Harvard University’s Institute of Politics has released the results of its latest poll of the political opinions of 18-29-year-olds. You can get to the survey here, with a Power Point here and a summary here.
The findings tally with a survey by Pew Research I mentioned last week. The survey compares numbers from Nov 09 to Feb 10. Here are some highlights:
The number of self-identified Independents has grown by six percentage points (Dems lost four points, Repubs lost three points). Researchers attribute the shift to people’s “discontent” with DC in general.
Obama’s approval ratings haven’t much changed in those months. It stands at 56 percent (58 percent in November). Approval of Dems in Congress dropped from 48 percent to 42 percent, Repubs from 35 percent to 32 percent.
On specific issues, only 44 percent approve of Obama’s handling of health care, 46 percent on the economy, 42 percent on Iran, 43 percent on Afghanistan, and 40 percent on the Federal deficit.
The racial gaps are significant. Black 18-29-year-olds approve of Obama by 83 percent, whites only 45 percent. Hispanics approve him at a 69 percent rate (a large drop from November’s 81 percent).
This coming November looks ominous for Dems:
“A warning sign for Democrats in Congress — young Republicans under 30 are statistically more likely than young Democrats to say that they will ‘definitely be voting in November.’ Slightly more than two-in-five (41%) Republicans are planning on definitely voting, compared to 35 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Independents.”
Also, there is an interesting table in the report about general trust. When asked whether they trust certain institutions to do the right thing all or most of the time, they offered this count:
US Military: 53 percent
Supreme Court: 45 percent
President: 44 percent
Congress: 25 percent
Traditional media: 17 percent
Cable news: 17 percent
Wall Street Executives: 11 percent
So, if only 25 percent of young people trust Congress to do the right thing, the other 75 percent who don’t should follow a simple rule: Vote against the incumbent, be he or she Democrat or Republican.
12 Responses to The Harvard Poll of Youth
goxewu - March 12, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Prof. Bauerlein advocates a rather simple-MINDED rule:1. If the incumbent is someone whose stand on the issues agrees with that of the distrustful young voter, he/she is supposed to vote, in a two-party election, for an opponent whose stand on the issues is likely to be opposed to that of the distrustful young voter?2. If the incumbent is sharp, of good character, hard-working, etc., and the opponent is, well, somewhat different, the distrustful young voter is supposed to vote for the opponent anyway?3. What if the incumbent’s opponent has been in that office before and is attempting a comeback?4. Since the opponent is as likely as the incumbent to have taken campaign contributions from the same sorts of sources (i.e., big orgs with money, be they corporations or unions, etc.), what’s to make the opponent have that much more trustworthiness once he or she gets into office? In other words, the day the opponent takes office, he or she is the incumbent; is that then the point at which he or she suddenly becomes untrustworthy? So how about recall petitions the day after the opponent-become-incumbents take office?5. Does experience count for absolutely nothing no matter what?6. Unless Prof. Bauerlein simply (he seems to like simple) wants distrustful young voters to feel pointlessly good for voting the “There, that’ll show ‘em!” line, the successful outcome of a “Vote against the incumbent, be he or she a Democrat or Republican” would be a 100 percent turnover of the House of Representatives every two years. Brilliant. (If, on the other hand, Prof. Bauerlein’s recommendation is purely for the purpose of distrustful young voters getting their distrust jollies, and that older, presumably more credulous voters should continue to vote as they always have, so that elections will come out more or less as they always have–i.e., with most incumbents winning–then he should say so.)This “simple rule” proclaimed, mind you, from a professed opponent of Big Government who served in that absolutely essential, Founding-Fathers-mandated, strict-constructionist, small-government position of…[drum roll]…Director of Research & Analysis for the National Endowment of the Arts [cymbals clash]. Simple rules for thee, complex rules (with lots of convenient exceptions) for me. At least the oft-cited Cockney lady’s declaration is funny: “I never votes; it only encourages ‘em.”
markbauerlein - March 12, 2010 at 6:11 pm
At this point, I believe that one thing that helps stem the inevitable corruptions of office-seeking and office-holding is the politician’s conviction that the government job will be temporary.
luther_blissett - March 12, 2010 at 9:18 pm
Mark, wouldn’t you think that a politician who was certain s/he’d lose his/her position in the next election would be ruthless in the pursuit of his/her own interests?
goxewu - March 13, 2010 at 9:05 am
My guess is that the corruption attendent to holding elective office (e.g., a seat in the U.S. House of Represetatives) has to do more with gathering campaign funds for re-election than with feathering one’s own nest. (That sort of thing is done more with appointees to Government regulatory agencies, and the subsequent revolving door to fat-cat jobs in the industries they once [nominally] regulated.)With that in mind, how about publicly funded national election campaigns? And how about overturning that noxious recent Supreme Court decision concerning coporate “free speech”?And Mr. Blissett is on the money (pun intended): A member of Congress who knows it’s two-years and out is likely to act in matters of integrity like NBA-prospect college basketball players, forced by the league’s one-and-done rule to spend one year in college, act toward their studies. That is, lip service, the absolute minimum, eyes on the prize (money) after leaving college/office.
markbauerlein - March 15, 2010 at 4:03 pm
I’m not certain of this, Luther, but without the prospect of continued influence through several election cycles, I think that the effect of lobbying and influence-peddling on politicians would, in fact, diminish.
