PDA

View Full Version : Demographics and time are not on the side of the Right



OGIS
03-25-2017, 10:20 AM
As this article strongly implies, liberals just need to be patient. Demographics seem to be on their side.


A wider partisan and ideological gap between younger, older generationsThe generation gap in American politics is dividing two younger age groups, Millennials and Generation X, from the two older groups, Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation.

In 2016, as in recent years, Millennials and Gen Xers were the most Democratic generations. And both groups had relatively large – and growing – shares of liberal Democrats: 27% of Millennials and 21% of Gen Xers identified as liberal Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/03/20102516/FT_17.03.16_generations_ideology_2016.png

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/20/a-wider-partisan-and-ideological-gap-between-younger-older-generations/

MisterVeritis
03-25-2017, 10:21 AM
Then the nation will end with a whimper.

Peter1469
03-25-2017, 10:24 AM
I think the younger generations will turn out libertarian. They are already fed up with the establishment/both parties.

Chris
03-25-2017, 10:26 AM
Right and left are relative. One pushes change, the other reacts to and resists it. All things change. Not progressively, but randomly. During the Revolution it was the radicals who wanted a decentralized government, the conservatives a centralized one. Now the opposite is true.

Common
03-25-2017, 10:45 AM
Ive heard its the end of the right and the left more than a couple of times in my lifetime. To me there is only one constant and that is that the Pendulum always swings right to left.

America rejects the far right and the far left every time they are in office.

Lets remember the democrats lost more elections under obama than any other time.

Tahuyaman
03-25-2017, 11:20 AM
I think the younger generations will turn out libertarian. They are already fed up with the establishment/both parties.

In spite of the Pew Research Center's results, reality supports your view.

Pew Research clearly leans one way and they work to support that lean.

Scrounger
03-25-2017, 11:27 AM
While the pendulum swings back and forth from right to left and back again, it swings farther to the left with each successive generation. In my lifetime, the pendulum has swung so far left that when it swings to the right it is still left of center.

The liberals are happy to think that the right and conservatives are dying off in droves. Those whites over 45 tend to be fat, on drugs, alcoholics, smokers, and drunks. A lot of them are not married, have no strong family ties, are basically under-educated and live off of junk food. Their health is bad and they tend not to live as long as the generation that preceded them.

It's a sad commentary, but I fear they are not far from the mark.

Tahuyaman
03-25-2017, 11:34 AM
While the pendulum swings back and forth from right to left and back again, it swings farther to the left with each successive generation. In my lifetime, the pendulum has swung so far left that when it swings to the right it is still left of center.

The liberals are happy to think that the right and conservatives are dying off in droves. Those whites over 45 tend to be fat, on drugs, alcoholics, smokers, and drunks. A lot of them are not married, have no strong family ties, are basically under-educated and live off of junk food. Their health is bad and they tend not to live as long as the generation that preceded them.

It's a sad commentary, but I fear they are not far from the mark.

The political parties have shifted to the left over the last few generations, but more and more people are not following along with the parties.

OGIS
03-25-2017, 11:46 AM
Right and left are relative. One pushes change, the other reacts to and resists it. All things change. Not progressively, but randomly. During the Revolution it was the radicals who wanted a decentralized government, the conservatives a centralized one. Now the opposite is true.

Except, of course, for the exceptions. Most conservatives I've met seem to embrace small non-intrusive government on a very selective basis.

MisterVeritis
03-25-2017, 11:49 AM
Except, of course, for the exceptions. Most conservatives I've met seem to embrace small non-intrusive government on a very selective basis.
Some, but not all, are Constitutional Conservatives. We want the government to do only those things allowed in the Constitution. That does not mean small government although government would be smaller if it did not do so many unconstitutional things.

OGIS
03-25-2017, 01:03 PM
Some, but not all, are Constitutional Conservatives. We want the government to do only those things allowed in the Constitution. That does not mean small government although government would be smaller if it did not do so many unconstitutional things.

Indeed. And that's the rub. You should forgive many on the left for thinking that this little Freudian slip indicates that the people behind the "Constitutional" movement use it merely as a convenient smokescreen, in their drive to turn the "economic and social rights" clock back to the good-ol'-days of (for example), 12 hour no OT days, child labor, polluted rivers aid air, tainted meat, sawdust-adulterated coffee and cereals, anything-goes financial frauds, snake oil, a return to feudalism, and other assorted shenanigans.

