RSS Feed MenuAs I was walking around to check out some of the panels at the “Defending the American Dream” summit, a nice little old lady, in either her late 50s or 60s, came over to ask me a question:
“Excuse me, but can you tell me what time it is? My cell phone is on central time and I don’t know how to reset it.”
I bent over to check, and explained to her that cell phones automatically reset their clocks based on the time zones they enter in.
“Oh thank you, I didn’t realize that!”
I usually feel a little out of place at movement conservative events due to the heterodox nature of the blog I write for, but in this case, I feel out of place because every time I enter a breakout room, I see a sea of grey hair and bald domes. While CPAC had a strong mix of young college students and mid-life professionals, the Defending the American Dream summit skews very noticeably to the age where Social Security checks are on the horizon and walking sticks are needed to get around the hotel.
It is possible that this might just be due to timing. After all it is a Friday in the middle of August and school is starting. But is it possible that this is a sign that a much older electorate is becoming the face of the GOP’s?
As a Pew survey identified earlier this year, it seems to be the case. As Daniel Larson wrote:
If you dig into the full report, you will see that the recent Republican resurgence owes almost everything to the dramatic shift among members of the so-called “Silent Generation,” whose voting preferences on the generic ballot have gone from being 49-41 Democrat in 2006 to 48-39 Republican for 2010. There have been small shifts in other age groups toward the Republicans, but by far it is the alienation of voters aged 65-82 that has been most damaging to the Democrats’ political strength. … In other words, the main reason why the GOP is enjoying any sort of political recovery is that many elderly voters have changed their partisan preferences since the last midterm. Republicans remain behind among all voters younger than 65.
Follow Noah on Twitter: @noahkgreen
Oldskool // Aug 27, 2010 at 6:51 pm
And yet the GOP keeps pandering to them as if somehow it’ll affect their kids. Time is not on the GOP’s side and the only way to earn support from a younger demographic is to reneg on their entire party platform.
easton // Aug 27, 2010 at 8:18 pm
“I bent over to check, and explained to her that cell phones automatically reset their clocks based on the time zones they enter in.”
No, they all don’t. Mine doesn’t. Granted it is 4 years old and was bargain basement then, (I lost an expensive phone once, never again) but don’t make assumptions.
And after Obama is out of office and some older white Democrat wins the nomination, Democrats will win a lot of them back. The funny thing is, in 6 years if someone like Jindal wins the Republican nomination you might see a little bit of a flip, with older Americans voting Democratic and more younger ones voting Republican.
I say this is only possible because for the Republican party to nominate Jindal they would have returned from Palinsanity. Right now, too many are in the Palinsane asylum.
llbroo49 // Aug 27, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Besides economic motivation (Medicare, Social Security, and Pension Guaranty), I think some of the resistence to Obama from the older generation is racial. That is not the same as racist. IMO many older people would have been more than willing to support Obama in 2016 after a stint as VP , than to see him now as President. It was/ is too early for many of these people. It doesn’t yet seem natural.
It is like watching NFL football where all the number 1 wide receivers are black-if a white player is named the number 1 wide reciever there will be a lot of fan resistance-especialy if the team is losing. He will not be given the same benefit of the doubt that his black counterpart would. Once again-not racist, merely racial.
Let’s remember, we did not have our first catholic president until Kennedy and have never had a Jewish President or VP. With the exception of Kennedy, all of our Presidents have been WASPs- it just takes time for some us to feel comfortable with someone that does not exactly fit the mode we have grown to expect.
Ruminant // Aug 27, 2010 at 9:02 pm
Daniel Larson’s explanation for why these voters (the “Silent Generation”) switched party preferences is also worth quoting:
It is mainly among these voters that the conventional wisdom is half right that that the push for health care legislation has proved to be very damaging to the Democrats. Of course, this is not because of some instinctive horror at excessive spending, which does not exist on a large scale in any age group, but because health care legislation is seen as a threat to the entitlement spending from which voters from this age group benefit. As a matter of pure electoral politics, the GOP’s transformation into the defenders of the sanctity of Medicare has been completely in line with the interests of the elderly voters who have come running back to the GOP in the last year. Of course, this is exactly not the profile of a party and movement of the future, but one attempting to preserve the status quo for the benefit of the oldest among us at the expense of our future.
