politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Wealth yes, but the age thing might be a myth. It turns out that people solidify their political leanings during major movements. The older generation just happen to be affected by Reaganism and Nixons southern strategy.
The most conservative leaning generation are not boomers or silver generation, but apparently Gen X.
Edit: I posted some sources in replies below.
There also seems to be a bit of weirdness even surrounding what "conservative" means. It used to mean an intent toward preservation of certain existing institutions/trends and preexisting stability, with a distrust for new institutions that may upset existing social calm. Which often is at odds with beneficial change but isn't inherently against it, favoring instead that it be slow and precise. When I think of myself as conservative that's the concept I have.
The problem is that "conservative" now can also include a group of people for which preserving an existing state (as in condition/mode of being ) is no longer acceptable, the demand either a reverse or entirely new directions.
As an example that's a little less hot button - vouchers for private schools. That's an active novelty and a change from an existing institution, rife with potential long-term impacts on both culture and stability that could be negative, and yet some positions push for it (often without addressing those problems). That's not a conservative position. That's a progressive one (maybe not in the direction someone on the left would want obviously).
Conservative got irrevocably linked with Right due to some preexisting social constructs and the urge to preserve them, but realistically it should hold just as well that a conservative would seek to preserve left-wing establishments as much as right-wing ones, or at least advise any changes to them be slow and incremental to avoid pop-up problems. Admittedly things like technology complicate that due to the speed with which it changes and demands response.
If you cannot understand how conservatism would LOVE to conserve the racism and rapant capitalism of the US... You might not actually understand what "conservatives" actually want to conserve...
It's the social order of things where they're on top. They've literally always been supremacists. Just not necessarily openly bigoted ones.
While I bet there's exceptions what has been the general trend for conservative is that they are pleased with the status quo. They are on top and therefore don't want things to change. When you're not satisfied you tend to not be as patient. It also help to lack empathy for people not as lucky. Considering that you, commendably, can see the need for change you obviously belong to a different group.
What is new is that the once who call themselves conservative now instead strive to change things due to a lack of control. They want to go back to the point where they feel they had control, power, and privilege over others.
And when a group of people who lacks empathy want to take back power it can get dangerous very fast. Suck as January 6:th...
Yeah, that sounds wrong to me, too. Gen X are the ones who grew up with the effects of Reaganomics and witnessed first-hand the wealth disparity it created.
This is from 2018, but I seriously doubt attitudes towards Trump and Republicans have shifted to the right that much in the last five years: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/01/the-generation-gap-in-american-politics/
That's really fascinating, and I deeply respect them for recognizing the problem.
That polling you linked to looks pretty convincing actually. I might have to change my mind.
I’ve seen the claim said a few times, here is the nytimes and there are many other sources discussing it (e.g. this Slate article and this Politico article, etc.). It also makes sense to me: Look at the January 6th insurrectionists. They aren’t young, but they aren’t boomers either. It was dominated by Gen X. Gen X got all the benefits of a social safety net, like cheap university, they got in on affordable housing, but also grew up at a time when even the “left” was represented by hyper capitalist Clinton. They didn’t have a Civil Rights movement, or Bernie Sanders movement.
So I’m willing to change my mind, but I also find it plausible.
I think it's important to remember that the January 6th insurrection wasn't representative across any demographics except extremely conservative Republicans and conspiracy theorists. Since generational analysis is already inherently problematic and inexact, I'd hesitate to make blanket statements about the entire age group based on a sample like that.
It may be reasonable to say that in general, people in the age groups often lumped together in "Gen X" are statistically more likely to be conservative than younger people, but that's about as far as I'd be willing to go.
And the relatively low numbers of boomers at the insurrection may be explained more by their age than anything else. The absolute youngest boomers are turning 60 in the next year. The oldest are almost 80. Going and beating up Capitol police, scaling fences, and breaking into Congress may just be physically too demanding for most of them.
I’ve read this many times, and heard it discussed on Five Thirty Eight. On a quick search, here’s one Politico article discussing it.