IOW, in exactly the same way the CPUSA, during the cold war, hid behind and supported various popular movements.

Hmmm.... what hidden right wing organization formed in the late 50s modeled its own cellular organization and tactics explicitly on those of the CPUSA?

Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

:smiley_ROFLMAO:

Common
03-25-2017, 01:08 PM
While the pendulum swings back and forth from right to left and back again, it swings farther to the left with each successive generation. In my lifetime, the pendulum has swung so far left that when it swings to the right it is still left of center.

The liberals are happy to think that the right and conservatives are dying off in droves. Those whites over 45 tend to be fat, on drugs, alcoholics, smokers, and drunks. A lot of them are not married, have no strong family ties, are basically under-educated and live off of junk food. Their health is bad and they tend not to live as long as the generation that preceded them.

It's a sad commentary, but I fear they are not far from the mark.
Babyboomers were a very vocal aggressive liberal bunch. Until they got out of college got a job, got married and had responsibility. Once they realized what life really is in america they changed. More are republican than democrats.

There seems to be more movement to the left right now but that can change and change fast. I wouldnt count your chickens.

Remember the left thought there was absolutey no chance hillary could lose.

MisterVeritis
03-25-2017, 01:08 PM
Some, but not all, are Constitutional Conservatives. We want the government to do only those things allowed in the Constitution. That does not mean small government although the government would be smaller if it did not do so many unconstitutional things.

Indeed. And that's the rub. You should forgive many on the left for thinking that this little Freudian slip indicates that the people behind the "Constitutional" movement use it merely as a convenient smokescreen, in their drive to turn the "economic and social rights" clock back to the good-ol'-days of (for example), 12 hour no OT days, child labor, polluted rivers aid air, tainted meat, sawdust-adulterated coffee and cereals, anything-goes financial frauds, snake oil, a return to feudalism, and other assorted shenanigans.
IOW, in exactly the same way the CPUSA, during the cold war, hid behind and supported various popular movements.
Hmmm.... what hidden right wing organization formed in the late 50s modeled its own cellular organization and tactics explicitly on those of the CPUSA?

Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

:smiley_ROFLMAO:
For a moment I thought you were going to make some interesting points. It is a shame you didn't. If you want a convenient list of what the federal government is allowed to do please see Article 1 Section 8.

Fagan_the_Pagan
04-02-2017, 08:44 PM
I think they are shaping up to be, not liberal, but socialist. Most people are fed up with our capitalism, but the system has distorted the image of itself, so people come up with warped solutions. People are isolated by natural progression of capitalist principle which turns each worker against the others. Some hearken back to a time when the alienation was incomplete, but attempting to roll back the clock will be ineffective. Others (liberals) claim progress by ameliorating suffering, but in such paltry and shortsighted forms as to perpetuate the engine of that suffering. But the capitalist system will inexorably concentrate wealth into ever fewer hands until the system collapses.

Prior revolutions with the aim of casting off the capitalist system fell short. Replacing the capitalist with the state does not solve the root problem. Central planning and centralized state ownership of the means of production do at least service to free industry from its enslavement to profits, allowing for a beneficial shift in focus, but it naturally results in an equivalent danger (and more-than-likely evil) as its capitalist predecessor. It leaves control of the means of production in the hands of a ruling class of politicians, instead of businessmen. Such power is too great. Sooner or later it WILL dissolve into corruption.

What therefore is needed is a decentralization of authority. Instead of replacing employers with state officials, ownership must be given over to the workers themselves to decide collectively their hours worked, growth, whether to increase or decrease production, raise or lower wages, for however long money is part of our society, and all based on the needs of the community.

Peter1469
04-02-2017, 09:52 PM
The lowest common denominator doesn't appeal to people with drive. No thanks.

OGIS
04-02-2017, 10:16 PM
I think they are shaping up to be, not liberal, but socialist. Most people are fed up with our capitalism, but the system has distorted the image of itself, so people come up with warped solutions. People are isolated by natural progression of capitalist principle which turns each worker against the others. Some hearken back to a time when the alienation was incomplete, but attempting to roll back the clock will be ineffective. Others (liberals) claim progress by ameliorating suffering, but in such paltry and shortsighted forms as to perpetuate the engine of that suffering. But the capitalist system will inexorably concentrate wealth into ever fewer hands until the system collapses.

