Youth support for Republicans first cratered in the Northeast, and has led to the virtual extinction of elected GOP officials there. In 1999, there were 12 House Republicans from New York. Today there are 3. These losses aren’t very surprising given that New York’s youth voted Democratic by almost 80% last year. Parts of New York, like the upstate region and my home, the Long Island suburbs, are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. They were once solid Republican districts. They are all Democratic now, because Republican positions on a number of social issues (among them gay rights) run very much to the right of their own views and have turned away 8 in 10 young voters.
What happened in the Northeast is now spreading throughout the country, most notably in the parts of the South with the highest levels of young, college educated voters. In North Carolina, 72% of voters under 30 voted for Obama. McCain won every other age group, but this didn’t matter; the youth vote offset the support of older voters. As the voters of 2008 who were 65 and older (and voted for McCain by 56%) are replaced with younger voters, Democratic margins in North Carolina are likely to improve. The Tar Heel state could, in the next few election cycles, become a solid blue state and will likely be joined by Virginia (where Obama won 60% of the youth vote). Similar margins among the young were found out West, with Obama winning more than two-thirds of young voters in the battleground states of New Mexico and Colorado. These two former red states will gain electoral votes in the future and will be vital for many elections to come. Republicans can no longer afford to lose the youth by a landslide.
Many Republicans feel that winning young voters through more modern positions on issues like gay rights will alienate evangelicals, the “backbone” of the party. This assertion may be correct in the near-term, but it overlooks the future. In future election cycles, evangelical voters will not as significant a voting block as they have been in the past. The Pew Research Group’s Religious Landscape Survey, showed that the percentage of evangelicals under the age of 30 has fallen from 22% in the 1970s to 17% today and underscores a falling population of evangelicals.
Youths who still identify as evangelical are far more open-minded than their parents. 26% support marriage equality (up from 9% among evangelicals over 30) and many more support civil unions.
These voters also don’t consider social issues to be as important as their parents do. This is best shown by the rise of the pastor Rick Warren. Warren, though criticized recently by liberals for his support for Prop 8, is largely a liberal himself. He stresses fighting global warming and using big government to end poverty; opposition to gay rights is not a “litmus test”.
The evangelical population is falling, young evangelicals are more liberal, and new evangelical leaders are moving away from a central focus on dogma. Republicans who argue against supporting gay rights for fear of losing evangelicals are mortgaging their own future; they are turning away younger generations in exchange for a shrinking voting block.
As we all know by now, the past election focused on the issue of change. The Republicans lost much of the youth by not offering the 21st century change that young voters wanted. Let’s show young people that Republicans are in sync with their modern world by leading the charge for gay rights and equality for all. We can compete for their votes again by showing them that we are a party of small government instead of a party of small minds.
29 responses so far
1 Chekote // Jan 25, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Jonas, the Dems also don’t support gay marriage. At least, that is what Obama said.
2 Chekote // Jan 25, 2009 at 10:12 pm
I really like this site but I find the title of this post counterproductive. Accusing people of “small minds” just because they don’t agree with a particular policy is not consistent with the stated goal of this site of encouraging debate and expanding the party.
3 rk // Jan 26, 2009 at 1:08 am
I think we have much more weighy thinks to talk about. Obama plans massive decifits that will increase the power of the government in all our lives.
…..Obama want single-payer medical
…..Can you say rapid citizenship for illegals.
…..of couse high taxes once the economy gets back together.
……
Freedom is under seige. The R’s need to re-frame the Left as regressive…luddites. They want a class-determined system. There is a reason the Europeans call us the neo-liberals. We are the neo-classical liberals
…….
I think that would appeal to younger voters, rather than passing singlepayer that’s been around for 60 years.
4 suey // Jan 26, 2009 at 5:58 am
The author should stop talking common sense as the below comments confirm. Reality is not appreciated here.
5 gospelance // Jan 26, 2009 at 7:04 am
I like how McCain addressed the issue: leave it up to the states. And my governor Gregoire: it’s a religious issue, not a state issue.
6 DougD // Jan 26, 2009 at 8:48 am
The issue is entirely generational: The older generation, currently influencing GOP believes in big government – big spending coupled with government interference in the private lives of American citizens.
The younger generation of Republicans really doesn’t care what people do with their private time. This group actually believes in small government and tax code reform, and believes that the government that governs least governs best. Social matters can be adjudicated in churches and the media. May the best ideas win.
