MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Why Millennials Fell Out of Love With Obama
By artappraiser on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 12:54am |By Garance Franke-Ruta, TheAtlantic.com, Dec. 4, 2013
There's no heartbreak like the heartbreak of first love, and when it comes to politics, no disappointment more bitter than that of a young person who grows up to realize her one-time idol is all too human.
That's the explanation offered by Harvard Institute of Politics pollster John Della Volpe and IOP Director Trey Grayson for the precipitous drop in Millennial generation support for President Obama in this year's annual Survey of Young Americans’ Attitudes toward Politics and Public Service.
"We are now seeing a sea change among this critical demographic," Grayson said. "The president has experienced a double-digit drop among Millennials over the past seven months and that rating is now the lowest we've seen during his presidency."
The poll, conducted between October 30 and November 11, found that the president's approval among 18- to 29-year-olds had dropped from 52 to 41 percent over the course of the year, and that younger Millennials—those between 18 and 24—were trending less Democratic [....]
URL:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-millennials-fell-out-of-love-with-obama/282024/
- Add new comment
- 2719 reads
Comments
From the National Journal article that Franke-Ruta links to:
and
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 12:59am
Wait, wha? About this subsidizing old people thing... what did these kids think was going on pre Obamacare? Since I was 23-27 in the 90s, what happened to me was:
After college, I was dropped from my parent's health insurance.
From ages 23-25, I paid out of pocket for medical needs. There were few, but one $600 bought of pneumonia stands out. Paying the uninsured rate, that's subsidizing the system.
At age 25 I got my first job that came with insurance. As I recall, premiums were partly set by wages. I made lower tier wages and paid lower premiums. This was made possible, of course, because the lower wage people tended to be younger (starting their careers) and so we could pay lower premiums while still being profitable.
If Obamacare had been in effect for me the only change would have been that I would have had health insurance in between college and my first career-track job. That would have saved me money.
by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 8:30am
Personally, I can't get my mind around the whole "young invincibles" thing because I myself was much more frightened of being uninsured when I was young than I am now. It was the "it will ruin your life if you get a big hospital bill" thing! I guess it might be how much your parents instill that kind of fear in you? And must admit that it comes to mind that a stereotype of millenials is that they were raised thinking that if they get in trouble, mom and dad will rescue them? (For boomers, most parents didn't give off that feeling of security when they had 5 kids to raise, they couldn't....though it did end up that most parents of boomers eventually did pretty well via paid-off-mortgages and pensions and the like, they didn't know they would at the time. Hence the "I'm spending my kids inheritance" jokes....)
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 1:31pm
From a health standpoint, if you get seriously sick or injured young you damned well want the best treatment for it. You might have to live with the results for a very long time...
by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 3:56pm
Well, to be fair to millennials who are not impressed with ACA, that's not a selling point of the exchange policies; they are turning out mostly to be offering very limited networks where you will not be covered, for example, to see the best neurosurgeon in the country for that arm damage or whatever.
A real life example comes to mind; there's been prominent coverage that in NYC that Sloan Kettering will not be participating in any of the exchange plans. For certain types of cancer, they are the only place 'round these parts that can really give you a fighting chance.
Heck, let's talk interstate travel to specialists in rare maladies. It's getting pretty clear that that is no longer going to be covered by hardly any insurance except Medicare, and ACA is working out to pushing that whole concept along just by its nature.
Every health care system has rationing via one method or another. Every one. Period.
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 4:45pm
Polls are fun and not entirely unimportant.
But they blow with the wind, and this is especially so with young people who don't take the time to understand many things.
Health insurance is inherently complicated AND boring AND generally young people don't use it AND unless they get sick a lot don't think about getting sick.
(Also true of adults, who have no idea what they're buying when they buy health insurance and glaze over when you try to explain it to them.)
In short, the young lack all perspective.
They are subsidizing all kinds of things, including and especially Medicare and Social Security which don't protect them at all at the present time.
And their taxes subsidize things like roads, even if they don't drive, bridges, even if they don't cross over into Brooklyn, and snow removal, even if they find snow fun and not a nuisance.
by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 9:10am
I would include thinking that it's not a big deal to throw an elected president out of office in your laundry list. First I thought: that's kind of strange. But then I thought: oh right, Egypt.
