Millennials Shifting to the Right

, Malcolm A. Kline, 7 Comments

The so-called millennial generation, those in the 18-29 year-old age bracket, helped keep President Obama into the White House. “If only those over the age of 30 had voted, Romney would have won,” Emily Ekins, who directs polling for the Reason Foundation, said at the blogger’s briefing at the Heritage Foundation on August 26, 2014.

prolife rally

Nevertheless, surveys that try to track their mood swings border on the superficial. “Why do millennials like socialism?” Ekins asks.  “Because they don’t know what it is.”

Yet and still, what they have seen of big government, they increasingly do not like. Ekins notes that during the Obama years, the percentage of millennials who want a large government with more services has gone from seven out of ten to 54 percent.

Similarly, over that same time period, the percentage of millennials who think government is inefficient has gone from 42 percent to 66 percent.

Ekins found in a recent poll that, perhaps not too surprisingly, millennials have a better image of themselves than those over 30. For example, three-quarters of millennials think they have a good work ethic but only half of those surveyed over 30 agree. Nonetheless, Ekins wrote, “ Interestingly, Americans under 30 are as likely as those over 30 to say 18-29 year olds are selfish (71%).”


7 Responses

  1. Steven Barrett

    September 3, 2014 3:01 pm

    Give them time and sooner … especially when they settle down and have families.
    And they won’t be so easily inspired to support the agenda of a few wealthy families and companies, regardless of partisan tribal loyalties; especially when the scions of those families are professional draft dodgers like Romney. When the Republcans have taken public funding for affordable health care back, reinstated the old dreaded pre-existing conditions that allowed health insurance companies to commit grand larceny against every person they later denied coverage to, especially when their insured were desperate for that one last shot, they’ll have second thoughts, if not a few emotional breakdowns afterwards. When all the underpinnings of a decent society have been left to crumble so that the wealthy can enjoy life in their sheltered walled in gated communities, and or be the only people who can send their kids off to college … do I have to go on? … they’ll come around. Until then . . . what’s it going to take?

  2. Lorilu

    September 3, 2014 9:02 pm

    “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative at 40 you have no brain.” — attributed to Winston Churchill. The milennials are getting older, and they’re beginning to see the damage done by socialist big government policies espoused by Obama.

  3. terry1956

    September 7, 2014 9:46 am

    Where can I buy auto insurance to cover oil changes, wiper blade replacements?
    Is it possible to buy homeowners insurance to cover a fire after that house burns to the ground?

  4. terry1956

    September 7, 2014 10:19 am

    Neither of the two parties represents consent of the governed.
    They sell simple majority rule which ” Calculus of Consent” showed to be invalid in 1962.
    They sell simple majority rule, the general will via simple majority via omnipotent elected representatives but what we get is plurality( often less than 25% of adult citizens votes for the winner) elected members of the US House and US Senate who have transferred authority to as few as 6 people in DC ( the president and 5 US Supreme Court Justices).
    A US Senate membership chosen by a majority of the counties in a state would give a closer consent by the govern along with the requirement that Judges be require to inform jury members( Grand, Criminal and Civil Trial) of their authority to favor justice on behalf of the defense instead of the law.
    The government could not take action against the defendant in a proper trial if at least 1 out of 12 ( 8 and one third percent ) votes not to take action but unless 12 out of 12 votes to not take action the case against the defendant can be retired until the jury pool runs out.
    Properly the jury pool should come from the county unless the defense request a change of venue within the state.
    Bottom/ up goverence starting with the tithe or 10 households, the Hundred or 100 households, then the voting district which averages around registered voters or 5 to 10 Hundreds.
    The median population size of the 3000 plus counties is around 25,000 so a majority would have less than 30,000 depending on the state.
    a majority of the counties would fill less than 1,800 juries.
    Around 70% on average are voting age citizens so a majority of counties would have less than 21,000 voters, 21 voting districts, less than 200 Hundreds, less than 2000 Tithes.
    As another check on the US Senate with a proper amendment increase US House districts to around 100,000 or a district for every 3,000 people or on average one for less than 2 voting districts with a House member for each district but the current constitutional max of 1 per 30,000 people would be a lot better than 1 per 700,000 or more.
    Still we have a ratio of around 1 lawyer for every 300 people so why not one for every 300 representatives to the US House and the same to the State House?
    Over 2 Million House members total.
    NH pays their state legislators, their 24 state senators and 400 state house members 100 dollars a year and gas mileage.

