The Vanishing Young Republicans

[Elphaba]

The Vanishing Young Republicans

The Next Right Blog has an interesting article, including statistics, about the trends of young Republicans that show they are leaving the party; however, while many people think this is a recently new development with the Obama election, it turns out it started a number of years ago.

I thought it was very interesting, and think most of you Republicans will find it even more so.

I always read the comments following the blog post, as I glean more information from them than I do the actual article. While most of them in this case were not well-thought out, I thought this one succinctly captured the reasons for the "Vanishing Young Republicans."

The primary reason that the Republican Party is finding itself marginalized and realising "Demographics is Destiny'," is that they have completely abandoned the principles of limited government.

Coming from a young person who has just voted in my first presidential election, (was too young for Bush versus Kerry), the Republican Party still supports or supported the following policies of big government, during the prior election.

Aggressive Wars

1. Bush and his staff either lied or, at the very least, were duplicitous in making the case to go to war in Iraq. Iraq couldn't and wouldn' attack us. End of story. Besides, why did we give him a chemical weapons program to begin with. Iran-Iraq war anyone?

2. Assassination\rendition and trial would have the correct way to deal with Osama, not an invasion of a country that had not previously attacked the USA.

3. I have to brothers in the Army, one is in Iraq. It affects my voting when I see one candidate pushing for peace and one advocating stay the course. A large amount of the youth vote have friends and family serving in the armed forces, and are hesitant to have them in harms way except in cases of neccessity. I don't see the neccessity of defending against islamic terrorrism more than the neccessity of gaurding against traffic accidents, which kills far more in the USA each year than all acts of terror combined.

The War on Drugs

1. The question of drugs and pharmaceuticals is something for the states to handle, not the feds.

2. Its a question of personal freedom versus state coercion; "In order to protect you from yourself and society we are going to put you in a facility where you will likely be sodomized" is not at all appealing to young people.

3. The same goes for all laws attempting to regulate morality. Abortion; stem-cell research, gay marriage, etc. Let the states decide for themselves, but fundamentally the government has no place in these domains. These issues are best handled by the outreach of private charities, the church, the synagogue, and the mosque.

The Bailouts & Fiscal Irresponsibility

Despite the encouraging brief return to principles when the republican house representatives voted against the bailouts, they had still had people like McCain pushing for government intervention.

You folks had the House, the Senate, and the presidency, and you still did not try to balance the budget or deal with the unfunded medicare and social security obligations. Nor did you restrain from interfering in the housing markets by pushing banks to make more loans for housingg, leading to the causes of the housing bubble.

National Service

National Service is a polite term for slavery, it is one group of voters subjugating another group of voters via the ballot box to have them serve the government; whether as conscripts, "volunteers", etc. McCain advocated National Service. As the youth is the one target by this initiative, I don't see any particular reason for themm to prefer Repub to Democrat in this regard.

PATRIOT ACT

There was no physical it was possible for anyone to read the Patriot Act that the republican controlled house and senate voted for, yet they voted for it. It gave god like powers to the executive branch, usurped the rule of law and the bill of rights, and these incompetent numbskulls didn't even read the d**n document.

Xenophobia

I am reminded of the saying, "A country cannot be a welfare state and have uncontrolled immigration, " and that applies in the policies witnessed in Mexico. But from much of the republican party there has been no discussion of immigrant reform, mostly cries of "they should follow our procedure and laws." I would invite you to read the regulations and the hurdles required to even get a temporary visa to work in the USA and to realise that people flout our laws because the procedure is too complicated and costly when compared to crossing the desert with coyotes. And the xenophobic undercurrents of the some of the debates make my blood run cold.

Conclusion

I will never vote democrat, but I am hard pressed to see anyone in the republican party that is willing to endorse a consistent policy of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and respect for the limits of our constitution. That is not to say the democrats are better, but they tend to at least stick better by their stated principles, whereas GOP has completely tossed them to the wind.Your party is doomed unless you go back to the principles.

The up and coming young Republicans is an issue many of the blogs are addressing, and frankly, they all say the same as this poster. They care about fiscal conservativism, but not about social conservatism.

The two issues that came up repeatedly were same-sex marriage and abortion. A number of posters essentially said the Republican Party's opposition to gay marriage amounted to bigotry, and they saw no reason to deny people who are gay the right to marry.

Regarding abortion, the majority of the commentors I read were pro-life; however, they did not believe it was their business, and certainly not the government's business, whether or not a woman chooses to have an abortion.

