USA - Conservative US youth: the "right" kind?

[bcubed]

I saw something interesting on the news a few days ago. A young conservative was talking about the difference between young and old conservatives, and it boiled down to this: youth today are more conservative than the boomers were, but they're by and large NOT social conservative bible-thumpers. Rather, they're Libertarian conservatives: yea to low taxes, small gov't, but pro-internet gambling, anti-WOD and "Hell, let 'em marry farm animals for all I care!"

This appeals to me, considering that we might be on the right side of history (figured as much, but worried about the timetable) BUT...the thing that worries me is how much they'll change once they bear offspring. It seems nothing is quite the bar to logical thought processes as worrying about the safety of a child.

Any idea on how much they'll revert back to social conservatism? I would think that at least growing up in the WOD inures them to a large degree to buying the future gov't propaganda wholesale.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Interesting dicussion post. Well said.

[El Calico Loco]

There does seem to be an anti-authority trend among American youth. Many have used illicit drugs, and they tend to reject the absolutist moralism of right and left, leading them to reject both theocracy and state-socialism in favor of something containing elements of both the libertarian and Green movements.

I think it's a good trend...I just hope they will take the best of both. Tree-hugging capitalism wouldn't be so bad. Or we could wind up with a generation of Gaia-worshipping Luddite Randroids writing fanfic about John Galt teaming up with George Hayduke to create sustainable anarcho-syndicalist communes free of the evils of collectivism.


ECL

Reputation Comments on this post:

LOL. Who on the what now?

[augentier]

I've run across a lot of kids these days (younger than me..say, 13-18) who totally buy into all of the bullshit surrounding the war on drugs - the anti-pot commercials are getting ridiculous and from what I have seen people this age are believing it. I have two younger siblings who share my beliefs concerning the WOD and all that but they each have many friends who really do believe what they hear in the media and don't question it.

Basically I fear for the future of our society because I think most young people are ignorant or apathetic...over-protected, over-medicated, future drones of America.

[Nagognog2]

"Don't trust anyone under 30." - Abbie Hoffman

[beentheredonethatagain]

I am glad to hear that the younger generation is pro conservative. This country would be much better if we all were conservatives. The anything goes mentality of the left ( liberals ) is the cause of a lot of the bullshit we have to put up with today.

[Felonious Skunk]

Originally Posted by augentier

I've run across a lot of kids these days (younger than me..say, 13-18) who totally buy into all of the bullshit surrounding the war on drugs - the anti-pot commercials are getting ridiculous and from what I have seen people this age are believing it. I have two younger siblings who share my beliefs concerning the WOD and all that but they each have many friends who really do believe what they hear in the media and don't question it.

Well that's an age group that the propagandists target. They've obviously thought their strategies through and combine slick advertising with social science in order to have a maximum effect.

I'm sure they can even predict within a few percentage points how many in the target age group:

1. Will buy the anti-drug message hook, line, and sinker.

2. Will see the anti-drug message as precisely the horseshit that it is.

3. Are too stoned to comprehend the message whatever it happens to be.

Don't get too discouraged. In a few more years many will recognize the brainwashing and get rid of it.

[FuBai]

This is the sort of movement that founded America - conservative economics coupled with moral liberalism. It's a view point that I have supported for a long time, it's great to see it's resurgence and it's really understandable, I hope we are starting to see grass roots support for pushing the 'risk-free' pendulum back the other way, so that we shed these repressive moralising laws. We have great politicians like Ron Paul coming forward, we have increasing doubt and dislike of the repressive laws on driving which need to be liberalised and it seems we may be moving back into a brighter future. In Britain the Legalisation movement is much further ahead than in America - I would point to the fact that we are also further ahead in shedding religiosity - 43% or more are now atheist/agnostic in Britain, which seems to coincide with greater moral understanding. The greater the religiosity of the state the more inhuman and repressive its ways. It's such a shame to think that 200 years ago America was such a beacon for hope and freedom, and now it's the exact opposite.

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

I am glad to hear that the younger generation is pro conservative. This country would be much better if we all were conservatives. The anything goes mentality of the left ( liberals ) is the cause of a lot of the bullshit we have to put up with today.

But doesn't the "nothing goes" mentality of the right produce an equal amount of bullshit i.e. the bureaucracy-choked morass that is the US government? It's easy to target left or right and easy to say "everything would be better if..." but it's really not as simple as that.

[rxbandit]

Even if the conservative ideals sound pretty, the conservatives are not doing anything they supposedely stand for in office. We may have lower taxes but when are nation spends hundreds of billions of dollars on a war if not trillions, escalating our national debt and dropping our currencies value when pegged against almost every other currency, we are becoming poorer just in a way thats harder to notice. on top of our money being worth less we will also have to pay more taxes in the future. This current administration has made goverment bigger then its ever been almost anywhere outside of communist Russia.