As long as we are a party of church ladies, we will become increasingly unable to legislate and will leave the floor to left-libs, a seriously depressing thought.
Wake up, geezers!
7 GerryM // Jan 26, 2009 at 8:49 am
I’m not so sure I would go so far as to take up the gay marriage issue as a crusade. It’s an issue that only has support from a minority of voters. What I would do is back off from the pro-life agenda which is supported by only about one-third of Americans and create a somewhat bigger tent on social issues. Immigration is another issue where a little moderation would go a long way. If we listen to the right wing talk show hosts and dig in our heels on a strongly conservative agenda we will only lose market share. The way to a new majority is appeal to minorities, women and youth. Let’s find a way to make the tent much bigger.
8 DougD // Jan 26, 2009 at 9:00 am
Agree completely with GerryM. Let’s just get completely out of the social advocacy business. Not pro anything, not con anything. Let’s stick to stuff we all (more or less) agree on – law and order, fiscal responsibilty, tax reform, strong defence, coherent foreign policy. Let the social stuff work itself out in the marketplace of ideas.
9 sinz54 // Jan 26, 2009 at 10:18 am
The GOP won’t become attractive to young people until it ends its image as scowling moral scolds, particularly on the issue of sex. Example: In an article in National Review last year, Kathryn Jean Lopez noted that moderates and liberals (including Giuliani in the GOP) attempt to reduce the need for abortion, by education and birth control to prevent pregnancy. She said that’s insufficient; the real issue for her is reducing premarital sex itself. That kind of thing is a guaranteed sure-fire turn-off for young Americans, particularly young women. They don’t want to be lectured on their personal lifestyle by politicians.
10 mpolito // Jan 26, 2009 at 10:23 am
Is it really right to sacrifice principles because of concensus? The youth also support abortion (look at the Prop 4 versus Prop 8 youth exit poll numbers from CA). Suld we toss that issue, too? Besides, w can we know that the youth support fiscal conservatism and only oppose the GOP on economic issues? I’m a college student, and I can tell you that rights is not the only thing stopping some Che-wearing communist college student from voting Republican. The youth oppose the GOP on most issues- and so, presumably, we would need to completely toss out our platform to please them. If marriage is so much in the future, why are even the Democrats afraid to say that they support it?
11 HollywoodBill // Jan 26, 2009 at 10:23 am
While GWBush lost California by 10 points in 2000, 11 in 2004, McCain/Palin suffered a humiliating 23 point loss, the largest in around 60 years. Yet the blueprint for victory in the Western states is there Fiscal conservatism and social moderation. California has not elected a social conservative statewide since 1986.
Watching Palin was a living history lesson in the rise of Eva Peron. The Palinistas refuse to even acknowledge that their heroine was even remotely part of the huge, historic loss. To even consider the Moose Hunter again is a kamikaze act.
12 Chekote // Jan 26, 2009 at 10:32 am
sinz54. Stop on. The problem with the GOP is that it comes across of being against all sex outside the boundaries of marriage. They are stuck in the Victorian Age. The sexual revolution has happened and the GOP needs to recognize that.
13 Chekote // Jan 26, 2009 at 10:34 am
Ooops. I meant “Spot on”!
14 mpolito // Jan 26, 2009 at 10:40 am
llywood Bill- I think we all know that social conservatism is not dead in CA (see Prop 8). Do you nestly think that if McCain had picked Romney, say, rather than Palin, he would have done better (in CA or nationally)?
Chekote- the sexual revolution has done some good things, but it has also done lots of bad things. Forgive conservatives for not looking back on the 60s with nostalgia.
Finally, a point about social liberals in the GOP: I am from CT, and we have a very socially liberal representative in the 5th district. His name was Chris Shays, and he had been in Congress for years. He was as moderate as one could be, and he lost this year. He proves that you can be as moderate as anything but you will still be swept away with everyone else in a Democratic year. If voters want a Democrat, they will go for the real thing. The GOP might as well be a strong contrast to the DNC if the moderates will lose anyway.