Of course, this does not reflect all young Republicans' points of view, and I cannot say if it's even a significant sampling. But I can say it is being addressed, more and more often. And I do believe the feedback is prescient.

Elphaba

Edited May 1, 2009 by Elphaba

[Jbs2763]

the republicans are no longer conservative, they are equalily as worthless as the democrats....none of them in DC are worth a hoot.... it don't matter what critter they have by their name anymore, the Rs are no longer conservative, they are moderate, and the Ds are so friggin far left, CNN and Fox News cater to the two extremes, there really is no middle ground politically, we need a MODERATE canidate to rally the people,and we haven't had a good canidate for president since Reagan bah humbug

[Elphaba]

the republicans are no longer conservative, they are equalily as worthless as the democrats....none of them in DC are worth a hoot.... it don't matter what critter they have by their name anymore, the Rs are no longer conservative, they are moderate, and the Ds are so friggin far left, CNN and Fox News cater to the two extremes, there really is no middle ground politically, we need a MODERATE canidate to rally the people,and we haven't had a good canidate for president since Reagan bah humbug

What does any of this have to do with the loss of Young Republicans? If anything, their vision of the future is to become more moderate.

In my observation, it is MSNBC and FOX who cater to the extremes. CNN tends to be a bit more balanced. I'm not saying "perfectly" balanced, but not as extreme.

Elphaba

[bytor2112]

I will never vote democrat, but I am hard pressed to see anyone in the republican party that is willing to endorse a consistent policy of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and respect for the limits of our constitution. That is not to say the democrats are better, but they tend to at least stick better by their stated principles, whereas GOP has completely tossed them to the wind.Your party is doomed unless you go back to the principles.

Well stated!

We live in an increasingly wicked world. It is not surprising that the left is winning the battle over abortion and g/l marriage. I think it interesting that g/l marriage was voted down in a state as liberal as California, and yet Republicans are bigots????? Funny, how Republicans are labeled bigots for opposing an issue that was made an issue by the left.....what gall to express opposition! As for the Republican Party, they deserve to lose........not that the Democrats deserve to win, but the Republicans need become a more libertarian party and abandon the Democrat-lite policies.

I remember during the Republican primary debates.....how many times are they going to ask Rudy about his views on abortion or the other candidates views on creationism....what a flippin waste. The media does a pretty good whack job on anything conservative...IMO. Say what you will about Fox, at least the right has a voice on that network.

Edited May 1, 2009 by bytor2112

[Churchmouse]

In a two way race you need 50.1% to claim victory. Neither 45% of 27% will do. Nearly 30% of voters claim no party affiliation. They are the ones each party needs to attract.

As the article said those 18-29 identify themselves as Democrats by a large majority. We need to look at the whole picture. People in that age group are influenced by the liberals they encounter in schools and colleges. As people become older they tend to be more conservative. That is why there is only a 7% difference in the overall population.

That 30% of independent voters must be reflecting why the Generic Congressional Ballot shows Republicans in the lead for next years congressionsl elections. In that same poll, 31% of conservative Democrats said they would vote for the Republican candidate. I'm not worried about the Republican Party. After the novelty of Obama wears off we will be fine.

I didn't work in the my county headquarters this last election. It they want me back they are going to have to put up someone better than McCain.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Churchmouse

[Hemidakota]

Give it another three years, noting the failure of this current administration, people will change from both parties to something different. Both parties had failed....period.

[Jbs2763]

What does any of this have to do with the loss of Young Republicans? If anything, their vision of the future is to become more moderate.

In my observation, it is MSNBC and FOX who cater to the extremes. CNN tends to be a bit more balanced. I'm not saying "perfectly" balanced, but not as extreme.

Elphaba

it was 5am and i was rambling...gimme a break elphie

[hordak]

As people become older they tend to be more conservative.

FYI

People Turn More Liberal With Age | LiveScience

[AngelLynn]

National Service

National Service is a polite term for slavery, it is one group of voters subjugating another group of voters via the ballot box to have them serve the government; whether as conscripts, "volunteers", etc. McCain advocated National Service. As the youth is the one target by this initiative, I don't see any particular reason for themm to prefer Repub to Democrat in this regard.

Actually I find this statement a bit silly. I served in Americorps and I did it willingly. There is no "slavery" to it. You don't want to do it you don't do it. I did it because there were benefits to it. I receieved a educational award that came in very handy when I was in school. Plus I got to be with kids during my service term.

This whole idea that it's "Slavery" is blatently absurd. But that's my 2 cents worth.