This is why I don’t believe that the Republican Party is serious about reducing our budget deficit, regardless of what its leaders claim. There is no way to reduce the deficit without reforming (aka reducing) federal entitlements, aside from massive tax hikes that the Republican base would never support. Yet the current GOP strategy has them “defending” those same federal entitlements from the reforms in “Obamacare”. There is no way that the GOP can follow through on its promise to reduce the deficit (at least by a noticeable amount) without driving away the very voters that they need to beat the Democratic Party. That kind of political courage would require a desire to choose governing over politics from the party whose priorities are exactly the opposite.
Elvis Elvisberg // Aug 27, 2010 at 9:09 pm
All the fiscal conservatives, small-government and federalist conservatives, and foreign-policy conservatives left the party during the Bush era. (And remember, when Bush left office he was despised by independents and revered by Republicans).
There is nothing to conservatism today except tribal resentment.
Aging whites uncomfortable with demographic change and the erosion of taboos against the equality of minorities make up the entirety of the GOP. Demography and history are not on their side.
[EDIT: llbroo49 says something similar to me, in a more thoughtful, compassionate and less inflammatory manner.]
dugfromthearth // Aug 27, 2010 at 9:17 pm
The important question is of course whether this is due to generational differences or age differences. Do the republicans just appeal to people born before 1945, or do they appeal to people over 65? If they only appeal to the former the republican party is in trouble as they are dying off, if they appeal to the latter they may be in fine shape as the population overall is aging.
eugibs // Aug 27, 2010 at 10:21 pm
A “little old lady” in her late 50’s? Are you kidding me? How old is the kid who wrote this article… 14?
Posting From Fake America // Aug 28, 2010 at 2:25 am
Having volunteered for both republican and democratic candidates I can attest to the age difference. If it’s merely a condition of age, then republicans will capture the future elderly vote. However I really don’t think that is the case. Young voters (and to some degree the younger boomers) either have friends who have been the target of hard right vitriol (hispanics, gays, and muslims) or have had enough exposure to such groups to realize how ridiculous such arguments sound. For instance, I just don’t see how anyone who is friends with devout muslims could ever believe the crap spewed by mosque protesters.
Check out the mainstream conservative news aggregator lucianne.com and you’ll see the blatant bigotry on display for any article related to a minority group.
llbroo49 // Aug 28, 2010 at 2:27 am
dugfromthearth
It is probably a combination of both, Americans born before 1945 have become accustomed to a world that no longer exist. But as people get older (65) and retire they become more dependent on the Government for income and healthcare than they have probably been in their entire lives. As a matter of fact, for a large majority, this may be the first time they have ever received direct government assistance. They will do all they can to protect their new found entitlments and will punish politicians at the polls that may jeapordize programs from which they derive benefits. Its key to keep in mind that republicans, in general, are arguing against change and are for preserving things as the are/were. That appeals greatly to seniors that lack the resources to adapt to changing enviornments.
cotton // Aug 28, 2010 at 3:36 am
I agree with llbroo49; the TEA Party protest of ObamaCare seemed driven by elderly white folks who were afraid ObamaCare may change the medicare entitlements they enjoy & support. Ironically most of the people at those protest were overweight – their obesity and sedetary lifestyle one big reason for the increase in health care cost. I also saw a number of them smoking at protest of health care reform – overweight, smoking, & complaining about health care changes while they had government funded medicare yet fighting government health care for other Americans. Hypocrites. I heard some Republicans even claim that there is no health care crisis – a true statement if you are middle class & have employer sponsored health insurance. If you work a full time job & have no insurance you are screwed – or if you have health insurance but have a major medical problem – once your policy reaches its cap – you are screwed. How many people file bankruptcy because of health care bills? – alot. If we republicans had dealt with health care (& tort) reform when we were in control during the Bush years we could of done health care our way but we failed to act.
lcandell // Aug 28, 2010 at 6:12 am
In a few years, when most of the oldsters have gone to their eternal reward, the Republican party as we currently know it will have ceased to exist as national political party. The GOP’s current radical right wingnut platform will render it incapable of winning a national election. ALLELUIA!
sinz54 // Aug 28, 2010 at 9:22 am
dugfrodearth: The important question is of course whether this is due to generational differences or age differences.