goxewu - March 16, 2010 at 9:02 am
Although Prof. Bauerlein, ignoring #4, addresses #5 specifically to Luther (my feelings are hurt), I’d like to respond:If incumbents were turned out of office with (much) greater frequency, lobbyists would simply spend about the same–if not more–money and effort, but in a different way. They’d have to importune, up-front, more incoming legislators, so their “start-up costs” (in getting those legislators to fall in line) would be greater. Long-sitting incumbents once “enrolled”, on the other hand, can be put on a kind of retainer, which is probably cheaper in both time and money. It’s “Sen. Claghorn, you’ll vote as usual on this issue, right?” versus “Sen. Newcomer, we need to discuss this over lunch at the restaurant of your choice.”Does Prof. Bauerlein really believe that a greater turnover of holders of elective office will somehow change or mitigate our time-honored system of lobbying and the express and implied corruption it brings, especially given the recent Supreme Court decision on corporate “free speech”?
markbauerlein - March 16, 2010 at 11:29 am
Note, goxewu, that unions will prosper from the Supreme Court decision as much as corporations will.As for the impact of anti-incumbency, as I said, I don’t know. But lengthy incumbency does produce a mind-set among politicians that is counter to civic virtue. Just take a look at the rise in perks and staffers in recent years. So much of it looks like politicians regarding their position as an entitlement.
goxewu - March 16, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Here’s what I don’t quite understand: If democracy means a) that the people can elect the people of their choosing to office, and b) we accept that (a) is the best way to consititute our local, state and Federal governments, then why do we want to encumber, e.g., with term limits, the people’s ability to do so?Conservatives, especially, should favor the fewest restrictions on the people’s right/ability to elect whom they want. If an encumbent has been bought off by lobbyists to one degree or another, or if he/she is accumulating too many perqs, the opponent in the next election can campaign on those issues and win. Oh, the incumbent has a war-chest advantage? OK then, public financing of campaigns. (Anyway, isn’t a war chest just a compilation of those instances of “free speech” known as campaign contributions?) If the people of a district or state WANT to continually re-elect their semi-corrupt Representative or Senator who’s not been arrested or indicted for anything, isn’t that their perogative? (Two terms for the President is in the Constitution, so I accept that as unalterable.) And here I thought preventing voters from getting what they want because somebody knows what’s better for them was an attribute of nanny-state liberals.As to unions benefitting from the Supreme Court decision as much as corportions: In terms of political clout, labor is in the toilet. Coporations rule the roost in America. So unions and corporations prospering equally from the Supreme Court decision is like, in a football game between Podunk High School and the New Orleans Saints, each team will being allowed five new players on their rosters. Yeah, that’s equitable.
markbauerlein - March 17, 2010 at 11:50 am
According to Steven Law, writing in the Wall Street Journal last week, unions “dropped roughly half a billion dollars in the 2008 elections, overwhelming any group representing business,” making unions “the unmentioned winners” in the Supreme Court decision. Also, I’m not in favor of term limits.
goxewu - March 17, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Why do I feel like an overworked contract lawyer?”…”unions ‘dropped roughly half a billion dollars in the 2008 elections, overwhelming any GROUP REPRESENTING BUSINESS.” [Emphasis mine.]Why don’t we compare, instead, the contributions of any GROUP REPRESENTING unions with any group representing business (i.e., apples to apples), or compare the contributions of unions with the contributions of BUSINESS (oranges to oranges)?*Does Prof. Bauerlein knowingly redistribute this WSJ sleight-of-hand, or is he just careless? For the nonce, I’m giving the benefit of the doubt and going with careless.*The health insurance business reportedly spent about $600 million to defeat the proposed health insurance measures now before Congress. That’s $100 million more than the total contributions of labor unions to all of the 2008 elections.And if one is in favor of a great[er] turnover of incumbents yet does not favor term limits, what’s left? Oh, that’s right: “…the other 75 percent [of younger voters] who don’t [trust Congress to do the right thing] should follow a simple rule: Vote against the incumbent, be he or she Democrat or Republican.” This reminds me of Mort Sahl’s old definition of liberals: “People who do the right thing for the wrong reason in order to feel good for fifteen seconds.” In this case, it’s futile thing for a dubious reason, and the feel-good time is probably even shorter.
markbauerlein - March 17, 2010 at 5:23 pm
There is no contradiction between anti-incumbency and anti-term limits. Anti-incumbency is called for when politicians spend too much time adjusting districts so that they can keep their positions, or when they appear to care more about their careers than their civic duty, or when they spend too much money on perks, or when they get so out-of-touch that they complain about having to spend so much time reading pending bills . . .
goxewu - March 18, 2010 at 9:51 am
Well, if one is “anti-incumbent” and one does not support term limits or public financing of campaigns (instead of a battle of war chests in which the incumbent almost always has the advantage), it seems that the only choice is the blunderbuss approach of simply voting against any and every incumbent…no matter how qualified, effective, honorable, consistent with one’s own views, etc.Of course, a reasonable “anti-incumbent” (Prof. Bauerlein’s term, not mine) advocate would admit to exceptions, so the stance would end up, “Well, I’m usually anti-incumbent, but in the case of Rep. Smith, she’s so terrific, that I’m going to make an exception and vote for her.” At that point, the “anti-incumbent” stance devolves to a mere leaning, a tiebreaker (i.e., if both candidates appeal to one more or less equally, the vote goes against the incumbent), a secondary or tertiary preference.So, that “simple rule: Vote against the incumbent” either goes by the boards or is revealed for what it is: stoooopid.And still no answer to the WSJ union vs. business campaign contribution apples vs. oranges.