[rameumptom]

Young (and many older) People are looking for a Reagan-esque small federal government platform for the Republicans. Sadly, there hasn't been anyone quite like Reagan, since Reagan. George Sr promised to continue Reagan's policies, but pushed the neo-con agenda, increasing taxes and starting up larger federal programs.

I'm a believer that whatever is reserved for the federal government in the Constitution is for the Feds to do, and everything else is for states and municipalities. Welfare and Medicare should be done on a state level.

Why? Because there is just too much chance for a federal abuse of powers. If I'm in Massachusetts and don't like the new state rules on health care, I can always move to another state. If legislation is bad enough, either the local people will change the laws or move out of the state, until there is a change. California is now seeing people voting with their feet for the second time in 10 years, due to the huge taxes and largesse of their state. But if it happens on a federal level, there aren't many places else for me to go.

This ensures maximum freedom for people. And it ensures the federal government only does the things it is designed to do: raise a standing army, print money, regulate trade, ensure individuals' rights are not abrogated.

Abortion and gay issues should and must be dealt with on a state level, as well. For a liberal state to embrace these is up to the people, but if I really don't like it, I can move elsewhere. It maximizes people's freedom of thought and belief.

I have no problem with a state being very liberal or very conservative. I just don't want the federal government to determine the level of liberalness our nation will be at. Otherwise, we end up with a growing power bloc of Dems/Reps, who no longer are bound by the Constitution, but rather by their perceived constituents (lobbyists, etc).

I am not a democrat nor a republican. I am not a libertarian, either (many of them want to strip states of power, also). I am a Jeffersonian Democrat-Republican.

[Just_A_Guy]

I generally agree with the article, though with the following caveats:

--I see conservatism as fundamentally non-interventionist in character. We made an exception for the Cold War, and lost our way after the USSR collapsed--we lurched back into "we won't be the world's policemen" during the Clinton years, and suddenly we're going off willy-nilly into various middle-eastern countries. Conservatism is going through a "years in the wilderness" stage with regard to developing a coherent foreign policy.

--Opposing gay marriage didn't hurt Obama's campaign very much. I have a suspicion that if the Republicans could demonstrate that they can be trusted with the nation's purse strings and its military, a lot of the other issues suddenly wouldn't seem so important.

[Moksha]

Don't count Republicans out yet. In the words of the bizzaro version of Tom Joad, "As long as there is one person willing to put their desires ahead of the needs of the masses, they will be there".

[Palerider]

as Ronnie use to say....if it moves tax it....if it keeps moving regulate it.....and if it stops moving...subsidize it......:):)

[Elphaba]

Actually I find this statement a bit silly. I served in Americorps and I did it willingly. There is no "slavery" to it. You don't want to do it you don't do it. I did it because there were benefits to it. I receieved a educational award that came in very handy when I was in school. Plus I got to be with kids during my service term.

This whole idea that it's "Slavery" is blatently absurd. But that's my 2 cents worth.

Hi Angel,

I think what he's talking about is the way the soldiers sent to Iraq keep getting called up to return again and again, sometimes for a fourth time. They come home, having served our country honorably, make plans to get on with their lives via family, education, work, etc., and then suddenly have to go back to Iraq, whether they want to or not.

Rather than getting to be with their children, they have to leave their children when they hadn't planned on it, and the whole family suffers from it, including the constant fear their mom or dad won't come home.

I get this information from a few soldiers' blogs I read, and they feel the same way, that their service has been turned into a form of slavery.

I am not at all versed in how this works. But that is my impression.

Elphaba

[AngelLynn]

Hi Angel,

I think what he's talking about is the way the soldiers sent to Iraq keep getting called up to return again and again, sometimes for a fourth time. They come home, having served our country honorably, make plans to get on with their lives via family, education, work, etc., and then suddenly have to go back to Iraq, whether they want to or not.

Rather than getting to be with their children, they have to leave their children when they hadn't planned on it, and the whole family suffers from it, including the constant fear their mom or dad won't come home.

I get this information from a few soldiers' blogs I read, and they feel the same way, that their service has been turned into a form of slavery.

I am not at all versed in how this works. But that is my impression.

Elphaba

Well you have to be careful by what is meant by National Service as the National Service I am thinking of has to deal with volunteer work.

Corporation for National and Community Service

So I find that statement a bit wrong in terms of terminology. It should state in the article: military service. But I agree with what you're saying. It's a poor phrase of terminology, that the writer of the article/blog should be made aware of.