Prior revolutions with the aim of casting off the capitalist system fell short. Replacing the capitalist with the state does not solve the root problem. Central planning and centralized state ownership of the means of production do at least service to free industry from its enslavement to profits, allowing for a beneficial shift in focus, but it naturally results in an equivalent danger (and more-than-likely evil) as its capitalist predecessor. It leaves control of the means of production in the hands of a ruling class of politicians, instead of businessmen. Such power is too great. Sooner or later it WILL dissolve into corruption.

What therefore is needed is a decentralization of authority. Instead of replacing employers with state officials, ownership must be given over to the workers themselves to decide collectively their hours worked, growth, whether to increase or decrease production, raise or lower wages, for however long money is part of our society, and all based on the needs of the community.


Interesting points. I disagree with some of them.

The big problem with state-owned industries is the political motivation to supplant market forces with political expediency. An example might be a State shoe factory concentrating on making a particular type of shoe because a bureaucrat decides for some non-market reason to have them made.

This type of thing happened as a matter of course in the old Soviet Union, where they attempted to do away with the market completely, replacing demand signals with central planning and quotas at every level (source production through retail). Didn't work nearly as well as Adam Smith's "magic hand" of competitive market signals. Incredibly inefficient and led inexorably to more and more authoritarian measures (over and above those inherent in the political system).

State-owned means of production can function efficiently, but only (IMO) temporarily, until politicized in one way or another.

All economic cost ultimately comes down to the cost of labor (including the labor of the owner, which Marx myopically ignored). With the continuing onslaught of automation and robotics, the day will come to various industries when the current costs of production (i.e.: NOT sunk plant or investment costs) of source materials and energy (also ultimately based on labor) fall to essentially zero (there will always be some cost, but it will pennies on the dollar, if that much).


At that time, it will be appropriate for either the company itself to convert to a non-profit status, or for the State to offer ownership buyouts at reasonable rates. At that point that industry leaves the PET (Private Enterprise Tier) part of the economic system and becomes part of the FARP (Fully Automated, Robotized, and Programmed) economy.


The link between these two layers of the economy, and what makes them work, is the BGI system. The BGI system avoids the corrupting influence of State subsidies directly to industry (which eventually morphs into something similar to the old Soviet system).


Douglas called it the Social Credit or Heritage Payment System. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit


Market incentives are still maintained in both tiers. BGI payments to citizens allow them to pay the pittance necessary to buy essentially cost-free FARP consumer goods, and FARP management would still have to respond to market demands. Other FARP consumer goods - those objectively determined to be required for physical survival - are distributed for free on an assigned basis. The BGI payments also allow citizens to exercise market judgement for purchases in what would, I think, be a "wild and woolly" PET sector. The BGI functions as an ultimate safety net.

jimmyz
04-02-2017, 10:41 PM
My two kids came out Sanders and the right of Satan. Go figure.

Dr. Who
04-02-2017, 10:56 PM
Interesting points. I disagree with some of them.

The big problem with state-owned industries is the political motivation to supplant market forces with political expediency. An example might be a State shoe factory concentrating on making a particular type of shoe because a bureaucrat decides for some non-market reason to have them made.

This type of thing happened as a matter of course in the old Soviet Union, where they attempted to do away with the market completely, replacing demand signals with central planning and quotas at every level (source production through retail). Didn't work nearly as well as Adam Smith's "magic hand" of competitive market signals. Incredibly inefficient and led inexorably to more and more authoritarian measures (over and above those inherent in the political system).

State-owned means of production can function efficiently, but only (IMO) temporarily, until politicized in one way or another.

All economic cost ultimately comes down to the cost of labor (including the labor of the owner, which Marx myopically ignored). With the continuing onslaught of automation and robotics, the day will come to various industries when the current costs of production (i.e.: NOT sunk plant or investment costs) of source materials and energy (also ultimately based on labor) fall to essentially zero (there will always be some cost, but it will pennies on the dollar, if that much).


At that time, it will be appropriate for either the company itself to convert to a non-profit status, or for the State to offer ownership buyouts at reasonable rates. At that point that industry leaves the PET (Private Enterprise Tier) part of the economic system and becomes part of the FARP (Fully Automated, Robotized, and Programmed) economy.


The link between these two layers of the economy, and what makes them work, is the BGI system. The BGI system avoids the corrupting influence of State subsidies directly to industry (which eventually morphs into something similar to the old Soviet system).


