism, Mitterand has used it as a weapon to abandon the working class and displace the political battlefield entirely in a way that actually has in the long run only benefited the fascists.
Yep. It's part of the global movement to the right due to the USSR starting to fail/look indefensible. In the same period the US and the UK move to the right with Reagan and Thatcher, and neoliberalism starts. France and the US might seem to have very different politics but they still experience the same trends.
|
On November 07 2020 22:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 21:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2020 21:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2020 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2020 21:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2020 21:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2020 21:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
In the US specifically many, many, radically left people from the 60's and 70's were targeted by the federal government for harassment, imprisonment, and death. That includes people from MLK jr, to Fred Hampton, Fannie Lou Hamer, to Angela Davis.
The radical Black liberation movement didn't age out, the federal government in collaboration with others did everything they could to stomp them out. Despite Biden's consistent lying about it, he was on the wrong side of that and it's not a coincidence he (the white moderate) is in power and Black Panthers are still in prison.
I'll be honest, I don't know enough about them to answer, but I do believe you. The racial component here adds a totally different layer that is absent when we talk far left in Europe for example. Fred Hampton would be 6 years younger than Biden and could be a political powerhouse right now had the FBI, Chicago PD, and a Democrat AG not conspired to assassinate him in his bed next to his pregnant girlfriend and then cover it up. Yeah. In France, ironically, racism was basically not a political issue until the socialist party (moderate reformist left) gained power in the early 80's and kind of replaced the old class warfare by a more identity policy-like ideology. The anti racist movement gained traction as the more marxist inspired, class-oriented leftism died out. The US and Europe are politically completely different universes. Not going to pretend to know much about French politics, but intersectionality has always been something some leftists struggle with. Class reductionism and Democrats bastardizing intersectionality is certainly something we're struggling with on the left in the US currently. I guess so. If anything, identity politics has replaced class warfare in France. To simplify enormously, we transitioned from the Communist party (which was a vassal of Moscow and totally authoritarian) versus the bourgeoisie, to the a rather compromised anti-racist moderate left versus the fascists of Jean Marie and then Marine Le Pen. It's wayyy more complicated than that if you enter the detail, of course but I would say that intersectionality has been the main issue of the left in France too, and that it has botched the turn completely. Instead of seeing antiracism as an organic part of leftism, Mitterand has used it as a weapon to abandon the working class and displace the political battlefield entirely in a way that actually has in the long run only benefited the fascists. Yep. It's part of the global movement to the right due to the USSR starting to fail/look indefensible. In the same period the US and the UK move to the right with Reagan and Thatcher, and neoliberalism starts. France and the US might seem to have very different politics but they still experience the same trends.
Lots of those trends have nothing to do with politics and ideology but with scientific, social and technological progress though. Addressing the french working class was different in the 1970 when it was a homogeneous group working in big factories for Michelin or Renaud, and now where actually even the term "working class" has probably lost its meaning.
The US is different imo because so much of its politics has to do with the racial question and is tied to its history with slavery. It had the black panthers when we had George fucking Marchais... Not quite the same problematics.
|
On November 07 2020 19:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2020 18:33 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On November 07 2020 18:13 mahrgell wrote:On November 07 2020 18:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 07 2020 17:59 Russano wrote:On November 07 2020 15:22 Shingi11 wrote:
So i think it funny that if you compare the two stronghold for its party it tells a much different story. Biden is going to win CA by 4-5 mil votes about 30%. Trump won texas by 600k about 6%. IT the past 3 election it goes down every time. 15%, then 9% now 6%. THe dems just need to find a candidate that work for texas. While the current GOP is never going to threaten cali. Texas isn't even in the top 10 red states, it's not really the stronghold people think it is. That said, flipping it makes elections nearly unwinnable for Republicans, so your primary point still stands. The true impetus for political change in America is simple demographic shifts. Maybe but while it's easy to extrapolate how demographics will change it's kind of hard to predict whether or not a given demographic will keep voting the same way in the future. The shift in latino vote in Texas this election could be a one off or maybe, as latinos grow more dominant in the demographics, their voting pattern also changes. In addition to that, usually there is this wrong assumption that generations will stick to their voting behaviour. You hear so often that once those old conservatives are gone and new young lefties can vote it will be an easy game... But its just that it is in the nature of things that the older people grow the more conservative they get, completely denying this "They just have to die out" argument. I think, at least as far as what's been studied in the US, this shares something in common with a lot of "common sense" wisdom: it's close to being nonsense. People's political opinions at 30-40 seem to be a pretty decent barometer for their political opinions for the rest of their lives (at least as good as any other). Pew has a nice write-up discussing how generations of Americans have tended to vote: The politics of American generations: How age affects attitudes and voting behaviorOne of a handful of key quotes from the piece
On an individual level, of course, many people’s political views evolve over the course of their lives. But academic research indicates not only that generations have distinct political identities, but that most people’s basic outlooks and orientations are set fairly early on in life.
I think you are both right. People do get more conservative with age, but being conservative mean something different for each generation. Conservative in the 50's probably meant you would be horrified by an interracial kiss on television. Conservative in 50 years might mean you are still pro gay marriage, with only the most radical being against it. You can see it as society moving and "leaving behind" people of course. I can totally believe that our core set of of ideas and values is settle early in life, but our "solutions" tend to change a lot. People do tend to get less "radical" with age as they gain more experience, learn why things are the way they are (being outraged by something until you realize there are very good reasons for it and cool down quite a bit is something that happens to everyone reflected), and maybe lose a bit of the fiery enthusiasm of the youth.
Conservative probably more as in not changing their political preference. I dont think elder people are generally more conservative in their political opinion then younger people.
I am also not sure our core set of political ideas settles early in life. If i look at myself then at a very young age my vieuws where social democratic,then in highschool it did change to what could best be described as neo liberal and very much in favor of a completely free market and now that i am older my vieuw doesnt really fit anywhere.
In some aspects it is leftwing/progressive and in some other aspects it is rightwing/conservative. Overall my vieuw has become more nuanced and independent i think,which resulted in having a vieuw that isnt covered by any of the contemporary parties forcing me to make compromises and choices when voting.
There probably also is an opportunitsic aspect in peoples political vieuws,at least to some extend. Their vieuw can change if their personal situation changes. Not only because people are opportunistic but also because suddenly they are able to see things from a different perspective. And as said above,the stuation and trends worldwide also have an impact,something that could maybe be described as "zeitgeist".
|
Feel like pointing out that there's a devastating message out there that could really hurt Trump personally, deeply. In fact, maybe destroy him entirely, maybe lead to an actual mental breakdown. At the very least, it'll give us another tirade. (overdramatization)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/06/donald-trump-twitter-rules-newsworthy-election
Once he gets kicked out of office, he'll lose his "special twitter privileges", leading to a potential ban rather than just "blanking out" his misleading/lying tweets.
Considering the sheer volume, density and velocity of bullshit coming from that twitter account, it's not hard to imagine what happens to that account in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