Edited May 2, 2009 by AngelLynn

[Elphaba]

We live in an increasingly wicked world. It is not surprising that the left is winning the battle over abortion and g/l marriage.

I think you're missing the point of the article.

The young Republicans don't care about abortion or same-sex marriage. They don't see these things as battles to be won--they see them as issues where the government has no right to intrude.

These young Republicans are also saying the current party's position on these two issues is bigotry; in other words, they agree with Democrats, and other political persuasions, that it is bigotry. They reject the party's social conservatism.

I think it interesting that g/l marriage was voted down in a state as liberal as California, and yet Republicans are bigots????? Funny, how Republicans are labeled bigots for opposing an issue that was made an issue by the left.....

Both parties are responsible for making it an issue, insofar as the government is concerned.

what gall to express opposition!

Expressing opposition does not mean it is not bigotry.

We're all allowed our opinions, including our belief that someone's actions are based on bigotry. I am not sure why more people don't understand that when someone disagrees with you, they have the right to do that.

I've heard a number of people say, especially in the escalated emotions displayed in the recent Prop 8 debate, that their right to free speech has been taken away by the opposition. This is completely untrue.

Implying someone should not express their disagreement as if it violates someone's freedom of speech is more concerning to me than the disagreement itself.

(I'm not saying that's what you meant Bytor. You're comment about expressing opposition sparked a more general commentary on my part.)

I remember during the Republican primary debates.....how many times are they going to ask Rudy about his views on abortion or the other candidates views on creationism....what a flippin waste. The media does a pretty good whack job on anything conservative...IMO.

I think those are perfectly legitimate questions, given the religious makeup of the candidates themselves.

In my observation, most staunch Christians are creationists. A few of those candidates are staunch Christians. I don't want another president who belives in creationism, because, at least in Bush's case, they tend to reject science.

I also want to know a candidate's view on abortion. I can't imagine, regardless of where you come down on the issue, why any American wouldn't want to know that. Given the president may put one or more judges on the Supreme Court, his/her views on abortion are paramount.

Say what you will about Fox, at least the right has a voice on that network.

The "right" has a voice on all of the networks. It's the extreme right that has a voice on FOX.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Well you have to be careful by what is meant by National Service as the National Service I am thinking of has to deal with volunteer work.

Corporation for National and Community Service

So I find that statement a bit wrong in terms of terminology. It should state in the article: military service. But I agree with what you're saying. It's a poor phrase of terminology, that the writer of the article/blog should be made aware of.

Okay, I understand what you're saying.

Perhaps I am wrong and he wasn't speaking of the military at all. In that case, I completely agree with you.

Elphaba

[bytor2112]

I think you're missing the point of the article.

No, I got the point.

The young Republicans don't care about abortion or same-sex marriage. They don't see these things as battles to be won--they see them as issues where the government has no right to intrude.

Again, the left has been winning the battle on these issues. How do you think they came to that conclusion? I seem to recall that the government got involved and that's how they became issues.

These young Republicans are also saying the current party's position on these two issues is bigotry; in other words, they agree with Democrats, and other political persuasions, that it is bigotry. They reject the party's social conservatism.

I am all for ending the debate about g/l marriage and I don't think Rowe v. Wade will be overturned....though it should be. It appears many Democrats are opposed to g/l marriage as well......look at California. Hardly a Republican state.

We're all allowed our opinions, including our belief that someone's actions are based on bigotry. I am not sure why more people don't understand that when someone disagrees with you, they have the right to do that.

Yes, we all have a right to voice our opinion, like our belief that abortion in most instances is a moral evil and that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Doesn't make me a bigot.

In my observation, most staunch Christians are creationists. A few of those candidates are staunch Christians. I don't want another president who belives in creationism, because, at least in Bush's case, they tend to reject science.

Bush didn't reject science! I believe our current President claims to be a Christian, doesn't that necessarily mean he believes that the earth and it's inhabitants were created by God?

I also want to know a candidate's view on abortion. I can't imagine, regardless of where you come down on the issue, why any American wouldn't want to know that. Given the president may put one or more judges on the Supreme Court, his/her views on abortion are paramount.

Me too. I was willing to vote for Rudy Guilliani despite the fact he is pro-abortion. I still believe that Rowe v. Wade is bad law, but I don't think it will ever be overturned. Off topic, but I am opposed to abortion for reasons other than rape, incest and health of the mother. Most abortions are performed for convenience...that's a fact. (source: Planned Parenthood).

