I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. => Topic started by: boxman55 on April 19, 2008, 10:20:20 AM
-
I asked my nephew who is a senior at Northwestern majoring in political science this question. His answer is below:
Hi Uncle Mark,
That's a good question, and I will do my best to answer it. I want to adopt the model created by Russell Rirk, who was the founder of the American intellectual conservatism. In his 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, he posited that there are "six canons of conservative thought." I will enumerate each and explain why most young people resist, rejected, or are ambivalent towards them.
First, "the belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience." The young person might not believe in a transcendent being, or at least have serious questions about it. Without a believe in God, one is hard pressed to find alterative reasons and justifications for an external moral code that inspires laws and governs human action.
Second, "an affection for the variety and mystery of traditional life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and equalitarian and utilitarian aims of most radical systems." Young people tend to rebel against the institutions and traditions handed down from previous generations. To fill those gaps, they will adopt other theories to replace the old institutions. An example might be the institution of family being replaced, or significantly marginalized, by government intervention or an increased individualism that does not recognize the value of true community.
Third, "a conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes." Young people, being idealistic, like to think that since everyone has a right to equal justice under the law, there therefore should be equal outcomes in society. They have not see the harsh reality: there are natural distinctions among humans.
Fourth, "a persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected, and that economic leveling is not economic progress." Young people, since they do not pay taxes and do not, generally, have to bear the brunt of social welfare programs, believe that freedom comes from the fulfillment of material needs namely though planned economies from the government. They find property and wealth creation as somewhat evil because others do not have the same success. They wish to provide that wealth through the government, but fail to realize why, on average, individuals have more property than others: hard work, perseverance, and good ethic, among other qualities.
Fifth, a belief that "tradition and sound prejudice provide checks upon man's anarchic impulse." Young people tend to refuse the fact that humans are fallen and have passions that are destructive and must be tempered with a good constitution and conscience. Faith, family, and laws provide those checks, but young people see these as an attempt to "impose morality" on another.
Sixth, a "recognition that change and reform are not identical." Young people hear Obama's call for "change" and immediately think it is "reform" for the good. Change is neutral: it can either be good or bad. Reform should be gradual in order to keep necessary and good institutions and not risk unintended consequences of radical change.
I hope this general introduction helps. Let me know if you want further clarification.
Take care,
Mike
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Mark Breidenbach <mtbreidenbach@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Mike, I know your busy but I thought you could answer a question for me. Would like a detailed answer. "why do most young people in your opinion vote democrat" Thanks for your time. I hope all is good with you...Uncle Mark
-
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, but her father was a staunch Republican. One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to high taxes and welfare programs.
He stopped her and asked her, "How are you doing in school?"
She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA, but it was really tough. She had to study all the time and ever had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because she was spending all her time studying. On top of that, the part-time job her father insisted she keep left absolutely no time for anything else.
He asked, "How is your friend Mary?"
She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, didn't have a job, and went to all the parties. She was always complaining about not having any money, but didn't want to work. Why, she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.
Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and request that 1.0 be taken off her 4.0 and given it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a respectable 3.0 GPA. Then, she could also give her friend half the money she'd earned from her job so that her friend would no longer be broke.
The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair. I worked really hard for my grades and money, and Mary just loafs. Why should her laziness and irresponsibility be rewarded with half of what I've worked for?"
The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party
-
Or young people could be repulsed by
torture enhanced interrogation, rendition, preemptive war, signing statements, the politicization of the legal system, a unitary executive, domestic spying, and huge intragenerational transfers of wealth due to tax cuts in a time of war.
Think horses not zebras when trying to figure something out.
-
So what your saying Bill, is my nephew is not thinking straight. Your opinion is the only one???
Boxman
-
in the back woods, where I live, a person votes democrat because his parents did, and their parent did, and their parents did
same reason to be Southern Baptists
I am not saying it is the right way to vote, it just happens here.
-
It's a question of whether they are voting for Democrats or against Republicans. From what I am hearing they are voting against the last seven years.
-
Call me crazy Glitter but that analogy seems too simplistic by far. But of course I'm one of those crazy Canadians that appreciates a mixed economy type of system and I've always felt good about paying what are quite high taxes even when some of it was subsidizing others. The more taxes I paid meant that I was in a higher tax bracket so my hard work was paying off. I always felt grateful for the opportunities that were given to me and the fact that I was smart enough to take advantage of those chances. People that I used to work with who were on welfare weren't exactly living high on the hog. Even those who were in fact lazy bums (and there were some for sure) often had children who IMO deserved to have a chance at decent health and a decent education. Mary deserves to fail in college because she didn't try her best and her parents should be angry at her for wasting their money and her friend should get rewarded with a good job which would reward her financially and mentally. However, both of their children should be able to go to school and get medical attention because they didn't choose their parents and so Mary's kids shouldn't have to pay for her immaturity.
