The Joys of Right Wing Denial

This column by Michael Medved on the rosy demographic future of the Republican Party just cracked me up.  Medved's thesis -- the percentage of older people in the country is growing -- older people vote Republican -- ergo, a golden age awaits the party of golden-agers.  Really, there is so much wrong with this it is difficult to capture all of it.

First, the notion that people become more conservative as they age is simply a myth.  Young people have voted overwhelmingly for Barak Obama in the last two elections -- and the cohort of 30-39 year-olds, many of whom were in the under 30 cohort in 2008, increased the support for Obama in that age bracket.  That's the way these generational loyalties tend to work; the electoral loyalties formed by one's mid-twenties typically stay with most people as they age.  

Second, comparing the older people of today -- those born in the 1930s and 40s -- with those who will become senior citizens in another 15 to 20 years is pretty silly.  Medved takes solace in the fact that in 2030, 25% of the American population will be over 60, assuming that people in that age group magically become Republicans.  Moreover, Medved suggests that the young who are currently not religiously observant will become so as they age and marry.  In other words, Medved assumes that the older people of the future will be just like those we find today.

A snapshot of the actual demographics confirms that most of this is delusional.  42% of the voters between the ages of 18 - 29 in 2012 were non-white.  In 2000, that numbers was 26%.  This is a stunning change in twelve short years.  Non-white voters supported Obama over Romney by approximately 80-20%. This trend will not be slowing down.  By 2050, whites will be a minority of voters in the United States.  (I hope to turn 90 that year and celebrate the occasion.)  Right now, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians make up 37% of the country's population and 28% of the voters in the most recent election.  The Hispanic vote is expected to double by 2030.  Asian-Americans, the fastest growing demographic group in America, supported Obama over Romney by approximately 76 - 23%, a stunning 53% gap. 

Medved completely ignores this reality.  He also ignores the fact that 19% of the voters age 18-29 have no religious affiliation versus only 6% of those currently over age 65, that only 36% of them attend church services regularly as opposed to 51% of those over age 65, and, most importantly, that only 16% identify as white evangelical protestants versus 28% of voters over age 65.  As a group, those 18 - 29 overwhelmingly support gay marriage, abortion rights, and legalized marijuana.  They also strongly support more activist government by a margin of 59 - 37% while those over 65 -- the folks collecting Social Security and enjoying the benefits of socialized medicine -- reverse those numbers, with 58% claiming that government is doing too much -- although presumably not in terms of supporting their sorry white asses -- and 35% who think government should do more. 

In short, there is no reason for Mr. Medved's optimism.  But plenty of reason for most of us to feel the future is bright. 

Comments

[T.R. Donoghue]

Same business model they use in Branson.

[Bill H]

And still no one has provided the voting demographic of left handed red headed plumbers. I do not know how we can possibly evaluate the outcomes of elections without knowing how left handed red headed plumbers vote. What is the matter with our ability to provide data these days? We need this data urgently.

[Crissa]

I love the part he's ignoring, that Obama won the 30-40 demographic by a larger margin in 2012 than in 2008. There's hope for my generation yet.

[oddjob]

Medved has been a stupid twit for some decades now (at least).

[Ken T]

To be fair to Medved, it's not just him -- I'm often amazed at the prevalence of the myth that the Tea Party seniors of today are the hippies of the 60's grown old and turned conservative. The reality of course is that they are mostly the 50's generation. They grew up as kids watching WWII unfold in the Saturday newsreels, went through the stage of being the James Dean rebels-without-a-cause/greasers, before finally "maturing" (if that's the right word for it) into the "Mad Men" generation. They've been conservatives ever since.

My own anecdotal experience as a 60's Boomer liberal is that my cohort is just as liberal today as we were then. The conservative Boomers who are out there today were always there, they just pretended to be hippies in order to get laid. Most of us could see right through them.

[Ken T]

That sentence should have read "They've been conservatives - and whining about the DFH Boomers - ever since."

[kathy a.]

he does not really talk about women, even though the article is illustrated by a photo of tea party babes in full regalia. didn't obama have the support of women voters, by a large margin?

a party so hostile to reproductive rights, equality, and autonomy is not a party destined to attract a lot more women voters. i'm not going to change my mind about the importance of these issues when i turn 60, either.

[kathy a.]

also, the proposals to mess with social security and medicare -- cut benefits for future retirees, raise the age of eligibility -- are not sitting well with AARP. or with my age-mates in their mid-50's, who would be the first "beneficiaries" of those "improvements."

the GOP has policies on its wish-list that will harm people, if implemented. the party is counting on its loyal voters to ignore that fact.

in addition to SS and medicare, they really want to chop medicaid (medical care for poor people -- including long-term nursing home care for elders who have exhausted resources). they are going after family planning in a big way (not just abortion). their education goals make me shudder.

a party whose objectives are to punish "others" has dim prospects for attracting folks to its ranks. they have depended on fear-mongering and division for a long time now, and that strategy has its limits. eventually, people start to figure out that they personally are the ones being hated on.

[oddjob]

a party whose objectives are to punish "others" has dim prospects for attracting folks to its ranks.

Indeed:

Letters from Millenial Readers

[oddjob]

Plastic bulb development promises better quality light

[oddjob]

The 'Pinocchio effect': ...