I like the conservative ideals, just not the hypocritical conservatives in office.

another problem that troubles me is, party allegiance... voting blindly for your team...

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by rxbandit

Even if the conservative ideals sound pretty, the conservatives are not doing anything they supposedely stand for in office. We may have lower taxes but when are nation spends hundreds of billions of dollars on a war if not trillions, escalating our national debt and dropping our currencies value when pegged against almost every other currency, we are becoming poorer just in a way thats harder to notice. on top of our money being worth less we will also have to pay more taxes in the future. This current administration has made goverment bigger then its ever been almost anywhere outside of communist Russia.

I like the conservative ideals, just not the hypocritical conservatives in office.

another problem that troubles me is, party allegiance... voting blindly for your team...

If you mean "bigger" in terms of control rather than actual physical size then you need to spend some time in Europe. England, Germany, Sweden etcetera have much "bigger" governments for the simple reason that they are more left and therefore need greater control to ensure that the natural faults of any socialist system don't appear. Germany has it down quite well - they have high taxes but their public services are amazing, unlike Britain where the public services are much worse. It's a shame that it's unsustainable and Germany is due to start crashing because of it.

As for voting blindly for the team - I'm conservative to my boots, but the Conservative Party no longer represents what I stand for. If it wasn't for the fact that I love my MP (Ken Clarke) then I would seriously consider voting Labour.

[rxbandit]

i think its a shame that both conservatives and liberals just blindl vote for whoever represents their party regardless of their views.

In the US, we've adopted more spying, wiretapping, lost our right to a fair trial(habeaus corpus), we are allowed to be searched regardless of probable cause, we spend the majority of our budget on the military, in my area the police force has tripled in the last 5 years. Perhaps it just seems like our goverments getting bigger. I do not have as much insight into europe but in america the above are happening under our conservative goverment.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by rxbandit

i think its a shame that both conservatives and liberals just blindl vote for whoever represents their party regardless of their views.

In the US, we've adopted more spying, wiretapping, lost our right to a fair trial(habeaus corpus), we are allowed to be searched regardless of probable cause, we spend the majority of our budget on the military, in my area the police force has tripled in the last 5 years. Perhaps it just seems like our goverments getting bigger. I do not have as much insight into europe but in america the above are happening under our conservative goverment.

Much of the above (apart from the actually useful and good initiative of expanding the police force) is happening in Britain. Habeaus Corpus has been dissolved although we are not quite as vociferously destroying our civil liberties as we now have 28 day detention, and the longer detention period was struck down. It was one the major defeats for Blair's government. Because of the way the UK system works any defeat of prime ministerial legislation is major as 99.9% of it is passed, whilst only 4% of presidential legislation is passed in the USA. If you don't know why then look up the difference between "Fused" and "separate" powers. Britain has Fused powers with an ineffective second chamber flooded by ex-civil servants and failed Commons. At least when we had a lot of hereditary peers in the house there was a decent counter balance.

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by FuBai

This is the sort of movement that founded America - conservative economics coupled with moral liberalism.

This is true, but in those days the idea of a "free market" was anything but conservative - it was radical. Guys like Adam Smith (father of economics) and John Locke were arguing against mercantilism, a state-corporate alliance that benefited the rich and powerful while screwing the average citizen. In other words, exactly what America has today.

Much of what the knee-jerk leftist blames on "capitalism" (a pejorative invented by Marx) is really the consequence of state interference in the economy that benefits the establishment at the expense of the entrepreneur. The other problems relate to the monopolization of land (natural resources and location itself) and money (via the central banks) and have little to do with actual "capital" or market mechanisms.

Back in 1776, the revolutionaries were considered liberals and radicals because they advocated an end to monarchy and nobility. By the early 1900s, those who still believed in liberal government were thought of as conservative because of their desire to conserve the liberal tradition in the face of progressives and socialists. In the year 2007, I think those who call themselves "liberals" are, in fact, very conservative - they seem to have no new ideas save to conserve the massive, bureaucratic national welfare/warfare state. Those who call themselves "conservatives" have nothing in common with men like Taft who wanted to conserve the American tradition - they have more in common with the "progressive" Woodrow Wilson, who wanted to use the US military to create a global superstate in order to make the world safe for democracy.

Amusing side note: most of the neocons in power in American right now are former Trotskyites.

Ron Paul is the most visible representative of a growing movement of paleo-libertarians and paleo-conservatives who reject the modern "conservativism" of William F. Buckley, Bill O'Reilly, and Dubya in favor of the ideas of the Old Right, those liberal conservatives of the early 20th century. I have fundamental disagreements with them on land, money, and culture; but I think it's a great trend. I would love to see Dr. Paul get the Republican nomination. If Mike Gravel then got the Democratic nomination, we might see a genuine battle of ideas in an American Presidential race for the first time in decades.