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 1:39pm
Unless times are exceptionally great, I'd think that any generation will find out how things really work and reconsider the benificence of the powers that be. Also, I would have been curious to see how many of those disaffected millenials self-identified as libertarians rather than Dems or Reps.
by Donal on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 9:14am
Also, I would have been curious to see how many of those disaffected millenials self-identified as libertarians rather than Dems or Reps.
Me too! From Ron Fournier's article, makes it sound like they just gave them the option of "Independent," which doesn't really answer that question:
Now that I think on it, they really should do something about that with all polls, given "Independent" is usually the largest party these days. At least giving a choice like "liberal/moderate/conservative." But especially since there has been so much written about passionate libertarianism among young people. Is it the passion of the few, getting attention because they are so passionate, or the many?
I did buy that many youth "fell" for the Obama's bi-partisanship spiel in his initial campaign, because of a dislike for both parties. But I don't know the truth of whether that was the passionate few or the many.
I would like to point out that one side effect of lack of passion, whatever the reason or ideology, is that it takes us back to a status quo problem; also in Fournier's article:
by artappraiser on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 1:17pm
Well, we have about 11 months to make sure that's not true. Whatever Obama's failings are (and I'm not one to deny them), punishing the nation by helping to elect Republicans, which will only increase his failings, isn't the proper response.
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 1:23pm
Rewarding a large bloc of supporters with indifference "isn't the proper response" either - I'd think after a few years of this complaint and some dire conditions that someone would pay attention and move the status quo. But then I'm pretty naïve about this American politics thing anyway - somehow having higher unemployment than a year ago requires you suck it up and go the polls anyway. Black labor force participation hit a 31-year low last month, but don't worry, be happy - could be a Republican in office. Quite the simplistic message.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 4:53pm
I'm not sure it's all that simplistic if the other side has no ideas or bad ideas for making it better. It's rational. And it's not really as if the president can simply "bestow a gift" of raising employment for a particular group of people, and certainly not all alone, as if he were handing out the spoils of war or were a ward boss with the power to reward loyalty. Yes, some--but how much, really?
Overall, we, on the left in particular, have to get away from fetishizing the presidency. We're losing our shirt at the state level. And what happens at the state level impacts who gets elected to Congress. And that, in turn, impacts how much flexibility the president has to do anything. They are already pounding away at him for being "extra-constitutional" because he changed a few dates in the implementation of the law.
by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 5:38pm
Why can't we "bestow a gift" on a particular people? Don't we all the time? There are measures designed to favor Hispanics, auto workers, labor unions, specific sectors of the country, women, children, the handicapped.... For some reason when it came to helping blacks, identity politics is anathema - why? It would seem logical that if a group has structural disadvantages, we would go about fixing those or provide a safety net in the meantime. What's happened to our logic?
Add-on: should note that we bestow special breaks for rich people on the presumption they'll trickle down golden showers on the rest of us. That hasn't worked out too well, yet it's a mainstay of thinking in extending those Bush era taxcuts. Corn subsidies and other breaks designed to keep the Midwest choosing right each 4-year Iowa Caucus. A special cap for Big Pharma in ACA to make sure they don't sabotage the deal. Special rules for religious groups so they can not provide proper health insurance, skip out on public schools, refuse to do their jobs in handing out contraception... And how many times have military and veterans received special conditions? Why in year 2000, we even let their absentee ballots count late just to make sure "supporting the troops" trumped butterfly votes and understaffed long-queue polling places and minorities disenfranchised through ID checks & erroneous prison-linked voting records.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/07/2013 - 9:20am
Since I thought you were talking about Obama per se, I was referring to the president (whomever he is). He can't bestow gifts all by his lonesome unless a bunch of other people go along with it as is the case in the examples you cite.
Moreover, if he were able to bestow these gifts unilaterally on a group of which he is a part--a racial group no less--then he'd be accused of, well, you know. Right now, we already have a bunch of people who think that affirmative action is discriminatory and racist. And they aren't too happy about welfare, even in its post-Clinton form.
