Why do so many young people reject the Democratic Party ?

As has been noted on other posts, the Democratic Party does not have the youthful participation that the Repub Party has...why is that?
Could some young people comment on this? What is their opinion of why this is so? Is it because of Democratic Party policies? Is it because of NRA? Is it because many of them have bought into the argument about affirmative action where the less qualified get the job over them, the more qualified? Any opinions why the young are not liberals?

Everyone thinks unions are corrupt,
environmentalists are nuts,
affirmative action is immoral,
welfare queens are living the high life,
etc.

People just say these things over and over again until people (especially young people) accept them as fact.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

The only air time these days.

I think overall young people tend to be more liberal (no, I don't have data to prove that).

I think the problem is that many of them who may have liberal political views are apathetic to the system seeing BOTH parties as ruled by money and corporate politics, so they don't vote at all.

The 20 yr olds are impressively able to rattle off all the same concerns you see here on DU.

The difference is that nowhere does the Democratic Party seems attractive as a cure. There is no liberalism at its core for them to identify with.

They need to believe in something. Liberalism encourages us to believe in one another, and in public sector solutions. This type of thinking is discouraged everywhere because it has elements of socialism and humanism, and that isn't tolerated today. If money, corporations or Jesus isn't a part of the solution, then your best media response will be terse and sceptical; On this the Democrats follow suit.

most young people are so far to the left they are out of the picture-- they think the entire system is corrupted and they don't see any place for themselves in it -- they want total institutional change

the vast majority of my friends view republicans and democrats as the same party

due to my working on a campaign, my niece has recently discovered that dems aren't three-eyed green monsters soliciting abortions. She attended a private religious affiliated high school and basically learned to be a republican.

Perhaps the young liberals are not politically active like their GOOP counterparts. Then it would not be a matter of political position, rather just a matter of organizing.

I doubt if they spend much time with their noses in "the American Rifleman"; more likely they are busy with work, study, or entertainment.

Not all Democrats I hasten to add. There are some Democratic leaders who get it.

But the centrist DLC line is exemplified by the cautious, middle-aged, middle manager approach to life. Everything is calculated, and you lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Not that there's not room for that. But there has to be more. The energy of passionate committment to ideas is also necessary. But everytime that starts to surface (as in Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton) the New Democrat Establishment joins the media and the Repuglicans to smash it.

The GOP, to their credit, encourages passion and committment to ideals (as misguided as they are).

It's a lot easier for greedy corporatist young people to see that the GOP represents their interests than it is for the young socially conscious voter to see that the Democrats represent theirs.

I've heard registering Repub being thought of as a ticket into the coutry club. If you want to be upwardly mobile, need to think and act like those who are already "sucessful". Don't want to be a loser.

...at least for college-educated young people are that these people are just starting out and they've worked hard to get an education and /think/ that they're eventually going to be the ones to partake in being part of the upper or upper-middle class and want to support policies that they /think/ will benefit them.

I knew someone who became real conservative toward the end of med school, and he is in his residency right now. He says the progressive tax is unfair and I try to explain to him, as someone who is paid so little, who is barely in the second tax bracket if at all, it was set up that way to benefit him as he has less disposable income than someone in a higher tax bracket. But he's probably thinking forward to the time where he thinks he'll be making a lot more.

ineffectual, wishy-washy and flaky.

Howard Dean is the only Democratic presidential candidate that polls well with young white males.

The American people do not vote on issues, they vote on personality.

The American people want strength, decisiveness and leadership in times of struggle.

Clinton did not win elections because of his issues. He won because people liked him and saw him as in control, likeable and strong.

I think that's probably got a lot of truth to it.

After all, if a person is right but weak, they'll never have power to exercize the "right" things. And those who support them will never have power either.

At least that's one point of view.

They have no patience for intricacies, subtle arguments and political gamesmenship. They want a no nonesense, strong leader willing to take risks.

The Democratic Party needs to wake up to this reality.