In my lifetime, each young generation has ALWAYS been more liberal than its parents.
But young people always get older, eventually.
And as they get older, they get more conservative, as they have to pay higher and higher taxes, as they have to defend their neighborhoods against decay, as their own children enlist in the military. Not on such hot-button issues as abortion or gay marriage, but on economic issues and even foreign policy issues.
Let’s remember that someone who is 65 today was only 27 years old when the country was split apart on Vietnam. Many of the old folks today who hate Obama’s guts probably marched against the Vietnam War in 1968.
Finally, let’s remember that parties are good at reinventing themselves when they’re forced to. The GOP used to be the party of snooty WASP country club business people. But starting in the 1960s, the GOP learned how to appeal to urban ethnics like Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans who had been staunchly Dem ever since FDR. The GOP today isn’t the party it was in the 19th century.
The Dems reinvented themselves–with FDR in 1932, with McGovern in 1972, with Clinton in 1992. The Dem party today isn’t the party it was in 1900.
I have no doubt this process will continue.
lcandell:
I’m sure you’re salivating at the prospect of one-party rule in America, just like they have in Chavez’s Venezuela or Castro’s Cuba. That’s ALWAYS been the dream of the hard-core Left in America. When they think no one is looking, they freely admit that socialism is incompatible with checks and balances or separation of powers.
However, in my lifetime I’ve seen the Democratic Party screw up repeatedly. It was LBJ who sent 500,000 troops to Vietnam to fight a no-win scenario war. While he had a huge majority in Congress and no effective opposition, except a few lunatic-fringe Communists.
You wouldn’t like one-party rule as much as you think.
But you’ll probably have to live at least as long as I have to learn that lesson.
Mark it on your calendar: Rethink the question of the two-party system, starting on your 60th birthday.
Rabiner // Aug 28, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Sinz54:
While I agree with your premise that as people age they become more ‘conservative’ I do have a few questions regarding it. Is it relative conservative? My parents were liberal in the 60s but still hold on to many of their beliefs from that time now (particularly social policies) as they approach their 60s so they don’t look at the Republicans and say ‘that’s the party for me since now I’m more conservative than my children’.
Or is it a different type of conservatism? The Republican party today is more conservative than it was 10 years ago or 20 years ago or even 30 years ago on many issues. There is no New England Republican that fits in with the party at this time.
Personally when looking at this issue, I don’t think this is an age thing based on relative conservatism but rather a generational thing based on one generation who took the Republican Party farther to the right than what would of been expected when looking at this nation’s political party history.
easton // Aug 28, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Let’s remember that someone who is 65 today was only 27 years old when the country was split apart on Vietnam.
Look at the pictures, the bulk of the protesters were younger than 27, many were in college and in prime draft age, with a lot of 27 year olds having jobs, being married, and having kids by then, this si simply history.
CO Independent // Aug 28, 2010 at 5:24 pm
>> A “little old lady” in her late 50’s? Are you kidding me? How old is the kid who wrote this article… 14?
I’ll second that emotion. What a complete twit.
As the old saying goes: if you’re not a Democrat when you’re 20 you have no heart and if you’re not a Republican when you’re 40 you have no brain.
armstp // Aug 28, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Given the debt and deficits, the most interesting fight in the future is going to be over resources. That fight will largely play-out between white retirees and the future new young hispanic majority.
rockinrobbie // Aug 28, 2010 at 8:28 pm
I’ve seen many stats that show the greying of the GOP so no news here. Problematically, however, is the question of how the GOP will address social security or medicare now that their constituency is 65+. Anyone? *crickets*
(Agree with those who deride the author for calling someone “a little old lady” of a woman in her 50s!)