But this second point is less the point. "We" can bestow gifts, but "he" can't bestow gifts. A lot of people have to agree with him before that happens. And since the beginning, a lot of people have done the opposite.
by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 12/07/2013 - 10:45am
From the beginning he said he won't, so I guess that's that - no use arguing about whether he could if he would.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/07/2013 - 7:09pm
One way to stop "fetishizing the presidency" is to stop apologizing for all his compromises or non-Democratic actions, and instead get back to a real Democratic platform and support those who support it - whether councilmember, Senator or President. Your "extra-constitutional" comment is all fucked up - half of what the administration is doing now is extra-constitutional not because of a few dates, because it skirts the constitution by avoiding review, hiding in secrecy, and using "aw shucks" excuses every time it gets caught with deliberately anti-constitutional processes to circumvent the law. (not ACA, but surveillance)
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/07/2013 - 9:29am
I agree with your comments re: NSA and surveillance, however, again, that wasn't the point of my comment. My point was that to do something like raise the minimum wage, he needs Congress to pass legislation. He has the power to surveille without Congress agreeing, but he doesn't have the power--the actual ability--to raise the minimum wage without Congress agreeing.
If you want to argue about the NSA or drones, okay--but that has nothing to do with what I was saying. Nor does it have much to do with raising black employment rates.
I don't disagree with your comment about supporting folks who support a real Democratic platform, but I don't think that "electability" can be ignored. The Tea Party ignored the question of "electability" in key Senate races they were virtually guaranteed to win, and they lost. Stein in MA supports a Democratic platform, but as far as I can tell, she's tried to win many seats from MA governor on down, but has never gone anywhere (however, I did give her some money last time).
Somewhat tangentially, and at the risk of getting into an argument over this, I don't think Warren should run for the presidency at this time. We need people like her in the Senate. In general, we, on the left, need to focus more than we have on winning at the state level and in state races.
by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 12/07/2013 - 11:01am
All through 2012 blacks were told they should rally around the president, not complain about unemployment, the president does the best he can, it's all the Republicans' fault.
Electability is fine, but if I'm building up a farm team, I might not plan on victory the first 2 years, but instead will build up some depth and teamwork and spirit. Instead it's all about the president, while all other issues get shoved aside to support the president. Face it, we don't have any game plan we're thinking about for 2014 - whether a liberal Democratic House gets elected is just not in anyone's discussions. It's all about how well we'll support the Ryan budget, the slashing of benefits, how few taxes we'll raise. Warren's about the only "rising star" we have and she's 64, which would make her the 3rd oldest president behind Harrison & Reagan if she ran and won. Of course Hillary would be the oldest. "No party for young people" as Clint Eastwood wold say?
by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Sat, 12/07/2013 - 12:12pm
Blacks have rallied around DEMOCRATS because Republicans are openly hostile to African-Americans. Blacks held their noses for Dukakis and supported Bill Clinton during Monica Lewinsky and impeachment. Given the hostility of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, do you expect Blacks to support a Republica Presidential cnadidate with the power to put another wingnut on the courts? If Hillary Clinton did the same things that Obama is doing, Blacks would be supportive because they face Republican legislatures that are trying o disenfranchise their communities. The argument that Blacks are showing racing solidarity around Obama is unfounded. Look at the vote percentages Democratic Presidential candidates got over the years and factor in the open hostility Blacks see from the GOP. Obama;s Black support is not surprising.
by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Sat, 12/07/2013 - 1:55pm
Maybe I'm dense--wouldn't be the first time--but I'm unclear about what, specifically, Obama or "we" could be doing that would help blacks specifically.
Maybe I haven't read widely enough or am just uninformed on this point, but it would make this conversation clearer if there were a list of specific things, policies, that we had good reason to believe would work, that might have some chance of passing, that we could work for.
Failing that and correct me if I'm wrong, but...
• Unemployment benefits...
• Saving GM and much of the auto industry*...
• Educational initiatives...
• ACA
• Higher minimum wage
And other policies Obama has championed benefit poor(er) people disproportionately, and among the poor we find a disproportionate number of black people. Of course, these policies help poor whites and latinos and others, too, but so what?
* Here's a snippet from a Rainbow/Push study on the impact of the automotive industry on urban/black communities: "At the height of the industry, when 17.8 million vehicles were sold domestically in 2000, blacks were as much a part of the resulting economic boom as any other racial group. And similarly, as the industry nosedived, so too did blacks' grip on their middle-class-America status."
Elsewhere, though I can't find it now, I read that the automotive industry was one of the most welcoming to blacks coming north and where they experienced lower level of job discrimination.