Putting Kerry or Gephardt or Lieberman up for the nomination is a sure fire way to completely destroy any power the Democratic Party has left.

throwing people in jail for possesing part of a natural cannabis plant.

This is a HUGE issue. It affects civil rights, education, taxes, the economy, and more. The Democrats need to stop treating it as a third rail and start fighting for freedom.

If the Democrats make ending the drug war a major plank in their platform, they will get millions of otherwise non-voters to the polls.

"How can you call this the land of the free
When you throw people in jail just for smoking weed?"
The Technohippies
"Thrown in Jail"
THC Inc
http://technohippies.stonernet.org

Get real.

how about YOU getting educated on the issue.

On issues like drugs, privacy, and free speech the Democratic Party does not make a strong unified stand to be on the side of freedom. Some of these are issues where the Democrats could connect with the Libertarian minded voters if the Democrats had a strong position to contradict the right wing extremists. Instead, each elected Democrat says something different (people like Gore and Lieberman pushing for censorship, for example) and we lose any advantage that could come from being the freedom party.

2 issues that keep the Democrats from dominating politics: guns and drugs

banning either only causes crime and suffering

I would love to see the Democrats come out for freedom of choice for your body and it's contents. I won't hold my breath though, the lure of the paranoid soccer mom vote is too strong.

Why is a Republican the one launching an attack against the RIAA?

Lawmaker seeks info on RIAA dragnet

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, sent a letter to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on Thursday that criticized its recent spate of subpoenas and asked for detailed information on how the process is working. Coleman said the RIAA may be going too far.

http://news.com.com/2102-1027_3-5058594.html?tag=ni_print

When kids see Republicans publicly defending them against the RIAA, how do you think that helps their view of Democrats?

Most young folks like myself want to keep as much of the cash they make as they can, and they see the Dems as threatening that.

The group that actually pays MORE under the Bush cuts are single folks making $25k/yr or so.

I recall being out of college when the Reagan cuts hit, and it was miserable as a newly employed ex-student. A lot of the deductions (state sales tax, consumer interest, etc.) vanished, while the SS deduction went up.


I think a good dem platform would include cuts in the SS deduction. Enough funny accounting for the Fed deficit.

but perceptions are everything

The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030804&c=1&s=featherstone

article | Posted July 17, 2003

Antiwar Students Rock the Vote
by Liza Featherstone

Three years ago, Chantel Azadeh, 23, an antiwar activist at the University of California, Irvine, would never have imagined herself working on an electoral campaign. Ghafari, who belongs to an anarchist group called People Organized against War, Empire and Rulers, wasn't exactly the incremental-change type--and she certainly didn't see much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. But 2004 may be different. "The last two years have done a number on a lot of people's minds," she says. "You might be surprised to hear this from an anti-authoritarian, an anarchist, but this election I plan on getting involved. I think it's crucial that we get Bush out of the White House."

Protests against Bush's war on Iraq drew more students than any other recent protest movement, and they were younger, more working-class and more racially and geographically diverse. Now it looks as if that protest energy may provide momentum for the 2004 elections. The enthusiastic volunteerism of right-wing students played a significant role in electing George W. Bush. It stands to reason, then, that progressive students, if equally savvy, could help toss him out. Azadeh is now planning to devote herself to that project, joining many other antiwar students who have been skeptical about electoral politics in the past.

A survey of young people conducted for MTV by Peter D. Hart Research Associates found that one out of every twelve respondents had attended an antiwar protest--and many more said the war had affected their voting plans. Fifty-three percent of those eligible to vote planned to pull the lever in 2004, a dramatic increase over recent past elections. "We're poised to see the highest participation yet," says Jehmu Greene, executive director of Rock the Vote. Though two-thirds of the respondents in the MTV poll said they supported the war, 54 percent believed that those who protested the war were "acting patriotically" and only 41 percent said they would vote for Bush. These numbers suggest ambivalence about Bush and good will toward the antiwar movement--a real opening for young peace activists who want to build a voting bloc of their peers.