Douglas called it the Social Credit or Heritage Payment System. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit


Market incentives are still maintained in both tiers. BGI payments to citizens allow them to pay the pittance necessary to buy essentially cost-free FARP consumer goods, and FARP management would still have to respond to market demands. Other FARP consumer goods - those objectively determined to be required for physical survival - are distributed for free on an assigned basis. The BGI payments also allow citizens to exercise market judgement for purchases in what would, I think, be a "wild and woolly" PET sector. The BGI functions as an ultimate safety net.
You have much more technical terminology than I do - I call it going to the Star Trek model. As soon as we can overcome scarcity, all business is rendered redundant.

OGIS
04-03-2017, 12:02 AM
You have much more technical terminology than I do


Our novel incorporates a FARPPET economy as a given. And, oh yeah, the androids (robots with AI brains, full citizenship, and sentient being rights) far outnumber the meat people. We've given this a lot of thought, and had to create new terms.

The transitions backstory (when it is told) will not be pleasant.



- I call it going to the Star Trek model.


Roddenberry failed to fill out the concepts. When you look at the story line, it is obvious that certain types of scarcity still exist in the Star Trek universe, and I think that will always be the case in real life. Even a totally FARPed out industrial infrastructure will still have a few (very few) very very highly paid humans, if only to act as featherbedders and be fall guys if chit happens. But scarcity will be relative to everything else, and will be much less of an issue than it is today.



As soon as we can overcome scarcity, all business is rendered redundant.


Not necessarily. Most people will still want to work at something; I think that is built in to the human spirit. And loads of unemployable (in FARP) people will find stuff to do. Those jobs will be of three classes: (1) things that robots and automation are not good at, (2) jobs that are fun, possibly weird, but don't necessarily pay all that well (example: professional D&D RPG "dungeonmaster"!), and (3) jobs where there is a certain "cachet" to employing a human rather than a robot. For example, it would not surprise me if personal servants - maids, butlers, drivers, bodyguards, etc. - made a comeback. (Hey, anybody can have a robot butler, but ***I*** can afford a real human one!)

The business model, private enterprise, and the profit motive will still exist in each of these cases. Most humans will become independent contractors and entrepreneurs. And business will thrive in the PET sector, where lowered existential risk (due to the BGI safety net) will result in lots of new business startups.

Dr. Who
04-03-2017, 12:15 AM
Our novel incorporates a FARPPET economy as a given. And, oh yeah, the androids (robots with AI brains, full citizenship, and sentient being rights) far outnumber the meat people. We've given this a lot of thought, and had to create new terms.

The transitions backstory (when it is told) will not be pleasant.




Roddenberry failed to fill out the concepts. When you look at the story line, it is obvious that certain types of scarcity still exist in the Star Trek universe, and I think that will always be the case in real life. Even a totally FARPed out industrial infrastructure will still have a few (very few) very very highly paid humans, if only to act as featherbedders and be fall guys if chit happens. But scarcity will be relative to everything else, and will be much less of an issue than it is today.





Not necessarily. Most people will still want to work at something; I think that is built in to the human spirit. And loads of unemployable (in FARP) people will find stuff to do. Those jobs will be of three classes: (1) things that robots and automation are not good at, (2) jobs that are fun, possibly weird, but don't necessarily pay all that well (example: professional D&D RPG "dungeonmaster"!), and (3) jobs where there is a certain "cachet" to employing a human rather than a robot. For example, it would not surprise me if personal servants - maids, butlers, drivers, bodyguards, etc. - made a comeback. (Hey, anybody can have a robot butler, but ***I*** can afford a real human one!)

The business model, private enterprise, and the profit motive will still exist in each of these cases. Most humans will become independent contractors and entrepreneurs. And business will thrive in the PET sector, where lowered existential risk (due to the BGI safety net) will result in lots of new business startups.

I didn't say that people would give up and die, but profit motivation might go by the wayside and humanity might find a new currency.

OGIS
04-03-2017, 12:28 AM
I didn't say that people would give up and die, but profit motivation might go by the wayside and humanity might find a new currency.

I certainly agree that profit may very well become less important.

I am having trouble envisioning what might replace it, though. What new "currencies" do you see as possible/plausible, other than the profit motive?

Peter1469
04-03-2017, 07:15 AM
You have much more technical terminology than I do - I call it going to the Star Trek model. As soon as we can overcome scarcity, all business is rendered redundant.
And robotics will go a long way towards that.

