My Take On If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain (unemployment rate, interstate)

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

Collectivists (liberals, generally) and individualists (conservatives, generally) are pretty much raised that way, and in some cases, one evolves away from whatever they programmed to be. By and large though, once a collectivist, always a collecitivist, and once an individualist, always an individualist. I liken it to sexual orientation. You're born either gay or straight, and now and then folks switch sides based on life choices. But for the most part, that die is cast early on and never changes.

The collective/individual mindset guides so many life choices, that the ideological preference becomes self-fulfilling prophecy, and for most people locks them into one or the other. I think switching is the exception, staying true to your childhood programming is the rule, and neither rule nor exception have anything to do with heart or brains, but everything to do with life experience.

In the old days, welfare was nowhere near as pervasive, accepted and permanent. That's why young folks could be collectivist but turned individualists later, because the gravy train didn't travel nearly as far back in the day as it does now. Now, you can jump on the gravy train as a kid and never get off for the entirety of your existence, if you play the game properly. So now, collectivists have no impetus to change, because they never have a life experience that runs counter to or improves upon their "depend on the collective to support me" life model. it isn't about brains or heart, it's direct experience. I was fortunate I guess, because my gravy train ended around age 11 or so, and I have been doing for myself ever since. Individualism comes easy to me because I've been doing it for a long freaking time. Not everyone has fubar parents like mine who find nothing wrong with 11 year olds using their paper route and lawn mowing money to help pay family bills (phone, electric, food, etc). My individualism isn't because I am smart or have no heart, it's because I've been supporting myself and at least a few collectivist wastrels since I was a kid. As an adult, I still support myself and do so just fine, I just added a few million wastrels to support via the tax code.

But again, it isn't heart or brains, it's life experience and what we learn from it. That's what dictates your core ideology of collective vs individual.

I think the biggest thing is this is if you look at say the hippies where you went from a very collectivist style of starting up communes and becoming groups that protected people like at Woodstock under LBJ and into early Nixon but yet in the end of Nixon/Ford/Carter, more became individualists. I mean I am not saying all the boomers in there youth were hippies or yippies but a good number was and there were numerous ones that weren't anti-war. The issue it went from a very collectivist youth style into a more overt individualist style. I'm sure that will somewhat happen with the Occupiers (who were basically lambasted the same way as the yippies and anti-war rallies were in the 60's) but it wasn't like it was as long as the anti-war movement was. The anti-war movement lasted from virtually the 1965 draft increase under LBJ into well into Nixon's white house. Compared to occupy, occupy lasted weeks tops in those cities however the meme is just the same.

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

I think young people tend to believe in the idealism of the Democrats and then wake up to the reality as they get older.

I mean if you listen to Obama's speeches he sounds like a super great guy and the Republicans sound like spiteful greedy obstructionists.

You have to actually follow the news and see what's going on with the IRS, Benghazi, the stimulus, sequestration, taxes, etc to see that what Obama does and what Obama says are two very different things. And you need life experience to learn not to trust what politicians say.

As I mentioned earlier, I am young. I was 21 when I was voting in for my first presidential election in 2008 and 25 when I voted for president again in 2008. I didn't vote Obama and it wasn't exactly collectivist vs. individualist thinking. I just didn't trust what he wanted to do as president whether it was the closing of Guantanamo Bay and giving terrorist who I might add AREN'T US CITIZENS (in most cases) rights, and his campaign promises which of them, only Obamacare actually happened. The rest of it is like his Syrian redline where it was all bark, no bite. In 2008, I wasn't appealed by him and by 2012, he did nothing to win me over so I just wanted to vote against him because he didn't win my vote. It's nothing about him being cool or sounding like a great guy, I looked into policy both times.

As for the IRS, let's forget that all political 501(C)s are getting observed whether they are TEA Party or establishment Republican OR Democrat or liberal and progressive. Not trying to defend Obama but one, he just picks the chair and two, they didn't just target conservatives like the media reported at first (and is echoed on here.) Benghazi is more on Hillary as then Sec of State (Obama just appoints), the CIA (who Obama can chose appointments) and also congress. The sequestration is more congress than Obama because the House passes something but the Senate shoots it down or the Senate is filibustered or it is able to pass the Senate but dies in the House. Most sequestration bills never even made it to Obama's desk. Do I agree his doom and gloom comments were out of line, yes. HOWEVER the majority of issues were not Obama. And I say this as someone who criticize Obama on a lot of things.

[Volobjectitarian]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

I think the biggest thing is this is if you look at say the hippies where you went from a very collectivist style of starting up communes and becoming groups that protected people like at Woodstock under LBJ and into early Nixon but yet in the end of Nixon/Ford/Carter, more became individualists. I mean I am not saying all the boomers in there youth were hippies or yippies but a good number was and there were numerous ones that weren't anti-war. The issue it went from a very collectivist youth style into a more overt individualist style. I'm sure that will somewhat happen with the Occupiers (who were basically lambasted the same way as the yippies and anti-war rallies were in the 60's) but it wasn't like it was as long as the anti-war movement was. The anti-war movement lasted from virtually the 1965 draft increase under LBJ into well into Nixon's white house. Compared to occupy, occupy lasted weeks tops in those cities however the meme is just the same.

No debate here, but the hippie movement ended around the same time as the Great Society began making welfare a career choice. That was my point. Back in the 60s, the hippie thing was cool in your late teens and very early 20s, but eventually, you sold out because you had to in order to survive. Now, you can stay on the dole as a hippie for your entire life, so changing the programming is less frequent than it once was.