<snip>

Whether or not any particular presidential campaign attracts mass student support, Bush's aggressive warmongering and perilous mishandling of the economy have undoubtedly drawn many young people into electoral politics. But as much as they want to defeat Bush, most are not willing to support a prowar Democrat. If Dean doesn't win the nomination, Rosenblith says he'll vote Green. Ben Waxman, who just graduated from Springfield Township High School in Erdenheim, Pennsylvania, and an organizer with NYSPC, says if the Democrats nominate Lieberman (that Gallup poll put him as the top choice among Democrats), he'll abandon electoral work for protest and direct action.

Many young peace activists remain unimpressed by the pool of candidates and will be tough to recruit into electoral work. To them, participating in the Democratic Party is a distraction from building a long-term alternative to what Ralph Nader called the "Republicrats"--or building a mass movement that could make such an alternative viable.

Yvonne Liu, a Columbia University senior who has been active in the campus antiwar movement and in several anti-authoritarian groups, predicts that many more young activists like herself will vote in '04. But Liu won't go to work for a candidate, which she says would mean "getting co-opted by our market democracy."



<snip>

We hear too much theory and too many speculations. What's actually happening and who's trying to get people involved? The article addresses some of that.

Every time they look at a paycheck and see that money taken for SS, they can't look ahead and see that if they kept that money, they would eventually be stuck paying a whole lot more to support their aging parents as well as paying for their medical bills. So the lying Repukes appeal to their greed and short sightedness.

The last couple of generations (I'm included in that) have absolutely NO idea what it was like before labor laws, before banking regulations, before environmental protections, etc., etc. They are taking that all for granted, assuming that all their tax dollars are being wasted on crack whores popping out babies. And they buy into the propganda that Democrats support that, and Republicans want to stop that.

Republicans know that they have broad-based appeal. #1 is they appeal to people's greed and self-centeredness. Today's culture is all about self-centeredness, self-gratification, screw everybody else. Perfect breeding grounds for conservative thought.

and making up the revenue by raising or eliminating the cap on SS wages. Currently SS taxes aren't paid on incomes over $87 thousand (or there about).

but when I brought it up a few years ago on another board, I was attacked by a bunch of freepers who threw so many charts and figures on as an answer that they completely obfuscated what my premise was. With that kind of lobby, it would be a really hard thing to make into law.IMO

You see, the Repugs and their allies (yes, I have no doubt many Dems also pioneered this, either wittingly or unwittingly) have progressed the psychomanipulative sciences of advertising/public relations to the point where rebellious energy has now been succdessfully diverted in mercantile energy.

Wanna protest (to most of the Imperial Subjects of Amerika)? Buy a t-shirt. Buy a nosering. Buy a tattoo.

In doing so, they studies, among other things, the concept of "cool" and how to define it to the consumer base instead of following the dictates of the consumer base.

This undoubtedly, has been applied to the Reich Wing, amplified and improved from the shit we see on commercial TV, etc.

Of course, fostering a revolutionary mentality in people (Reich Wingers) who already directly or indirectly control 90% of everything (except the Internet, where they only directly or indirectly control 60-70%) is dangerous.

"Adolf builds a bonfire, Rush Limbaugh Plays with it."

Yes, clever marketing, helped along by the inputs of PJ O'Rourke and others who have turned out to be Totalitarian Monsters (though cloaked in the skin of human beings) they have a tremendous Bushler Youth Marketing Division.

nd remember, it won't be too long until these monsters are told to behave like Soviets, perhaps like Nazis.

And they will obey without question, without thought.

Why? Clever psychomanipulative marketing has programmed them taht way.

Be ready. It's coming.

Yeah, Dems seem pretty mad but not nearly as crazy as republicans. Young people want to be "different" and buy into a lot of the conservative propoganda.

If liberals did as much to court the young vote and young members as conservatives we would have no problem raking them in.

On a good note I think our party is starting to get back on the right track ie. not the DLC track.

they grew up with their mothers that were career women or single. The pugs represent a lifestyle that is not threatening to their male ego. The man is in charge and the woman is a stepford.

besides just cultivating a faux machismo for being unaware of women's rights, Repubs also are highly critical of minority rights, and the rights of gays and lesbians.