15 ChevesLigon // Jan 26, 2009 at 10:43 am
As a social conservative, I do agree with some of your essments; wever, methinks you draw to clear of a line between electoral failure and issues. First, and let’s all remember, Prop 8 WON in Cali-fricken-fornia. That inarguably means that there’s not some huge groundswell among the populace for marriage. Secondly, young people rabidly disliked W for a st of reasons and went crazy for Barack Obama. They looked at an Old White Guy and Palin and went for pe and change. Lastly, while the GOP certainly needs to moderate its langauge on mosexuality, you paint for too stark of a picture of the electoral landscape for evangelicals—many stayed me this last time because they, too, were dissatisfied with W and are smart enough not to get spooked anytime someone says ” marriage!”
This last year was a nightmare for the GOP for a lot of reasons. But don’t conflate your views with tse of the American people.
16 paris // Jan 26, 2009 at 10:55 am
Having devoted an un-official career to working for the party in M and nationally I find the hateful conclusions you’ve made to be quite counter to what I tuned in for at David’s site. I would pe as you grow older you’ll appreciate the “I’m right and you’re stupid” approach does harm to civility and understanding. If the best you have to contribute to our party, as imperfect as it may be, is contempt for people with wm you disagree, then perhaps you suld join moveon.org. Wether the issue is trade, Fannie, immigration, or your apparent obsession, mosexuals, a healthy respect for the views of others would be a good place to start rebuilding our new majority.
17 HollywoodBill // Jan 26, 2009 at 11:03 am
marriage isn’t the litmus test here as it is in the Bible Belt. In 2000, Prop22 which was the first time marriage hit the initiative process, won by 13 points. In 2008 Prop8 won by 4 points. Eventually enough generational replacement will happen that it might p at the ballot box. But social conservative issues don’t revolve around issues alone. No pro life Governor or Senator has been elected since 1986, George Deukmajian. For the third time in four years Californians have rejected parental notification of minors having abortions. Californians approved a mive bond issue approving of stem cell research by 59%. Creationism taught in scols out here? You got to be kidding me. Abstinence programs? Social conservatism loses every time it hits the ballot and all candidates w are social conservatives lose. The Independent vote breaks 65/35 for the Dems whenever a knuckledragger appears on the ballot. Republican social moderates level the playing field 50/50.
18 sinz54 // Jan 26, 2009 at 11:12 am
The GOP does *NOT* have to discard its entire platform in order to appeal to young people. I remember the 1980s, when many young people tught it was cool to be conservative, when many of them were fans of Ronald Reagan. What changed was that the GOP discarded Reagan’s OWN message of “Morning in America,” a peful message for a bright future. It even discarded Gingrich’s technology-oriented policies eventually. And instead, conservatives started issuing jeremiads about w America is becoming a moral cesspool. In truth: While we are more sexually active than in the past, America was NEVER morally pure as the driven snow. Example: If you examine the records of 18th century New England towns, you will find that some 40% of wives gave birth less than 6 months after getting married. And in the early 19th century, the legal age of consent in New England was 12. Child prosutes plied their trade in many towns. The upstairs second floor of Western saloons in the Wild West was reserved for prosutes to service their clients. (The producer of the TV sw “Gunsmoke” admitted that the character Kitty was a prosute, but this was never swn on TV for obvious reasons.) Let’s stop bemoaning the loss of an imagined vanished idyllic past, and focus on a bright future for America economically and in her status in the world.
19 Robert Graves // Jan 26, 2009 at 11:17 am
David Frum will find out what it means to win battles but lose the war. His New Majority will become the Permanent Minority.
20 stysonss // Jan 26, 2009 at 11:23 am
CA ped Prop 8 because the Yes side lied about its effects, plain and simple. The Yes side ran two campaigns; they ran a TV war claiming that kids would be taught marriage in scols (a lie) and they ran an off-the-radar (internet and pulpit campaign) campaign claiming that pastors would be arrested for preaching against mosexuality or failing to perform marriage (more lies). Add to that the rribly-run No campaign (also well doented) and the Yes side *still* only barely managed to win. llywoodB is right: the tide is turning on this, and the social cons will lose this battle over time.
21 stysonss // Jan 26, 2009 at 11:32 am
Also, one thing that is usually lost in these post-2008 debates on h-omosexual rights: do all of you social cons realize w far the goal posts have shifted? Do you realize that you are essentially conceding Lawrence v Texas, that outlawing h-omosexual conduct is off the books forever? That banning, say h-omosexuals from teaching or lding jobs simply on the basis of their orientation is also off the table? The only issue you are admitting you can “ld the line” on is marriage. *Marriage*. Something that wasn’t being discussed by even the most ambitious and optimistic g-ay rights advocates 20 years ago. Yet now, polls of people under 30 or so sw huge support for the idea, and many people believe they will see it in their lifetime, even tse w oppose it. Of course, sites like Free Republic ply their hate and some always will, but the language and public dialogue of g-ay rights has shifted dramatically, and g-ay rights have leapt centuries in just decades. The GOP hasn’t realized that yet.