ECL

[beentheredonethatagain]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

This is true, but in those days the idea of a "free market" was anything but conservative - it was radical. Guys like Adam Smith (father of economics) and John Locke were arguing against mercantilism, a state-corporate alliance that benefited the rich and powerful while screwing the average citizen. In other words, exactly what America has today.

Much of what the knee-jerk leftist blames on "capitalism" (a pejorative invented by Marx) is really the consequence of state interference in the economy that benefits the establishment at the expense of the entrepreneur. The other problems relate to the monopolization of land (natural resources and location itself) and money (via the central banks) and have little to do with actual "capital" or market mechanisms.

Back in 1776, the revolutionaries were considered liberals and radicals because they advocated an end to monarchy and nobility. By the early 1900s, those who still believed in liberal government were thought of as conservative because of their desire to conserve the liberal tradition in the face of progressives and socialists. In the year 2007, I think those who call themselves "liberals" are, in fact, very conservative - they seem to have no new ideas save to conserve the massive, bureaucratic national welfare/warfare state. Those who call themselves "conservatives" have nothing in common with men like Taft who wanted to conserve the American tradition - they have more in common with the "progressive" Woodrow Wilson, who wanted to use the US military to create a global superstate in order to make the world safe for democracy.

Amusing side note: most of the neocons in power in American right now are former Trotskyites.

Ron Paul is the most visible representative of a growing movement of paleo-libertarians and paleo-conservatives who reject the modern "conservativism" of William F. Buckley, Bill O'Reilly, and Dubya in favor of the ideas of the Old Right, those liberal conservatives of the early 20th century. I have fundamental disagreements with them on land, money, and culture; but I think it's a great trend. I would love to see Dr. Paul get the Republican nomination. If Mike Gravel then got the Democratic nomination, we might see a genuine battle of ideas in an American Presidential race for the first time in decades.


ECL

I would have to agree with you on the parts that I understand, I do not know what a Trotskyites is, however Dr. Ron Paul is a very interesting canidate and would represent my view and beliefs very well.

Bill oriely isnt a Rebublican he clams to be independant, so is he considered conservative? I feel he is more to the right than left. but not a true conservative. Long live the Reagan mind set , with a little change on the war on drugs.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by beentheredonethatagain

I would have to agree with you on the parts that I understand, I do not know what a Trotskyites is, however Dr. Ron Paul is a very interesting canidate and would represent my view and beliefs very well.

Bill oriely isnt a Rebublican he clams to be independant, so is he considered conservative? I feel he is more to the right than left. but not a true conservative. Long live the Reagan mind set , with a little change on the war on drugs.

1) Bill O'Riley is a vile piece of excrement

2) A Trotskyite is a follower of the philosophies of Leon Trotsky, a popular communist orator who was next in line to Lenin. The notion of Stalin's eventual take over would have been laughable to most in the late 1910's and early 1920's. Stalin's position as general secretary allowed him to take over the party even though the clear popular favourite was Trotsky. Trotsky was eventually killed on August 20, 1940 by Stalinist assassin Ramon Mercader by an Ice pick to the head. He believed in permanent revolution across the world, whilst Stalin wished to focus solely on Russia.

3) Bill O'Riley is the incarnation of everything that's wrong with America - the problems of criminality are secondary to the problems of moral indignation as self-righteousness that have, I would contend, caused a great deal of the political disasters in America since World War 2. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

[Perception Addict]

Originally Posted by FuBai

1) Bill O'Riley is a vile piece of excrement

Bill O'Riley is the incarnation of everything that's wrong with America - the problems of criminality are secondary to the problems of moral indignation as self-righteousness that have, I would contend, caused a great deal of the political disasters in America since World War 2. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

[Nagognog2]

A great many "true" Republicans left the party with the take over by the ultra-right wing neo-Christians. Take Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont as a prime example. He became an independent. Then he retired. When it came time for an election, Bernie Sanders (an avowed Socialist) won by a landslide over a carpet-bagger who lived/s in Florida (Richard Tarrant) despite the 2 to 1 spending of Tarrant accusing Bernie of everything from having dinner with terrorists to supporting child pornography.

But there will always be those who find that thinking for themselves is a bit inconveinent and will just buy the brand-name without question.

It has been postulated that the current hijackers of the name 'Republican' just be honest (for 10 seconds) and re-name it to indicate what it really is. The most polite term I've heard lately is The American Nationalist Party (ANP).

[El Calico Loco]

Most self-proclaimed "Christian conservatives" are neither. They don't seem to support Christian or American traditions, just a modern moral and political absolutism and a yearning for an earlier, better time that never was.

Given that Dubya has increased the Federal budget far faster than The Billary did - and on entitlement programs nearly as much as on defense - I think it might be fair to call the current party National Socialists.

I'm just waiting for the Reichstag to burn down.


ECL

[Felonious Skunk]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

...I'm just waiting for the Reichstag to burn down.

Both of them did on 9/11.