Researchers find that when people lie their noses begin to warm up
Using thermographic cameras they discover a range of correlations between mental states and body temperature

[kathy a.]

oddjob -- those millenial reader letters hit on a lot of great points! diversity and tolerance; the importance of science; ill-conceived wars; economics, and how we have done better with dem leadership; useful roles of government; providing basic medical care. kids these days! they're great.

as for the pinnochio effect -- correlation is not definitive. lie detector tests are not admissible in court, because they are scientifically unreliable for determining if a person is lying about a particular thing. the circumstances of being accused and interrogated, for example, can cause physiological changes. (i personally would not be at my best, is my guess.)

as for noses -- wow. zits. a cold. the presence of allergens. room temperature, or changes in temp. hot flashes. ingestion of spicy foods. those panic attacks they mention. the correlation is interesting, but the research is probably not conducted in "field" situations, or sensitive to the "normal" peculiarities of an individual.

[oddjob]

(I just thought I'd pass along the info., figuring forewarned is forearmed. :) )

[oddjob]

how we have done better with dem leadership

That is pretty much all they have known. Even the oldest were too young to remember much about President Reagan or to put their experience of the 1980's into an historical context. That means their first real exposure to politics mostly happened during the Clinton administration or later.

[kathy a.]

assuming grace for an open thread item: 38 fucking senators, all GOP, voted against an international treaty protecting the rights of disabled persons. i do not even know how they live with themselves. more on maddow. the vote was 5 short of the 2/3 needed for ratification of the treaty.

this treaty was based on the ADA; something we have in place in the US. i cannot express the depths of my disgust. bob dole, who has not the rep of a flaming liberal, wheeled himself onto the senate floor to advocate for this treaty.

we are dealing with some severely mean individuals.

[low-tech cyclist]

kathy - you beat me to it. And let me add this:

The next time the Villagers are saying nice things about this or that supposedly responsible conservative, I'd like to pull out this list of Supposedly Responsible Conservatives who voted against the treaty:

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
John Thune (R-SD)

Somehow, the Villagers always manage to overlook how these people actually vote. And there ain't no excuse for voting against this one, other than Fear Of The Base.

[kathy a.]

it is worth looking at the entire list of nays, and keeping them all under observation.
Alexander (R-TN)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

[oddjob]

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Orrin Hatch was hugely in favor of passing ADA. He made a passionate speech about it, citing his experience of physically carrying a relative unable to walk into the Temple, when they were debating the bill before its passage.

[kathy a.]

here's some info on rubio: he opposes reproductive rights. ain't that special.

one of these gems of democracy recently opposed a cost of living increase for disabled vets -- anonymously. special, as well.

sen. blunt may have been influenced away from support for the treaty by this kind of campaign, arguing a combo plate of anti-abortion, pro-homeschooling, and eeek parental authority under fire. gah.

[nancy]

I wonder. Did anyone dare to ask Santorum to expand on exactly how this legislation could intrude into his home schoolroom? How nuts is that? The home-school police patrol.

These people are those who gladly vote to authorize wars that create a fair number of the newly disabled. I hope every one of these august citizens gets his/her special place in a hall of shame somewhere. Soon.

And from the Dallas Morning News: Is the Religious Right's Considerable Influence on Politics Over? Let us pray.

[kathy a.]

this is an international treaty, based on law already existing in the US. these people are nuts.

santorum himself? hi-test lunacy crossed with pure mean. and stupid. he argues that this treaty would make best interests of the child the standard -- apparently not realizing that this IS the standard when the state is endeavoring to protect children. the treaty will not change that. it is already the law when kids are abused, neglected; when there is a custody dispute; even when kids are accused of crimes, the best interests of the child are considered regarding placement.

[Sir Charles]

About to get on a flight, but just wanted to join the chorus of those noting the extreme nuttiness of the GOP position. This party is simply irredeemable.

[low-tech cyclist]

kathy - a number of the GOP solons on the full list really should be kept under observation, ideally in a facility with padded walls.

[kathy a.]

more on that reprehensible treaty vote, from balloon juice. linked is an NYT piece, from republicans, a parting slap at bob dole and disabled americans.

[paula]

Haven't been following, so someone may already have posted this LAT op-ed on why the poor favor Democrats. If so, please forgive the redundancy. Lots of good stuff in it:
http://lat.ms/VkaW62

[oddjob]

John Sununu: Romney lost because of "THEM" (& two other Repub. governors agree).

[kathy a.]

what a hateful man sununu is. the extraordinarily wealthy have been the actual "welfare queens" in our recent difficulties.

[David Kowalski]

The Republican "problem" is that even the white vote is not monolithic and Republican. If Romney got close to 60% of the white vote, exit polls show he got 89% in Mississippi and 84% in Alabama but 49% in New York and more importantly 54% in Colorado, 57% in PA and OH and 55% in MI.

The only way the plan works is to change the rest of the country into AL and MS where race is the only determinate, not self-interest or class. Republicans have had some luck with that in AZ (66%).

That's the plan. That's the plan to hold the House by gerrymandering like crazy. No, it won't work.

[Sir Charles]

David,

The gerymandering was remarkably effective this last go round, but at a certain point it will lose its impact. Fortunately for us, 2020 is a presidential election year, so the odds of another 2010-style debacle -- which has had cosmic implications -- are unlikely.