22 buzzricksons // Jan 26, 2009 at 3:32 pm
The obscenity filter is having a field day with the spell-checker in the comments! Can someone on staff tone it down already? Makes for ridiculously prudish reading; probably not the message the “new majority” types want to send, now, is it?
23 sinz54 // Jan 26, 2009 at 4:22 pm
I don’t think the GOP can afford to make a RADICAL change in its social policy so soon, because the evangelicals might just walk out. I keep suggesting some MODEST changes to the current GOP platform, which would just soften the hard edges here and there. In the case of abortion, I suggested continuing the opposition to abortion, but removing the assertion that the unborn are entitled to protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. (That would make every woman who has had an abortion guilty of violating the Constitution, which could land her in a Federal penitentiary.) The 1980 GOP platform (which helped get Reagan elected) had strong language against abortion too, but it did not include that assertion about the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case of homosexuality, the GOP can continue to oppose actual marriage for gays, but it should support some other kind of legal arrangements to give they partner of ay person the same visitation rights, inheritance rights, Social Security benefits, etc., that a married couple would.
24 gerrysh // Jan 26, 2009 at 4:26 pm
What a crock – like Democratic Lite worked for the Republicans in the November election.
Do you ever bother to learn from reality?
25 suey // Jan 26, 2009 at 5:02 pm
gerry, I support you the GOP needs to go way right, as right as right can be.
26 HollywoodBill // Jan 26, 2009 at 5:23 pm
While the loss in November goes to McCain the Palinistas have to accept that she was as much of the problem as he was. McCain would have been the oldest President ever elected. 72 is not the new 50. The electorate rejected putting a religious extremist with no real credentials a heart beat away from the Oval Office. Palin and Jindal are not the future of the GOP. They are regional candidates. The last two dinosaurs left standing after the meteor strike.
27 sinz54 // Jan 26, 2009 at 6:09 pm
HollywoodBill: Palin had little to do with McCain’s loss. Americans never vote for the Vice-President, they vote for the President. In 1988, Dan Quayle was made a virtual laughingstock (unfairly, I believe). But that didn’t stop George H. W. Bush from beating Dukakis handily.
Note also that after the GOP convention and the speech there by Palin, McCain actually pulled ahead of Obama in the polls. But just a few weeks later, the U.S. financial market fell off a cliff, sparking a national economic crisis. McCain’s frenetic but unfocused and ineffectual attempts to deal with it, turned off the voters and quickly sank his candidacy. Obama seemed more statesmanlike, just for not getting rattled by the bad news from Wall Street. And in the presidential debates, Obama seemed to have better command of economic issues than McCain did. McCain’s obsession with earmarks wasn’t appealing to many voters. If the GOP had known that the bottom was going to fall out of the U.S. economy in September, they might have thought twice about nominating McCain, who had actually admitted that economics wasn’t his strongest suit.
28 DougD // Jan 26, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Well, the one thing that’s crystal clear in this thread is that people who care about the future of the GOP disagree strongly. My point, some hours ago is: let’s bail on the stuff we disagree about and focus on the stuff we agree on. The GOP should not be a party of social advocacy – pro-gay, anti-gay. A pox on both of your houses. People need to get this out into the streets and sort it out – don’t form a circular firing squad and destroy our chances in coming elections.
29 HollywoodBill // Jan 26, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Sinz54, as usual, the Palinistas somehow seem to think that the MooseHunter gets a pass for the loss. She does not. While she started off high as any unknown newcomer would, she ended up having the highest negatives of any of the 4 principals running. Her endless mindnumbing interviews with Gibson and Couric as well as Tina Fey’s accurate satire helped doom her. Her kids needed to be at least tutored while on the road instead of being used as props. Palin’s pregnant, high school drop unmarried daughter is not exactly the role model of a first or second family. The GOP lost every single suburb in America including Dallas and Houston. Like it or not, the Palinistas will have to accept that Palin will have the same fate as every other failed VeeP candidate. She is not Presidential material except in the minds of the social conservatives. And there aren’t enough of them to win national elections.
You must log in to post a comment.