Fagan_the_Pagan
04-03-2017, 02:23 PM
Strictly speaking, we've pretty much overcome scarcity already. We produce more than we need. The problem is one of distribution. There are more empty houses than homeless. Tons and tons of food go to waste, while people go hungry. This happens, not because we CANNOT fill those vacant homes and empty bellies, but because it is not PROFITABLE to do so.

OGIS
04-03-2017, 02:32 PM
Strictly speaking, we've pretty much overcome scarcity already. We produce more than we need. The problem is one of distribution. There are more empty houses than homeless. Tons and tons of food go to waste, while people go hungry. This happens, not because we CANNOT fill those vacant homes and empty bellies, but because it is not PROFITABLE to do so.

Basically correct, because we do not yet have an alternative distribution mythos in place. (A distribution mythos is the the set of morality tales and rationales used to justify the method of handing out the goodies.)

Subdermal
04-03-2017, 02:48 PM
Basically correct, because we do not yet have an alternative distribution mythos in place. (A distribution mythos is the the set of morality tales and rationales used to justify the method of handing out the goodies.)

Yes.

Also called "it's not yours to confiscate, commie."

Subdermal
04-03-2017, 02:50 PM
Neither demographics or time matter a whit. What matters is intelligence, experience and education. With these in place, anyone who comes; anyone who grows up...is no longer liberal.

donttread
04-03-2017, 03:16 PM
As this article strongly implies, liberals just need to be patient. Demographics seem to be on their side.

Like always, liberal until they get a real job and start paying real taxes and see how the neighborhoods the dems are "saving" just get worse. Suppednly, not quite so liberal anymore

donttread
04-03-2017, 03:17 PM
Then the nation will end with a whimper.


Lol, but they'll toughen up a little as they "learn to live life on life's terms"

Peter1469
04-03-2017, 03:39 PM
Strictly speaking, we've pretty much overcome scarcity already. We produce more than we need. The problem is one of distribution. There are more empty houses than homeless. Tons and tons of food go to waste, while people go hungry. This happens, not because we CANNOT fill those vacant homes and empty bellies, but because it is not PROFITABLE to do so.

The problem of scarcity is not solved. Not close.

If I want a bottled water it will cost me about $2.

Once the problem of scarcity is solved I can pick a bottle of water up at a hydration station, for example, for free.

suds00
04-03-2017, 04:15 PM
republicans think that they are on top now but they are exhibiting glaring weaknesses.this may allow democrats to rebound.trump is an anomaly.

MisterVeritis
04-03-2017, 04:31 PM
republicans think that they are on top now but they are exhibiting glaring weaknesses.this may allow democrats to rebound.trump is an anomaly.
Plan on living with the anomaly in the White House for the next eight years.

Dr. Who
04-03-2017, 04:46 PM
I certainly agree that profit may very well become less important.

I am having trouble envisioning what might replace it, though. What new "currencies" do you see as possible/plausible, other than the profit motive?
Here's one - when you were in school, what was your motivation for getting good grades? Here's another, why do people do volunteer work?

OGIS
04-03-2017, 05:24 PM
Yes.

Also called "it's not yours to confiscate, commie."

Yet.

Fagan_the_Pagan
04-03-2017, 08:43 PM
We don't have to pay for bottled water due to scarcity of water. They have to pay for it because someone realized they could con people into paying for it.

Fagan_the_Pagan
04-03-2017, 08:47 PM
Basically correct, because we do not yet have an alternative distribution mythos in place. (A distribution mythos is the the set of morality tales and rationales used to justify the method of handing out the goodies.)
Well full speed ahead comrade! We need to build that mythos!

Ethereal
04-03-2017, 09:04 PM
Many of the younger generation are actually amenable to smaller government regardless of how they identify politically. Many younger people want to see the war on drugs ended, for example, and they'd also like to decrease the size of the US government's domestic security state and its overseas empire. That will lift a massive burden on the economy and society generally.

Fagan_the_Pagan
04-03-2017, 09:08 PM
Like always, liberal until they get a real job and start paying real taxes and see how the neighborhoods the dems are "saving" just get worse. Suppednly, not quite so liberal anymore
In a sense I agree with you. In the sense that "liberal" socioeconomics of identity politics, obamacare, and things like affirmative action are inadequate to deal with the issues faced by those they purport to serve, and liberal politicians tend to enact just as much pro-corporate legislation as Republicans, which actively runs counter to the interests of the exploited working class of all colors.