The "right" has a voice on all of the networks. It's the extreme right that has a voice on FOX.

While that is true, it is also demonstrably true that the major networks have tended to have a left wing Pro-Democrat bias for years. Does Fox have a right wing, Pro-Republican bias..yes.

[bytor2112]

I think you're missing the point of the article.

No, I got the point.

The young Republicans don't care about abortion or same-sex marriage. They don't see these things as battles to be won--they see them as issues where the government has no right to intrude.

Again, the left has been winning the battle on these issues. How do you think they came to that conclusion? I seem to recall that the government got involved and that's how they became issues.

These young Republicans are also saying the current party's position on these two issues is bigotry; in other words, they agree with Democrats, and other political persuasions, that it is bigotry. They reject the party's social conservatism.

I am all for ending the debate about g/l marriage and I don't think Rowe v. Wade will be overturned....though it should be. It appears many Democrats are opposed to g/l marriage as well......look at California. Hardly a Republican state.

We're all allowed our opinions, including our belief that someone's actions are based on bigotry. I am not sure why more people don't understand that when someone disagrees with you, they have the right to do that.

Yes, we all have a right to voice our opinion, like our belief that abortion in most instances is a moral evil and that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Doesn't make me a bigot.

In my observation, most staunch Christians are creationists. A few of those candidates are staunch Christians. I don't want another president who belives in creationism, because, at least in Bush's case, they tend to reject science.

Bush didn't reject science! I believe our current President claims to be a Christian and believes that God created the Universe. I guess it is too late to change your mind now. (Yeah, I know, he alo claims to believe in evolution......)

Quote:

Obama was asked what he would tell his daughters if they asked him about the Book of Genesis account that God created the world in six days. He answered:

“What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe andthat the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it. It may not be 24-hour days.” Source: Chicago Tribune

I also want to know a candidate's view on abortion. I can't imagine, regardless of where you come down on the issue, why any American wouldn't want to know that. Given the president may put one or more judges on the Supreme Court, his/her views on abortion are paramount.

Me too. I was willing to vote for Rudy Guilliani despite the fact he is pro-abortion. I still believe that Rowe v. Wade is bad law, but I don't think it will ever be overturned. Off topic, but I am opposed to abortion for reasons other than rape, incest and health of the mother. Most abortions are performed for convenience...that's a fact. (source: Planned Parenthood).

The "right" has a voice on all of the networks. It's the extreme right that has a voice on FOX.

While that is true, it is also demonstrably true that the major networks have tended to have a left wing Pro-Democrat bias for years. Does Fox have a right wing, Pro-Republican bias..yes.

Edited May 2, 2009 by bytor2112

[Elphaba]

No, I got the point.

Your comments suggest otherwise.

I don't question your comments themselves, but they don't respond to the article's salient points.

For example, it explains young Republicans reject the social conservatism of the party, such as its opposition to abortion. They want the debates to stop, because a woman's right to choose is not an issue for them.

Yet you keep focusing on the past and current debates about abortion, and how you believe it should become illegal. That is not responding to the article itself.

Regarding whether or not Bush rejected science, I'll let the scientists speak to that:

Scientific Integrity in Policy Making 7/04: Further investigation of the Bush administration's abuse of science

Regarding Obama's approach to science, I'll let these same scientists speak to that:

Obama Administration Follows UCS Recommendations to Protect Scientific Integrity

Having said this, I do get your point about my comment that I don't want a president who believes in creationism. I based my opinion on Bush's policies regarding science, as outlined above. Obviously I'm wrong in that believing in creationism automatically precludes a president from taking science seriously.

Elphaba

[Churchmouse]

FYI

People Turn More Liberal With Age | LiveScience

Interesting article. Back in November Townhall.com cited a study that said just the opposite. I suspect you can find a study to support any position you wish.

If 45% of young people are liberal and older Americans become more liberal with age and the largest age group is "baby boomers" (45+), how did all of these conservatives get elected? Something's wrong with the stats.

[GNews4BadTimes]

How about the Constitutional Party AKA the former US Taxpayers Party?

Give it another three years, noting the failure of this current administration, people will change from both parties to something different. Both parties had failed....period.

[Kawazu]

For what it's worth, I voted for a Republican, this year (in the primaries), and I am a reasonably young guy. Yet, I really think a populace is better served evaluating public officials individually, rather than by party.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Kawazu

[Palerider]

I have never voted for a Democrat President....whenever I think about voting for a Democrat....I always hear that Beattles song in my head....The Tax Man.....