It's interesting to me that our most "conservative" politicians here would be considered positively "socialist" in the US. Same goes for Europe and Scandinavia. Truth is though that equal access to something (like health care and education) does not, can not and will never mean identical outcome. Just my :twocents; from your northern neighbour. (PS All my family live in Florida, half are Republican and half are Democrats. None of them are lazy.)
-
Or young people could be repulsed by torture enhanced interrogation, rendition, preemptive war, signing statements, the politicization of the legal system, a unitary executive, domestic spying, and huge intragenerational transfers of wealth due to tax cuts in a time of war.
Think horses not zebras when trying to figure something out.
What a load. :rofl;
-
Being 25 today, I am incredibly offended by the blanketed stereotype that I vote democrat because I am a young. Only because I am an idealist, that I am rebelling against my family or that I don't understand the evil and harsh ways of the world.
How can you have any idea what my life has been about, what beliefs any young person was raised with, why I do or do not idealize the world. I happen to come from a very conservitive Father and a mother who may not have been vocal about her beliefs, but I definitly got my liberal beliefs from her upbringing. I am rebelling against no one. I am an idealist, yes - but an idealist who educates herself on the issues...
I believe in people's responsibility to be compassionate and caring of others. Always have - always will. I can remember by 7 or 8 and watching news with my Mom and Dad and not understanding a story on TV about a couple not being allowed to marry. They were same-sex... I didn't see why that would matter. I can remember in middle school getting in an argument with my father over unnessasary wars. I can remember these things because it is who I have always been.
I believe we have a duty to help those who are not as fortunate as us, not as Americans, but as human beings.
-
Call me crazy Glitter but that analogy seems too simplistic by far. But of course I'm one of those crazy Canadians that appreciates a mixed economy type of system and I've always felt good about paying what are quite high taxes even when some of it was subsidizing others. The more taxes I paid meant that I was in a higher tax bracket so my hard work was paying off. I always felt grateful for the opportunities that were given to me and the fact that I was smart enough to take advantage of those chances. People that I used to work with who were on welfare weren't exactly living high on the hog. Even those who were in fact lazy bums (and there were some for sure) often had children who IMO deserved to have a chance at decent health and a decent education. Mary deserves to fail in college because she didn't try her best and her parents should be angry at her for wasting their money and her friend should get rewarded with a good job which would reward her financially and mentally. However, both of their children should be able to go to school and get medical attention because they didn't choose their parents and so Mary's kids shouldn't have to pay for her immaturity.
It's interesting to me that our most "conservative" politicians here would be considered positively "socialist" in the US. Same goes for Europe and Scandinavia. Truth is though that equal access to something (like health care and education) does not, can not and will never mean identical outcome. Just my :twocents; from your northern neighbour. (PS All my family live in Florida, half are Republican and half are Democrats. None of them are lazy.)
it is simple actually.
People in the United States who are on welfare already get medicade.(Which is free healthcare, the US does take better care of its people then they get credit for,which is why people on welfare in this country have cable and somehow manage to have things like tvs and microwaves,what other countries poor has that oppoutunity?) You think people deserve to 'have' just by being born. I disagree. If you can not afford diapers-dont have kids. I was not implying all democrats are lazy...but I do think the Democrats are very good at buying the vote of the most ignorant amoung us. I have talked to hundreds of Democrats (yes hundreds) who freely admit they are voting for a Democrat who will help them get more benefits.they do not care about the issues, most of the time they do even know what the issues are,and they freely admit that. I think Democrats work very hard to get the vote of whole demographics who want the government to take care of them. and when they give away our hard earned money, they buy their votes.
Before we have a duty to help all the people who are not as fortunate as us, we need to look at why they are. Maybe they deserve to be where they are.
this is just my opinion, I don't much care if you agree or not.
-
Glitter, I was only responding to the analogy presented in your original post. And my response was based on my experience of working with poor people here in Canada, most of whom did have microwaves and tvs but pretty miserable lives nonetheless. Bad teeth, bad nutrition, little education, too many children etc. Our countries are wealthy, relative to many places in the world so tvs and microwaves do not spell luxury.
I do not believe (not even a little bit) that people should "have" just by being born. Well, nothing but the opportunity to reach their best potential. I also don't believe that innocent little children should be punished because their parents didn't use birth control when they clearly shouldn't be having children. They did not ask to be born.
I grew up in Jamaica where that was the situation. I had everything I needed but the vast majority had very little and it pained me. I found it difficult to accept and kids I played with when really young never had a chance to go to school etc. Some were super bright too. There was very little middle class and society was clearly divided, not along racial lines but along class lines. My father had an adopted sister who was one of these kids that my grandmother took into her care so she could get an education etc. She would otherwise have had a very limited future if any. She didn't deserve this fate. She was simply unlucky as I was simply lucky to have been conceived in the womb that I was. I also lived through intense violence in that society where the huge gap between the rich and the poor resulted in some very desperate people trying to get some of what they needed.
