Over on the main site, I have a
column up about how President Obama is taking a big gamble by
expanding the size and scope of government so vastly, given that
polls show most Americans want government to be scaled back once
we're no longer in an economic crisis. Yesterday,
Kristen Soltis, who has been doing a ton of research on the
attitudes of younger voters, offered a bit of a different take.
She presents data that show the younger generation to be much
more open to big government than older Americans, and concludes:
Messaging that focuses on the need for less government and
lower taxes is not likely to be as well received or convincing
to this generation. This isn't to say these messages won't
work, to be sure. But the spectre of Big Government is not as
frightening to young voters, nor is the devotion to the free
market so prevalent. In order for the Republican Party to grow
long-term, they must work to impact these belief structures and
spend the effort convincing a new generation of the sorts of
beliefs that are taken for granted among older cohorts.
I encourage you to check out Kristen's
entire piece, but I think there are a few things to keep in
mind. While younger Americans may be more open to bigger
government than older people, as some of the polling she cites
shows, this has typically been the case. This makes some
intuitive sense given that when people are young, they tend to be
"takers" in that they use a lot of government services (public
schools, student loans), but don't yet pay a ton of taxes. Yet as
they grow older, they move up the tax brackets, have more
negative interactions with government, confront red tape as they
open businesses, etc. So it doesn't surprise me that they
naturally become more skeptical about government. (Ideally, we'd
have access to a longitudinal study that would track the same
group of voters over time and see how their attitudes change.)
Kristen highlights
Pew's values surveys which show that in 2002/03 Americans, as
a whole, had a more positive view of government than they did
back in 1987/88. But if you look at the chart below, based on
Gallup data and produced by USA Today, you see that Americans' attitudes toward
government were pretty volatile during the period in between, and
through today.
So, while right now, the public is more open to big government
than it may have been during the Reagan era, and that sentiment
is more pronounced among younger Americans, it's important to
recognize how easily things can change over time. Relating this
to my original point, I think that the outcome of Obama's grand
experiment with government is going to be the key determining
factor for the next generation's views on its proper role, not
clever messaging on the part of Republicans. If Obama is seen as
a successful president who brings wonderful health care to all at
a lower price, creates environmentally friendly energy that
reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and improves our education
system, while solving the entitlement crisis, and he does this
without raising taxes on 95 percent of Americans or running up
unsustainable deficits, then yes, I'm sure younger Americans will
grow up to love big government.
Of course, if I believed all of those things would happen, I'd be
a liberal. But as a conservative, I believe that Obama's policies
will prove disastrous, that they will bring higher taxes and
inflation, and that the younger generation will be buckling under
the weight of a $53 trillion long-term entitlement deficit caused
by promises made by prior generations. This will provide the next
opening for believers in limited government, as well as
Republicans, should they decide to be the party of limited
government. Remember, the Democrats' "Six for '06" agenda that
helped them take back Congress didn't contain any groundbreaking
new ideas – they were recycled policies on raising the minimum
wage, making college more affordable, etc. They just looked fresh
because the public had become so disenchanted with Bush and the
Iraq War. I'm not saying that messaging isn't important, but just
emphasizing that the ball is largely in Obama's court.
Right now, everything glitters because it is in the future. Even
in eight years there will be no judgment on whether or not he
brought "wonderful health care to all at a lower price, create[d]
environmentally friendly energy that reduce[d] our dependence on
foreign oil, and improve[d] our education system, while solving
the entitlement crisis, and he [did] this without raising taxes
on 95 percent of Americans or running up unsustainable deficits."
No, he'll start the inexorable, inefficient, corrupt wheels of
government grinding. Then when Republicans come in to clean up
the mess, they'll be the party of "no" and the gullible public
will be told that if only they had made Obama president for life,
he would have surely reached those ends.
In this Peter Pan society we live in, it's no fun being the
grownups.
Statician| 4.17.09 @ 6:04PM
The chart presented, which tracks views on the preferable size of
government, requires a pinch of analysis to better understand its
ramifications. The "volatile" shift in opinion occurred right
before 2002. My memory isn't so great, but I think I remember
something that happened precisely during that interval of time.
Oh yeah, four domestic planes were highjacked and flown into the
World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a rural field in
Pennsylvannia. Shocked, frightened, angry, and apprehensive, is a
fair description of the American psyche at that time. Could the
huge jump in support for more government action be linked to a
sense of vulnerability; that more needed to be done in order to
make sure America is safe? Following the post-911 hysteria, could
the steady shift in opinion that the government should do less
(which peaked right before 2005) be linked to the sobering
reality that the war in Iraq had been a huge miscalculation and
that the Patriot Act and Guantanamo, in retrospect, were the
epitome of overkill?
Numbers, statistics and data have little annalytical value when
they are not examined and in many cases, taken into context.
Consider a hypothetical: a study of American opinion towards
isolationism compared to those who desire more American
involvement in global affairs during 1936-1945 shows dramatic
shifts in opinion. If taken at face value, the data would
certainly suggest that Americans were fickle on foreign policy.
The support of isolationism was static for a half decade, then,
right before 1942, it took a tremendous nosedive. Why? Because
Americans are a capricious bunch, or, because the Japs bombed our
Pacific Fleet and instantly made isolationism obsolete in the
American psyche?
sre| 4.17.09 @ 2:29PM
The problem is the timing.
Right now, everything glitters because it is in the future. Even in eight years there will be no judgment on whether or not he brought "wonderful health care to all at a lower price, create[d] environmentally friendly energy that reduce[d] our dependence on foreign oil, and improve[d] our education system, while solving the entitlement crisis, and he [did] this without raising taxes on 95 percent of Americans or running up unsustainable deficits." No, he'll start the inexorable, inefficient, corrupt wheels of government grinding. Then when Republicans come in to clean up the mess, they'll be the party of "no" and the gullible public will be told that if only they had made Obama president for life, he would have surely reached those ends.
In this Peter Pan society we live in, it's no fun being the grownups.
Statician| 4.17.09 @ 6:04PM
The chart presented, which tracks views on the preferable size of government, requires a pinch of analysis to better understand its ramifications. The "volatile" shift in opinion occurred right before 2002. My memory isn't so great, but I think I remember something that happened precisely during that interval of time. Oh yeah, four domestic planes were highjacked and flown into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a rural field in Pennsylvannia. Shocked, frightened, angry, and apprehensive, is a fair description of the American psyche at that time. Could the huge jump in support for more government action be linked to a sense of vulnerability; that more needed to be done in order to make sure America is safe? Following the post-911 hysteria, could the steady shift in opinion that the government should do less (which peaked right before 2005) be linked to the sobering reality that the war in Iraq had been a huge miscalculation and that the Patriot Act and Guantanamo, in retrospect, were the epitome of overkill?
Numbers, statistics and data have little annalytical value when they are not examined and in many cases, taken into context. Consider a hypothetical: a study of American opinion towards isolationism compared to those who desire more American involvement in global affairs during 1936-1945 shows dramatic shifts in opinion. If taken at face value, the data would certainly suggest that Americans were fickle on foreign policy. The support of isolationism was static for a half decade, then, right before 1942, it took a tremendous nosedive. Why? Because Americans are a capricious bunch, or, because the Japs bombed our Pacific Fleet and instantly made isolationism obsolete in the American psyche?