These issues don't seem as macho as being FOR other people's rights and welfare.

A recent college survey poll showed
liberals with a plurality among 18-21
year olds, and tied numbers between
Dems and Repubs.

The main difference between this generation
of youth and previous generations is that
they're less likely to identify themselves
as Democrats than as Independents. However,
they tend to vote Democratic by a 12-19 point
majority.

The exception is when Al Gore ran for president;
he and Holy Joe both wooed the middle class parents
by bashing youth culture. As a result, he only tied
the youth vote.

My view as a young liberal is that we are there,
we are larger than the conservatives, but that
the Democratic Party does a lousy job of recruiting
and outreach. Conservative students have a lot of
opportunities with right wing media and right wing
thinktanks to gain experience, liberal groups tend
to offer the same kinds of opportunities, but they
sit back and wait instead of going out and searching.

Youth voters tend to be very idealistic and passionate,
and they get very quickly turned off by the DLC's style.
One of the reasons why so many young people are cool to
the Democratic Party is they view them as passive sellouts
who can't or won't stand up to the Republicans. They'll
vote for the Democrats as the lesser of two evils, but they
call themselves Independents because they vastly dislike
the party institution.


On the other hand, when Democrats actively seek out the
youth vote, they respond like people dying of thirst to
a glass of water. I volunteered for Robert Reich when
he ran for governor of Massachusetts last year and our
entire base was liberals and youth. He went out to the
colleges and said he wanted to make their college education
cheaper, more enriching, and connected with job opportunity.
When the caucuses came around, college students turned
out in record numbers to vote for Bob and he won tons of
college towns that were thought to be locked up by the
traditional local party leaders.

Instantly, 100 interns and thousand of youth volunteers
swamped the campaign; for an entire summer, those college
kids were the muscle of the campaign. We knocked on 200,000
doors, made over a million calls, and descended on town
after town. As a result, a late arrival with 200,000 dollars
in total and with an established liberal insurgent with 3 million dollars of public funding standing on his left, Robert Reich
came in second in the primaries with 25% of the vote.
When the winner, a typical Boston pol, went into the general,
the energy and enthusiasm of young voters faded away.

So I'd say this: young voters need to actively courted and
encouraged. When exciting candidates like Howard Dean come
around with a message geared to young people, they turn on
and turn out to vote. When the typical establishment candidate comes out and proposed more money for seniors and less for higher
education, they stay home.

If the DLC took its head out of the sand, or if some other
group took over the reins of the party, I think you'd see
an increase in youth identification with the Dems.

A recent college survey poll showed
liberals with a plurality among 18-21
year olds, and tied numbers between
Dems and Repubs.

The main difference between this generation
of youth and previous generations is that
they're less likely to identify themselves
as Democrats than as Independents. However,
they tend to vote Democratic by a 12-19 point
majority.

The exception is when Al Gore ran for president;
he and Holy Joe both wooed the middle class parents
by bashing youth culture. As a result, he only tied
the youth vote.

My view as a young liberal is that we are there,
we are larger than the conservatives, but that
the Democratic Party does a lousy job of recruiting
and outreach. Conservative students have a lot of
opportunities with right wing media and right wing
thinktanks to gain experience, liberal groups tend
to offer the same kinds of opportunities, but they
sit back and wait instead of going out and searching.

Youth voters tend to be very idealistic and passionate,
and they get very quickly turned off by the DLC's style.
One of the reasons why so many young people are cool to
the Democratic Party is they view them as passive sellouts
who can't or won't stand up to the Republicans. They'll
vote for the Democrats as the lesser of two evils, but they
call themselves Independents because they vastly dislike
the party institution.