So that's where I'm coming from Glitter. I haven't spoken to the same hundreds of democrats that you have, nor have I spoken to hundreds of republicans, and I too don't want my tax dollars wasted. I don't think that laziness should be rewarded but I remain very much concerned about anyone less fortunate than I am, even if they're in a mess of their own making.
I'm very sorry if you felt that what I said in my other post was offensive to you. It was not my intent to offend. Again, I was responding to the "Mary" story not to your opinions as you put them forth here.
There is absolutely no reason for you to care whether I agree with you or not. I do agree with you on some points and not on others but that is after all, in my opinion, the purpose of discussion. To exchange ideas
not necessarily to agree with each other. You may see that differently too and that's OK.
Take care and I hope your husband is doing alright.
Gail
-
Or young people could be repulsed by torture enhanced interrogation, rendition, preemptive war, signing statements, the politicization of the legal system, a unitary executive, domestic spying, and huge intragenerational transfers of wealth due to tax cuts in a time of war.
Think horses not zebras when trying to figure something out.
What a load.
Yes. . .a load of TRUTH!
-
Or young people could be repulsed by torture enhanced interrogation, rendition, preemptive war, signing statements, the politicization of the legal system, a unitary executive, domestic spying, and huge intragenerational transfers of wealth due to tax cuts in a time of war.
Think horses not zebras when trying to figure something out.
What a load.
Yes. . .a load of TRUTH!
:rofl;
-
Or young people could be repulsed by torture enhanced interrogation, rendition, preemptive war, signing statements, the politicization of the legal system, a unitary executive, domestic spying, and huge intragenerational transfers of wealth due to tax cuts in a time of war.
Think horses not zebras when trying to figure something out.
What a load.
Yes. . .a load of TRUTH!
:rofl;
Wow. . .that's an intelligent response -- a smiley face. . .Makes one wonder that perhaps you don't have any real answers or an ability to dispute the facts. . .
-
Wow. . .that's an intelligent response -- a smiley face. . .Makes one wonder that perhaps you don't have any real answers or an ability to dispute the facts. . .
Only facts were what you considered in your warped mind to be a fact.
There was no facts presented, merely his opinion. Try learning the difference. :banghead;
-
Wow. . .that's an intelligent response -- a smiley face. . .Makes one wonder that perhaps you don't have any real answers or an ability to dispute the facts. . .
Only facts were what you considered in your warped mind to be a fact.
There was no facts presented, merely his opinion. Try learning the difference.
You have yet to offer anything save for name-calling and I, for one, am not surprised.
-
:popcorn; :popcorn; :popcorn;
-
You have yet to offer anything save for name-calling and I, for one, am not surprised.
Actually I never did call anyone a name. Seems you have comprehension problems.
Seems you best get an education since you are unable to distinguish between opinions and what an actual fact happens to be.
-
Wow. . .that's an intelligent response -- a smiley face. . .Makes one wonder that perhaps you don't have any real answers or an ability to dispute the facts. . .
Only facts were what you considered in your warped mind to be a fact.
There was no facts presented, merely his opinion. Try learning the difference.
You have yet to offer anything save for name-calling and I, for one, am not surprised.
Actually I never did call anyone a name. Seems you have comprehension problems.
Seems you best get an education since you are unable to distinguish between opinions and what an actual fact happens to be.
You do not know me, and yet you chose to characterize me as “warped”. My sole intention was to express my agreement with Mr. Peckham’s statement. You apparently do not agree with it. I am leaving it at that. Thanks.
-
You do not know me, and yet you chose to characterize me as “warped”. My sole intention was to express my agreement with Mr. Peckham’s statement. You apparently do not agree with it. I am leaving it at that. Thanks.
Agree with him all you want.
However the definition of the word does fit what you did and therefore is not naming calling as you are trying to suggest.
-
All right everyone, can we get back to the original topic?
How young is young? I vote for who I think will do the best job at the time. I don't consider myself Democrat or Republican, and I've voted for memebers of both parties, depending on what office they were running for. I'm 37 now, but that's been my stance on voting since I was old enough to vote. When they are talking about "young people," what age group are we talking about? I voted Republican when I was younger - at least in one governor's race, and for more than a few other things.
Maybe that comes of having a Democrat for a mom and a Republican for a dad. We did not discuss politics around the dinner table at our house - my parents liked staying married.
-
All right everyone, can we get back to the original topic?
How young is young? I vote for who I think will do the best job at the time. I don't consider myself Democrat or Republican, and I've voted for memebers of both parties, depending on what office they were running for. I'm 37 now, but that's been my stance on voting since I was old enough to vote. When they are talking about "young people," what age group are we talking about? I voted Republican when I was younger - at least in one governor's race, and for more than a few other things.
Maybe that comes of having a Democrat for a mom and a Republican for a dad. We did not discuss politics around the dinner table at our house - my parents liked staying married.
Good point jbeany. My first vote for President was in 1984 for Reagan. I think were Reagan alive today he'd go back to being a Democrat.