I can't vouch for the veracity of this, but...
by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 12/08/2013 - 9:06am
Just to be clear...
And because I know this thought is lurking...
I'm NOT suggesting that nothing more could be done to help blacks advance economically. The truth is, I don't know what those things are.
Nor am I suggesting that Obama has been "secretly" trying to help his black brethren, but we're too obtuse to see it.
by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 12/08/2013 - 9:09am
OK, but to respond to that non-proper response by helping to elect a party that will replace indifference with active hatred is a perfect example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 12/07/2013 - 9:09am
Somehow the Republicans learned to cut off their nose, and no, it didn't grow back in 1 election cycle, but in 3 or 4 it grew back
But great for all the scolds to tell people who've been kicked around enough exactly what their strategy should be. I'd be happy if I heard those same scolds 1/100th of the time telling Democratic government it should listen to its followers or it'll lose them. Instead, it's been a decade of "walk in line, don't make waves, don't speak out of turn". You'd think they were all kindergarten teachers.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/07/2013 - 9:23am
I'm not in favor of scolding anyone, and I absolutely believe that Democratic government should listen to its followers. I'm not sure what I've said that's evidently lead you to believe otherwise.
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 12/07/2013 - 4:02pm
Read your last comment: indifference => GOP winning => cutting off your nose/losing.
Maybe if blacks stayed at home 4 years, people would come crawling to win their 15% of the vote. Maybe not. But more than 1 way to skin a cat. McKayla is unimpressed with results of current strategy.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/07/2013 - 6:54pm
I read it, and your summary is apt, but tell me how "indifference => GOP winning => cutting off your nose/losing" equals being in favor of scolding anyone, and I absolutely believe that Democratic government should listen to its followers. I see it as stating the obvious. Let me be absolutely clear: when I said that we have 11 months to make sure that's not true, an obvious method is to address the issues that are important to them (and not just the issues that you think should be important to them), although that only works for certain definitions of "we".
by Verified Atheist on Sun, 12/08/2013 - 1:17pm
I'll be happy if someone addresses the real needs of a neglected constituency. But it didn't happen in 2012, and this time Obama's not running, and somehow he seems to drive the national agenda. Again, will be quite happy if someone steps up and puts forward a liberal agenda that addresses some of these issues.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 12/08/2013 - 2:48pm
Three presidential election cycles is 24 years.
Four cycles is 32 years.
Moreover, it's easy to look back at the rise of movement conservatism and view it as a clever or smart plan that led ineluctably to Reagan's election, and so forth.
Some of what they did was smart and did work, but didn't a lot of other things also have to fall into place? Like Jimmy Carter flaming out as just one example? LBJ and Chicago being two others?
I have to wonder how much Goldwater's principled loss propelled the movement forward. His ideas did, but did his loss? And didn't they get a lot of help from LBJ and Vietnam by crippling their opponent?
I think MW's book is about how LaFollette's nose cutting eventually led to great progressive legislation (if I read him correctly)--we'll have to see how convincing his argument is, but I have my doubts.
by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 12/08/2013 - 5:23pm
Think of pendulums and rocking a car back out of a ditch. Sometimes a humiliating loss is a greater propellant than a weak win. No Nixon to kick around again? Napoleon will just stay retired on Elba? Ah well, I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know - guess "voting always good" and "support the team" will be the legs of our PR.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 12/09/2013 - 12:31am
Talk to the Dream Defenders in Florida. They have big plans to turn out the youth vote in Florida. They have reason to vote down here. It is not about Obama any more, it is about stand your ground and school to prison pipeline. If they want to change things they know they have to vote.
by trkingmomoe on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 2:11pm
Unfortunately, Fournier seems to be guilty of the sin he accuses others of--propagandizing. A political hack in journalist's clothing.
by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 12/06/2013 - 6:30pm
They should be disillusioned with Obama, but I hope they don't decide to vote Republican. It may be that young people have to learn the hard lesson that heads of state don't tend to be that virtuous. But if you're looking for heroes to idolize, there have been plenty of them, they just tend to be people outside the system--Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Thoreau, William Lloyd Garrison, and so forth. Mandela was a head of state, of course, but his becoming president was part of a destruction of the existing system.
by Aaron Carine on Sat, 12/07/2013 - 5:33pm