On the other hand, when Democrats actively seek out the
youth vote, they respond like people dying of thirst to
a glass of water. I volunteered for Robert Reich when
he ran for governor of Massachusetts last year and our
entire base was liberals and youth. He went out to the
colleges and said he wanted to make their college education
cheaper, more enriching, and connected with job opportunity.
When the caucuses came around, college students turned
out in record numbers to vote for Bob and he won tons of
college towns that were thought to be locked up by the
traditional local party leaders.

Instantly, 100 interns and thousand of youth volunteers
swamped the campaign; for an entire summer, those college
kids were the muscle of the campaign. We knocked on 200,000
doors, made over a million calls, and descended on town
after town. As a result, a late arrival with 200,000 dollars
in total and with an established liberal insurgent with 3 million dollars of public funding standing on his left, Robert Reich
came in second in the primaries with 25% of the vote.
When the winner, a typical Boston pol, went into the general,
the energy and enthusiasm of young voters faded away.

So I'd say this: young voters need to actively courted and
encouraged. When exciting candidates like Howard Dean come
around with a message geared to young people, they turn on
and turn out to vote. When the typical establishment candidate comes out and proposed more money for seniors and less for higher
education, they stay home.

If the DLC took its head out of the sand, or if some other
group took over the reins of the party, I think you'd see
an increase in youth identification with the Dems.

A recent college survey poll showed
liberals with a plurality among 18-21
year olds, and tied numbers between
Dems and Repubs.

The main difference between this generation
of youth and previous generations is that
they're less likely to identify themselves
as Democrats than as Independents. However,
they tend to vote Democratic by a 12-19 point
majority.

The exception is when Al Gore ran for president;
he and Holy Joe both wooed the middle class parents
by bashing youth culture. As a result, he only tied
the youth vote.

My view as a young liberal is that we are there,
we are larger than the conservatives, but that
the Democratic Party does a lousy job of recruiting
and outreach. Conservative students have a lot of
opportunities with right wing media and right wing
thinktanks to gain experience, liberal groups tend
to offer the same kinds of opportunities, but they
sit back and wait instead of going out and searching.

Youth voters tend to be very idealistic and passionate,
and they get very quickly turned off by the DLC's style.
One of the reasons why so many young people are cool to
the Democratic Party is they view them as passive sellouts
who can't or won't stand up to the Republicans. They'll
vote for the Democrats as the lesser of two evils, but they
call themselves Independents because they vastly dislike
the party institution.


On the other hand, when Democrats actively seek out the
youth vote, they respond like people dying of thirst to
a glass of water. I volunteered for Robert Reich when
he ran for governor of Massachusetts last year and our
entire base was liberals and youth. He went out to the
colleges and said he wanted to make their college education
cheaper, more enriching, and connected with job opportunity.
When the caucuses came around, college students turned
out in record numbers to vote for Bob and he won tons of
college towns that were thought to be locked up by the
traditional local party leaders.

Instantly, 100 interns and thousand of youth volunteers
swamped the campaign; for an entire summer, those college
kids were the muscle of the campaign. We knocked on 200,000
doors, made over a million calls, and descended on town
after town. As a result, a late arrival with 200,000 dollars
in total and with an established liberal insurgent with 3 million dollars of public funding standing on his left, Robert Reich
came in second in the primaries with 25% of the vote.
When the winner, a typical Boston pol, went into the general,
the energy and enthusiasm of young voters faded away.

So I'd say this: young voters need to actively courted and
encouraged. When exciting candidates like Howard Dean come
around with a message geared to young people, they turn on
and turn out to vote. When the typical establishment candidate comes out and proposed more money for seniors and less for higher
education, they stay home.

If the DLC took its head out of the sand, or if some other
group took over the reins of the party, I think you'd see
an increase in youth identification with the Dems.

"for info on getting involved"

See what kind of reception they get.

**Also, when I was younger (1993), I also asked about procedures for JOINING the party; I wanted to be an actual MEMBER not just some volunteer. They required a $100 fee. I was all.....sheesh.......of course I didn't have that money. They didn't ask for my name, contact info, or give info about any upcoming events. Just...here's your info, buh bye.