In the 60s, you grew a brain. In 2014, you don't need to, which explains the explosion of the welfare state's roll call. Life experience has taught 3 generations since the hippies that laying around and doing not much is a very profitable existence.

[gvillager]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

Excellent post, and well-written too. I am conservative & largely libertarian-oriented, but even I don't have a problem with gov't assistance in extreme cases such as yours. But cases like yours should be a small percentage of the populace. We're now at the point where 20% of American households receive food stamps:
Record 20% of Households on Food Stamps in 2013 | CNS News

And half of a births in the US are paid for by Medicaid:
Medicaid Pays For Nearly Half of All Births in the United States | publichealth.gwu.edu

Just what did we think would happen when we shipped all of our decent paying manufacturing jobs overseas? 60 years ago our biggest corporate employers were GM and Chrysler, today it's Walmart and Mickey D's. Reagan was just a puppet and his corporate overlords were pulling the strings and running the show. The failed experiments called Reaganomics and trickle down economics are nothing but scams on the American people.



Who tells the President to "speed it up?" Well of course it's Merrill Lynch CEO Don Regan. Who's REALLY in charge here???

Democrats hands aren't clean on this either as NAFTA was passed with broad bipartisan support and Clinton signed off on it.

One thing is for sure, this country is screwed!

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian

No debate here, but the hippie movement ended around the same time as the Great Society began making welfare a career choice. That was my point. Back in the 60s, the hippie thing was cool in your late teens and very early 20s, but eventually, you sold out because you had to in order to survive. Now, you can stay on the dole as a hippie for your entire life, so changing the programming is less frequent than it once was.

In the 60s, you grew a brain. In 2014, you don't need to, which explains the explosion of the welfare state's roll call. Life experience has taught 3 generations since the hippies that laying around and doing not much is a very profitable existence.

I think the issue is that right now we have true structural employment issues whether it is underemployment or unemployment and the types of jobs created vs what we need to have a stable economy again. Up until last month's jobs report, we had much more low wage job creation than middle and high wage jobs. Long-term that isn't sustainable which is why welfare expanded and that is before the 133% of the poverty line for Obamacare.

[Tall Traveler]

I was very liberal/communist when I was young. Became conservative as I had a business and raising kids in middle age. Now I'm Libertarian because I think that makes the most sense.

[chuckmann]

A wise man once said:

Middle age is when the broad mind and the narrow waist change places.

One becomes more conservative as one has more to conserve.

[Tom Dempsey's Left Foot]

I could point out anecdotes and stories about my friends who were Republican in high school and in college, but let's be honest, stories are stories and they don't really give you anything other than a fun ride down memory lane.

Instead, let's go with the statistics: younger people historically fluctuate quite a bit on the ideological scale. Even more so, studies show that people who chose a side either previous to or at age 18 have pretty much made up their mind and vote for whichever party (and their views) were more popular when they hit the age where they could start voting (and smoking). Look at the first chart on this article by John Sides:

Democrats have a young people problem, too - The Washington Post

Those who reached 18 under the unpopular Nixon era are more likely to be Dems. The more popular Reagan and Bush turned former 18 year olds into lifelong Republicans. And people over the age of 84 (far above the "liberal = no brain" threshold) who had their 18th birthday during the FDR years are 8 points more likely to vote for Democrats and liberals.

Personally, I think the "young conservative = no soul, old liberal = no brain" quote, aka the quote that will probably make Winston Churchill come out of his grave and scream "OH MY GOD I DIDN'T ACTUALLY SAY THAT YOU WANKERS" before rampaging on the city of London, is popular right now because it fits today's demographics perfectly. Currently, those between the ages of 37 and 84, apart from the Nixon era (FAILURE) and Kennedy era (SUCCESS), are more likely to vote for the successes of their formerly-18 year old minds, which include the popular Reagan, Eisenhower, and Whoever Punched Jimmy Carter In the Face. They are simply more likely to be conservative. Meanwhile, younger cohorts have grown up to what they consider to be a successful Democrat (Clinton) and a failure of a Republican (W), so they are much more likely to be liberal.* Now, the quote makes sense. Thirty years ago, at the height of the Reagan Revolution, all those 18 year old conservatives out there would've looked at you funny.

Basically, no, I don't agree with or like the quote. Mostly because it's somewhat statistically inaccurate, partially because I'm terrified of zombie Churchill.

*This isn't a political statement on my part. I didn't make the approval ratings.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

.

As for how the whole
"If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain," quote works if it does, I think it is mainly is that people all of a sudden around their 30s and 40s worry about what their taxes are used for and for free riders. Think about it, when you are 20 and getting paid low, you think of social justice that you should be given money to keep you afloat. Up until recently, by the mid 30s and 40s, people were set and didn't need assistance and complain about higher taxes because they make more and often times people claim with tax increases, the middle class is hurt (when in reality it is upper middle class at best through most increases.)

What does everyone else think?

I am 22. Have a job i love(make decent money) and dont use public assistance.

hole poked...........

[mkpunk]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I am 22. Have a job i love(make decent money) and dont use public assistance.

hole poked...........

I wasn't speaking in generalities, just specifics. Not everyone who is young need assistance obviously but is a little more common especially in the modern day when it isn't as likely to get in the ground floor of an organization.

As the poster above you stated with statistics there is always people who side on the other side of the fence but let's remember that while it may say you are more likely to be the way your cohort is. That is why some marketers pay attention to things. This is why there was this ad to try to and rally up republican suport for the millennials.

GOP's Bizarre Millennial Ad - YouTube