  5. Steven Barrett

    September 7, 2014 4:16 pm

    I’d love to see the reactions of all those chest-carvin’ capitalist post-millennial docs when just after they have cut the chest of millennials sharing similar mindsets on health care as yours just as they’re getting ready to earn all their geld to save your tickers only to find out there’s nothing there but replicas of their bossman’s time clocks.

    What I’d really like to know is this: How can such a bright up n’ coming generation of “conservatives,” fiscal or otherwise, defend the busting up of a government program that outlaws one of the worst practices of the pre-Obama years. C’mon, you know what I’m referring to … the clue’s in the previous sentence.

    You kids can’t be that slow! Just can’t! Okay, time for this nearly brain-deprived geezer shortly approaching 63 years young to do some “schoolin'” I’m shocked to even think I have to do this, but somebody has gotta do what an seasoned adult political observer has gotta do; and that’s remind you of the dangers of ignoring the basics of contract law, which also happens to be one of the essential lessons every self-respecting, red-blooded bonafide economic-righty has to learn at the very beginning. When it comes to respecting contract law; respect it. Otherwise the kind of conservatism you think you want won’t be the kind you’re going to get. Think of getting the laws of the Wild West, especially that of the Gold Rushes of California, Alaska or the silver related dog-eat-dog days of Central City, CO. Not exactly a conservative ideal social system. We agree? Sure. (Hey, even liberals would love this part: guns had to be checked in with the bar keep. But maybe that was gun control for the bar keep to save his hide long enough to get out of town if and when the beer kegs dried up or the whiskey was all consumed. The Lord didn’t serve as any bar keeps out west; even if the town was named Cana.

    How on earth, or in the afterworld, can conservatives today, or later on, defend this violation of a basic part of contract law; one of the building blocks of a civilized society?
    Does the word theft ring a bell here when health care and pre-existing conditions enter into the discussion? Believe it or not, it doesn’t get mentioned very often and I’ve complained about this to liberals and moderates who are too damn wussy and intimidated by naysayers doing their best to imitate Sara Palin and her deliberately intimidating crows with their screachy cries about Obama and the government killing off scores of grannies by a bunch of bean counters masquerading as docs in white frocks.

    If a person has a pre-existing condition, no matter how much he or she paid on time, no less, to their insurance company, guess what, that individual, or his employer who paid the bill, could get THE NOTICE effectively saying, it was the individual needing a heart valve surgery, cancer treatment, or worse, life-saving treatment for one of their kids suffering from a life-threatening, but still beatable cancer, if only the insurance company would cover this particular chemo treatment or procedure. Don’t forget, the insured or his/her employer was diligently paying the bill so the contract was being honored. What’s the hitch?

    I got it — it’s stockholders. So today’s conservatives are willing to go back to the system where health insurance companies could get away with violating not only the spirit and letter of contract law; but also federal and state laws related to grand larceny for starters and of course, if the insured, who by then is at least crippled, dying or just dead. What really killed these people is corporate and political indifference and it’ll kill them again if the GOP ever gets to kill at least this part of Obamacare. Don’t put it past ’em.

    I wonder what Churchill, whose British Tory conservative values put him miles ahead of today’s truly more heartless and brainless “conservatism” would have to say about the state of conservative political thought in the US today? Especially that of NH, twhere the nonsensical motto of “Live free or die.” It’s one thing to not want to pay excessive taxes. Nobody wants that. Unfortunately, some of us don’t know where the difference lies between what’s excessive or not. Sometimes that’s the result of bad political and budgetary planning. Better to at least anticipate higher costs at first and then pare down later, if the committment’s there. Unfortunately, both parties at both federal and state levels have not shown a consistent will to keep costs down as well as they should’ve for their pet projects. Does “live free or die” mean “I don’t give a rat’s tail about my fellow human, or even my fellow family members because it’s not right to tax others to pay for their police, fire protection, sanitation systems, state police, jails, courts or the costs of operating the state capitol building? How about public schools? Oh, they got a solution for that too, non-New Englanders, it called the highest property taxes around, making MA a bargain compared to NH, and Bay Staters get more bang for their tax bucks overall. Rumor has it one town near the coast was thinking of reviving the Granite State’s poor farm system. How New Hampshire-like.