I didn't join the party. I just found the candidates I wanted to help and volunteered for them.

But the key thing that I knew was the dem candidates got to be candidates many times from the dem party machine! And I wanted to be part of that.

This was in New Mexico. Maybe that's different in other states.

***then get that same young person to call the state republican party and see the reception they get. Just guessing.....but I think the repubs would send a delegation to their house to get 'em!

With the Cheap Labor Party, one is required to simply DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD, and are encouraged to remain uniformed, which is, of course, a helluva lot less work, and considerably easier on one's blood pressure! Alas, the Cheap Labor Party is the party of blissful ignorance! Daddy/President/good ole'U.S. of A./tiny Chinese- made 'murican flags/"patriotism" - they'll take care of us. Like Crush Limpballs loves to say - he'll (they'll) think for you!!!!

May sounds suspiciously like fascism to some, but one cannot POSSIBLY be fascist if they eat apple pie, wrap themselves up in stars and stripes, and preach the 'merican dream of over-consumption, can they?

Rethugs generally ignore them because they automatically assume the youth are liberal unless they belong to a nutcase fundie cult.

Dems generally ignore them because they still cling to the image of youth from the 60s.

The youth in turn, ignore both (generally) because they view both parties as heavy withdrawers from the youth bank of Social Security, and know that neither party gives a shit about their education short of testing them and punishing THEM when the PE system fails, both parties tout high interest loans for the insanely expensive higher ed industry rather than nationaizing the whole enterprise or generating worthwhile scholarships. Both keep the drinking age at 21 while the enlistment and voting age is 18, and for all intents and purposes, society views them as adults in respect to the law at 18. And this is to say NOTHING of kids from non-white families who are not only ignored, but often oppressed by the very policies both parties endorse especially with regard to higher ed, mandatory minimum sentencing, and messing with pop culture.

It may sound really stupid to say this, but they eshew both parties because both parties cater to the old and treat them like little kids.

At least, that's been my experience. Kids get it from all sides. That's why.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Tney're stupid.

"he Democratic Leadership Council still claims that Democrats are losing ground among 'white males.' To the extent their numbers show that to be true, I actually agree. But, it's NOT because the Democrats are weak on defense or because they are drifting to the left politically.

"It's because, until very recently, the entire party acted like George W. Bush's prison bitch."

- - Hesiod, at Counterspin Central.

...to my current experience. Nearly everyone I know below the age of 30 is an ardent Democrat.

would result in young people being more progressive/less militaristic, and perhaps more politically active?

and see the advantages of being a kid while you can. It's not about rejection, it's more about being a kid, and in my experience kids generally don't participate in Politics.
I'm a 17 year old Liberal/progressive, and I see this first hand everyday. I tend to associate with other liberal kids, most of who don't know that they are liberal. I think it has to do with a mixture of not knowign who they are yet, and not caring about anything but having fun. Being a kid while they still can.

While at the same time, in my experience of young conservatives, they tend to be more "adult", or rather too serious. Which i consider to be an anti-virtue, and abhor them for it.

and agree I try to have a normal way of acting here I can be funny or serious same with life in general. I would say conservative kids lol are the ones you see in ties and liberal kids the ones who are enjoying life.

I bet that most people on DU aren't even excited about the current state of the Democratic Party and we are some of the most politically aware in the country.

The current batch of elected Dems are more ass kissers than ass kickers and most of them don't give people anything to be excited about.

Even when elected democrats do decide to fight, like the filibusters in the Senate, it seems like they are only willing to do it as a last resort and only on the most crucial issues.

Republicans are always on the offensive, almost never on the defensive, and they will fight for anything, big or small, if they think it will help their side.

Our party is weak and unexciting, even for many of us. Why would kids bother to care?

grow older. No facts, just intuition. I think the ones that become more affluent are attracted to republican themes such as low taxes and individual responsibility. The ones that remain less affluent continue their liberal tendencies. So, I believe that the more money you make, the more likely it is that you'll vote republican. I could be totally off base, but this is what my gut tells me.