Agnosticism, environmentalism, civil liberties and gay marriage

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

I think those are the things where the younger generations have the biggest attitudinal splits from the older generations.

That's the face of the political future. ;)

(Having no religion isn't wildly popular in any demographic, but tolerance of the idea is high enough among young adults that we may see a senator or governor with no claimed faith in the next 10-20 years)

[HereSince1628]

1. Oh yeah, the boomers never gave a crap about any of these.

Sorry, not buying those oysters.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Nice black/white analysis, gramps

(joke)

Of course SOME boomers care about such things. But when an attitude polls twice as high among 18-30 than it does among 50-65 it's a real effect.

[HereSince1628]

10. Not a gramp yet , avic

The attitude of the 18-30 would be pretty much no where except for attitude if it were not for where their educations brought them.
and a lot of that educational exposure is a consequence of, yep, their parents and grandparents insistence on what gets into curricula.


BTW, being 30 ain't being nearly old enough to have accumulated on your own all that previous generations of those who believe in the stewardship of the environment have accumulated. Hell, being 60 ain't old enough. This is a transgenerational struggle, built on understanding developed and passed down for generations.

Without being judgemental I'd point out that being young also often means being free of responsibilities that impinge on attitudes. The years can and do take their tolls. I'm not at all sure we can depend on the current 18-30 years old group to bring all their peers on the environment with them as they get to be grey about the temples.

BTW, polls treat everyone's opinion as the same weight. As anyone in a movement can tell you, it isn't uncommon for those that keep moving forward with the movement through the years to be worth many of those that leave the path early. It's typically the case that one committed teacher/mentor influences hundreds of people for every generic Kurt or Katrina holding an opinion.

[NMMNG]

2. Don't say that too loud

You'll scare lurking RWers. :P

[racaulk]

4. My hope is to also see an openly gay senator or governor be elected in that time frame.

Or at least get to the point where our societal attitudes have changed in such a way that one's sexual orientation is irrelevant to that person being elected to office and not used negatively against them during their campaign. But we have a long way to go before that happens, I'm afraid...

[PurityOfEssence]

11. All-in-all, I think gay acceptance will be faster than that for other groups

There's a reason for this, too: they come in all sexes, races, socio-economic groups and are truly universal. Acceptance comes mostly from contact, and most human traits are pretty well spread out: saintliness and shitheadedness are equal-opportunity phenomena. As more and more straight people come into more and more contact with those who aren't, it becomes less and less of a deal.

Then again, we're a freaky country of puritans, and maybe I underestimate this tightness.

Still, if Stonewall's taken as the starting point of the public movement for acceptance, the fight isn't even 40 years old yet and lots of progress has been made.

The non-religious are going to have a rather rough going, as far as I can see. Still, even with the retrograde backlash of periods like the one we're in (which we've been in since 1980) things are still moving in the right direction on virtually all fronts.

[mohc]

5. I generally agree

While social conservatism is not absent from younger generations, it is decidedly depressed from its levels among older generations. I also do not see any signs of the trend reversing. With the possibility of the near collapse of social conservatism on the horizon, an interesting political question arises. Knowing that social liberalism is on the rise, should we shift focus to economic issues and allow opposition to gay marriage "die off"? Or, knowing that long term the issue is ours, should we do everything we can now, because it is just about the lives of those now and in the near future, with no case for sacrificing the rights now to win a longer battle.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. I'm for the "die off" model

As long as there is no constitutional ammendment and it remains a largely local issue, egalitarian marriage laws will eventually just spring up. But national leadership on the issue is almost impossible. Just keep batting down attempts to impose a short-term view on future genrations.

In fact, it's a dumb Presidential issue on either side, since a president plays no role whatsoever in a constitutional amendment. He has no power to propose an amendment and doesn't even sign an ammendment... it is decided entirly by congress and the states.

[mohc]

7. At the presidential level sure...

..but what about state constitutional amendments that are being passed. Are we just going to wait for a "Full Faith and Credit" Supreme Court case to strike all these down at some later date, or at the local level should we mount more opposition knowing that the issue is ours long term.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Filling the courts with humans is a first step

The right answer (politically) on state measures is probably case-by-case.

It's a tough one... hard to see a clear path, though the demographics suggest there should be one.

Maybe we should get "marriage is between two human beings" resolutions on the ballot everywhere and promote it as a values issue to prevent "unelected activist judges" from imposing polygamy and man-on-dog.

[DangerDave921]

9. Young Folks

Doesn't really matter what the young folks think because unfortunately, young people don't vote. Despite all the Rock the Vote stuff, 18-25 year olds just don't vote at the same rate as older people. I think it's because when you're young, politics is boring and the world is more about open-ended fun and games. When I was that age, I was interested in girls, partying, sports, and the arts. I didn't follow politics at all. I didn't vote until I was 26 when I voted for Clinton in 1992.

[incapsulated]

12. This is very true

It will take a while for this younger generation to have any real impact.

Remember the most reliable block of voters are... senior citizens. The oldest generation, heh.