    How about meeting Federal tax duties, Terry, so you can continue living in a free nation? I guess for New Hampshire-ites, freedom’s just another thing to lose (for others so long as you folks won’t have to be bothered to perform this miminal civic dutiy. Those taxpayer paid for naval vessels using the taxpayer paid for Portsmouth Naval Yard cost lots of money, not to mention the facility they use there to render them seaworthy again in the quickest time possible. Don’t forget all the naval personnel, both civilian and military payrolls, too. Or are you just upset that some of the money they save in sales taxes in your state is going to Maine because they find that even after paying some taxes, life’s a whole lot more liveable.

    Folks, please don’t confuse civil cheapness in politics with real conservatism. It’ll cost you dearly. Real dearly if the former’s biggest and most powerful believers in this nonsense get their way to obliterate contract law and put lots of human lives unnecesarily at risk. Not exactly a “pro-life” idea either. Or have today’s conservatives dropped that for the expedient lure of sacrificing even the littlest ones along with the poorest, disabled, and rural elderly.

  6. Steven Barrett

    September 7, 2014 4:33 pm

    Terry, I feel for you Granite State boyos: You’re getting what you’re paying for. Too bad the fictional Norman Cass, Sr. and Amos Force out of The Last Hurrah weren’t real. It’d be a riot to watch you folks exhume their scrawny bones, spend zillions to pump life back into the walking cadavers they were in the book, esp. Force and put ’em up for statewide election in New Hampshire. Is Scott Brown’s run some kind of trial?

    Edwin O’Connor’s no longer with us, but Mike Barnicle is, and I bring his wonderful comparison of my wonderful Commonwealth with your rockpile that Mike generously described as “…Arkansas with snow.” No fond admirer of Barnicle. But I recalled this column from years back. Glad Mr. Boulter was sporting enough to post it, however much it exposed his state’s woeful shortcomings.

    One more thing Terry, unlike NH’s who believe they’re entitled to have the rest of the nation carry its tax obligations on their citizens backs, I don’t believe my insurance company owes me a new pair of wipers, or high muckin’ boots to wade through NH style of politikin’.

  7. Polybius

    September 9, 2014 12:26 pm

    Steven, what you say in a somewhat flowery way is all well and good. The saddest part of the discussion, however, is not the divide between conservative and socialist (let us be clear about the fundamental principles driving the nomenclature). What it is, in fact, is the mis-statement of the question. In no way does any individual not have access to health care services, whether or not he is covered by an insurance contract. Who pays for those services is a little less clear and may well include taxpayers through various state laws that govern re-imbursements as well as write-downs for corporate tax purposes, beyond the usual methods. The question then becomes one of individual versus collective responsibility. If we talk ‘individual’ then contract determines the exposure to cost of services provided, which of course should be transparent. If we talk ‘collective’ then contract becomes moot since the exposure to cost of services is dependent on political will.

    Ideally, the millennial individual should have been educated to understand this difference and the consequences that flow from these options. That not being the case means that us ‘oldies’ should take on the role without a pre-disposition to obfuscate.

    So? The question that should be debated is how far do we want the individual, in a general sense and not any particular individual, to take on the responsibility for the risks he may face with regard to his health? This is precisely the way in which the question was put by Dr. Benjamin Carson. At birth, each individual (based on the capacity to pay) would open or be provided with a health savings account out of a recommended annual stipend, the rest of which would purchase an insurance contract that provides for the coverage of conditions or treatments that would normally be outside the scope of the individual to afford. That is the fundamental principle of insurance; namely to transfer the risk of an event to an agent able and willing to assume it. The key here is “at birth”. This is the general statement of the principle and that is the question that should have been put to the Millennials. Only then are you going to determine their disposition for political preferences. Not that, of course, one can determine what the political parties actually stand for on principle!

Leave a Reply

(*) Required, Your email will not be published