Rabiner // Aug 28, 2010 at 10:20 pm
CO Independent:
“As the old saying goes: if you’re not a Democrat when you’re 20 you have no heart and if you’re not a Republican when you’re 40 you have no brain.”
Old sayings imply that the Republicans today have brains today. They don’t. They have faith in the place of reason. The old saying never applied to social conservatism.
armstp // Aug 28, 2010 at 11:13 pm
CO Independent,
I do not agree with that old saying. I think it confuses “old” with “richer”; ie. the “richer” you become the more conservative you become. And since many become more wealthy as they grow older, people confuse conservatism with growing old.
In fact, there is even new research that debunks that old saying that people get more conservative as they get older.
See:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0560526320080306
“Aging doesn’t mean growing more conservative: study”
Contrary to common belief, aging seems to make a person more liberal and tolerant, not more conservative or rigid, according to a new study.
Researchers at the University of Vermont and Pennsylvania State University found that people over the age of 60 become more liberal, more quickly as they age compared to younger people.
“We still hold these age stereotypes about older people becoming more rigid in their thinking or becoming more conservative,” said Nick Danigelis, a professor of sociology in Vermont who headed the research team.
“It’s a false stereotype, and in fact, the evidence suggests that older people in some cases appear to be moving at a more rapid rate towards a liberal position than younger people.”
Using data from the U.S. General Social Survey that measured changes in attitudes at different stages in life, Danigelis and his colleagues studied the political beliefs of 46,510 people between 1972 and 2004.
The research, which was published in the American Sociological Review, included feelings about political and economic roles of groups such as woman and African-Americans, as well as the civil liberties of groups such as atheists and homosexuals, and privacy issues including premarital sex.
The study showed attitude changes in both 18-39 and 60 and older age groups, with the latter tending to grow more tolerant rather than more conservative.
“Over the last 30 years or so there have been a number of shifts in attitudes on a variety of issues important to Americans,” Danigelis said.
“In a few cases, for example with regard to civil liberties, older Americans have become more liberal during this time period while younger Americans have become more conservative.”
Danigelis said that people who grew up during the Depression have different beliefs compared to those who grew up during the 1960s. But he added that the research also showed a general pattern that is “trumping any notion that as you become older there’s a hardening of the attitude arteries — that’s just not true.”
bubba11 // Aug 29, 2010 at 12:04 am
I’m 60, and protested the Vietnam War, and can tell you that I have actually moved more to the left the older I get. I may not live to see it, but the republican party as it exists today will not exist in the years to come, unless it also moves a bit to the left (which would put it somewhere center-right). If it does not, it will not exist, and another party will take its place.
baw1064 // Aug 29, 2010 at 7:41 pm
sinz54,
But young people always get older, eventually.
And as they get older, they get more conservative, as they have to pay higher and higher taxes, as they have to defend their neighborhoods against decay, as their own children enlist in the military. Not on such hot-button issues as abortion or gay marriage, but on economic issues and even foreign policy issues.
I think that one problem for the Republicans, long term, is that they have heavily pushed the hot-button issues over the last several election cycles. I tend to think that in the minds of a lot of people, they have become identified as the party that’s against abortion and gay marriage. So in the long run that may dissuade people who may generally agree with them on economic or foreign policy issues from supporting them, because they don’t necessarily subscribe 100% to the Republican orthodoxy on all the Culture War stuff.
You’re right that one party rule is a horrible thing if it persists for an extended period. There are many examples: the Soviet Union, Mexico pre-2000, and the city government of Washington DC. Basically, if a political party doesn’t have to face electoral consequences unless it does a better job, it won’t do a better job. That’s why I find it so frustrating that the Republicans don’t seem to be able to articulate a good reason, other than tribalism or the culture war, to vote for them. It’s not good for the country, in the long term, for the opposition party not to be able to articulate a credible policy alternative.
Madeline // Aug 30, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Many of the old folks today who hate Obama’s guts probably marched against the Vietnam War in 1968.
Or they were beating up hippies in 1968.
And I can’t bear to hear Winston Churchill misquoted. What he said was: “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain”