As Matt Yglesias points out, today's youth are tilting left on all sorts of economic questions, from more government investment in education and infrastructure (80% agree) to leading the world's eco-revolution (73% on board). And on the meta-questions about government's role in American lives, we really are all socialists now:
What I find interesting, if not entirely revelatory, is that Millennials are stoked about the goals of liberal government (more than two-thirds support sustainable eco-solutions, universal health care, alternative energies) but pretty ambivalent about the means. Here's a list of the items where the survey found Millennials hedging:
It seems to me that those issues are all about process. The role of government in fighting climate change, the danger of deficit spending, the challenge of incorporating teacher and auto unions into reforms and finding market solutions as a whole: These are the means that Obama will wrestle with to achieve the ends described above. Of course we don't have strong opinions about economic strategy: We're waiting to see if Obama's tactics work first. And if they don't, the big government generation could slow its leftish shift.After all, let's remember: about two-thirds of this group once supported the Iraq War.
I wonder how many of them think that having big government throw them in prison for drugs is a good idea.
I've always had the impression that the drug war is more the child of Republicans: compare Clinton and Carter to Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes.
Probably a significant proportion of them would support legalizing marijuana. If we were to do that, then it'd become a taxable market.
Anyways, as the other commenter pointed out, the "War on Drugs" began with Reagan.
I'm pretty sure the never-ending debacle that was the Bush administration turned the Millenials off to the idea of "small government" for good. The debate among people my age, largely, is about government's effectiveness, and how it can best interact with business to achieve the policy goals we want (green energy is a prime example). I think we view corporations and government as a continuum of institutions, not in the sense that they're all "the man," but in the sense that they all have a particular role to play in support of one another.
My two cents, anyway.
@Jordan: "I think we view corporations and government as a continuum of institutions, not in the sense that they're all "the man," but in the sense that they all have a particular role to play in support of one another."
At 38, I'm not a Millennial, but that's definitely my view. For instance, money I pay for health insurance is, as far as I'm concerned, a tax. It comes out of my pay whether I like it or not. I get relatively limited choices about where it goes. The fact that my insurance company is a corporation and not a government agency holds no water for me. Take your pick of faceless bureaucracies.
This is not exactly surprising. Big government looks much more attractive when it's free. People are getting a pretty nice return on their tax dollars currently with our massive deficits, while the national debt is something no one feels. Assuming we don't have a Zimbabwe style debt currency crisis (fingers crossed), eventually people will have to be taxed to pay for all this stuff. This is not to say that we shouldn't tax more and provide all this government action to make a better society. I'm just curious as how views will change when people actually have to pay for it.
We're not turning into Zimbabwe redux. Last I checked, the U.S. is still the international reserve currency. And while China and Russia are making noise about abandoning the greenback — even making some moves in that direction — it's still going to be a long while before that happens. And if we don't have our economy on track by then, yeah, we're screwed anyway.
That said, you're right, this will either mean higher taxes, or serious GDP growth. Hopefully the Obama administration will make the right investments now that it'll be the latter.
Japan and Brazil as well. Japan's Shadow finance minister said that on gaining power he'd prefer to buy US bonds if they were denominated in yen.
All it takes is one failed bond auction to set everybody to panic mode.
But your confidence is heartening. And I tend to be overly pessimistic. I was worried the Bush Administrations now rather innocent looking fiscal recklessness would send us over the edge.
As a Millennial myself, I definitely fit the profile mentioned in the article. With that said, I'm curious to see how Obama's first term will work out and how the deficit will be resolved. Our current position is not sustainable in my mind so we'll see if Obama's actions will be able to turn the economy around, increase GDP growth, reduce unemployment and reduce the deficit.
The Millenials are young enough that the disaster that was the Nixon to Ford to Carter administrations -- all of whom (regardless of party) enacted top-down, governmental solutions to economic problems-- dont register.
The other factor is that conservatives have been so successful in rolling taxes back over the last 20 years that it also isnt as big an issue as it once was. As noted above, when 50% of the working population hardly pays any taxes at all (and given withholding and payroll deduction -- hardly notice what they do pay) -- government does have a "free" quality to it.
The spending plans Obama has put forth make future broad based tax increases, inflation or both a certainty. We will see how they feel about government when gas costs $5, their electricty bill goes up 25%, mortgage rates (due to inflation)are 12% and they get hit with their first substantive income tax bill. This was the Carter scenario -- and unfortunately, Obama is following the Carter playbook thus far.
Well you counter energy cost increases by efficiency and reducing usage. I used to own a home in Missouri that was built in 1925 and was horribly inefficient (we spent a ton on utilities). If we had stayed in it long-term, I would have taken advantage of the incentives provided and made a serious effort to dramatically improve the efficiency of my home, add a gray water system and possibly add solar panels.
I also welcome $5 and I think there should be a gas tax (instead of CAFE standards). The benefit of a gas tax would be that it would stabilize the price of gasoline and it'd be an much more efficient way to get consumers to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles.
I agree that a gas or direct energy tax would be much more straight forward and transparent than the increased costs from cap and trade -- however, I think the last thing the Dems want is for people to see directly the cost of emissions control. Better an electrical bill simply goes up 25% with the blame going to the utility.
Its easy to be for stuff when its free. Using emissions control as a example: thus far, most think that by maybe buying a hybrid car, changing to flourescent bulbs, and not using plastic bags at the grocery we can make progress against global warming. The reality is far, far more pervasive (in terms of impact on lifestyle) and expensive than popularly advertised.
Lets see what the millenials think when flying to Europe (oh-so much carbon being used in that flight) returns to being a very expensive luxury for the wealthy
I'm skeptical of this study as the poll does not appear unbiased. The Big Government or "Socialist" statements are inherently optimistic, while the Small Government statements sound very pessimistic. Anyone who's ever studied or conducted a poll would know that the way a poll is worded is nearly as important as the specific values of the person being polled. This is particularly relevant as younger people, especially Millenials, can be characterized as idealistic and optimistic, and are thus more likely to identify and agree to the optimistic sounding statement, even if it is not consistent with their actual beliefs.
Why must pollsters so use subtly connotative terminology in supposedly objective polls? In the poll cited above we have one statement, "It's time for government to take a larger and stronger role in making the economy work for the average American," that is a plain-stated and reasonable enough sentence--if not a sentence everyone will agree with.
On the other hand, the second statement is a loaded one: "Turning to big government to solve our problems will do more harm than good." Why 'big government'? Equating the federal government to, say, Big Tobacco or Big Oil, just piles unnecessary baggage onto what would otherwise be a logical and more generally agreeable response.
By labeling government as 'big government' in this question, the surveyor is in effect forcing the responder to assume the role of an anti-federalist, or some other person who is fundamentally against sizeable government of any sort. Whereas such a person is entitled to his/her position, he/she is presumably part of a smaller minority than the individual who simply wishes for the government to be less involved in our individual economic problems. The latter person, although largely in agreement with statement two, may nevertheless eschew that response due to the culturally loaded use of the adjective "big."
We see this far too often in surveys and the result is public misinformation, which frankly is of use to nobody.
Well, I am a Chinese, 21-year-old, self-describe as a libertarian with a conservative leaning. many of the elite students here are quite right-leaning.
anyway, the trend seems towards different directions in the respective countries.
BTW, since our government becomes crazier day by day, NYT, TIMES and many other major publications within the western countries are blocked partially or completely by The Internet Nanny, the Atlantic Monthly seems to be the only one left intact.(see, how an omnipotent government works...) So thank goodness and go on providing insights to readers all over the world.