Demographics is destiny

Avatar

Jaybird

Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to AskJaybird-at-gmail.com

Related Post Roulette

129 Responses

  1. Avatar Jaybird says:

    That said, I do not know the degree to which we have to worry about them jumping to the libertarian party. I suspect that it’d be a small degree.Report

  2. Avatar greginak says:

    How is this different from the panicky projections of Repub’s that they are doomed in the long term. Or that those kids belong to groups that tend to vote D so D’s are set to win elections for years to come. It’s not like those various groups are anti-gov.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

      Well, I suppose that this is different insofar as it’s a panicky projection that comes from the left rather than from the right and, it also seems to me, that the assumptions about this demographics’ attitudes towards the police is more likely to be accurate than inaccurate.

      Other than that, it’s probably identical.Report

      • Avatar Patrick in reply to Jaybird says:

        The assumptions about this demographics’ attitudes towards the police I would think are more accurate than not, given that there’s a rising percentage of *white* folks in my sphere who are getting skeptical about the police.

        Maybe that’s just me.Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

        What have i missed? How is this left sided panic?

        All the demographic projections are dependent on the current parties not changing their polices which is unrealistic so they are not likely to come true.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

        Well, um, not to pigeonhole anybody but The Nib tends to lean a little to the left in its comics choices. As for Blue Delliquanti herself, maybe she’s a Fox Contributor and uses a pseudonym to make her cartoons online. I doubt it, though.

        What’s the issue? You don’t see how this criticism could possibly come from the left, therefore you’re assuming that it must be coming from the right and the burden is on me (or others, I suppose) to demonstrate the contrary?Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

        This just seems like the same thing people have been saying for a while. The yoots of America are going to have very different attitudes then the older folks and that will lead to changes. Changes that will displease many of the oldsters.

        I’m fine with people being more skeptical of The Fuzz. I think lots of liberal types would be just ducky with it also.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

        Um… I was under the impression that, for at least the last election cycle or so, the yoots *HAVE* had very different attitudes then the older folks and that they did lead (and continue to lead) to changes.Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

        Yeah…the young whipersnappers were a solid part of electing O and have trended to the D’s. If yoots voted in as large numbers as the oldsters Romney might not have cracked 40% and McCain might not have got 35%.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

        I don’t see Obama as indicative of “change”. I kinda see him as part of the problem.

        Despite him, however, we’ve gotten some huge leaps and bounds with regards to Gay Marriage and, insofar as Medicinal is related to the War on Drugs, with the War on Drugs.Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

        O certainly hasn’t been as much change as many of his voters wished. That is for sure.Report

      • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto in reply to Jaybird says:

        How is this a panicky projection? The comic’s sub-title basically says” Why police brutality needs to be addressed and soon”. This seems more simply a statement of fact than “panic”.Report

      • Avatar Glyph in reply to Jaybird says:

        I realize it’s only a “review”, and doesn’t say anything about racism, or police brutality per se, but it’s a step in the right direction:

        http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/23/342739540/obama-orders-review-of-transfers-of-military-surplus-to-local-policeReport

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

        How is this a panicky projection?

        It’s a criticism of The State.

        Q.E.D.Report

      • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto in reply to Jaybird says:

        Sorry Jay, but that makes no sense. There is nothing in the comic itself or the surrounding text that posits any sort of panic or concern that this will herald some sort of great anti-state backlash, nor for that matter, does the left in general have a problem with critiquing public institutions that aren’t functioning correctly.

        This seems more to me to be wishful thinking on your part than anything of substance.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

        Perhaps you’re right. Perhaps having more than half of the country growing up holding the enforcement arm of the law in fear and contempt won’t result in anything changing.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

        At least in Robocop, when the ED-209 shot the executive, everybody in the room was willing to agree that that shouldn’t have happened.

        Trying to imagine what’d happen today. “We have no reason to believe that the ED-209 made a mistake until there has been a full review. We have at least one witness who is willing to testify that the executive in question did have a gun and did point it at the ED-209.”Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

        Well i’m sure Fox would call the Evil Exec a thug for playing air guitar to I Shot the Sheriff and wearing white socks with sandals.Report

  3. Avatar Alan Scott says:

    I think it’s not a good idea to suppose that mistrust of police extends to a mistrust of other branches of public service. But regardless, it’s a powerful statement.

    The real lesson here, though, is that everyone should read O Human Star, Blue Delliquanti’s awesome sci-fi family drama webcomic.Report

    • I think it’s not a good idea to suppose that mistrust of police extends to a mistrust of other branches of public service.

      I agree. That new population may or may not distrust public service officials more than previous generations, but I don’t think it will be by analogy to police abuses. And speaking as someone who, at least for the time being, is privileged to work in public service, I’m not sure what I think about that distrust. I realize there are a lot of pathologies in the way public service works, and I’m both a witness to and a participant in some of them (I won’t go into details).

      But my mission and my personal ethic is to serve my library patrons/customers and expand access and information as much as possible. There’s room for healthy skepticism, even (or especially) for someone like me. But I kinda object to being equated with the police.Report

      • I do not know how representative I am of anything but, for what it’s worth, I do not consider my interactions with the library to be in the same box as, say, my interactions with the DMV, TSA, or Police in general.

        Now, while I’m sure that there are a handful of folks out there who would be more than happy enough to relate to us all their negative experiences with the library (“DON’T SHUSH ME! I PAY YOUR SALARY!!!”), I’d say that we’d find that the numbers of folks willing to do that are an order of magnitude smaller than those willing to share a negative story about other “Public Servants”.Report

      • Avatar Mad Rocket Scientist in reply to Gabriel Conroy says:

        I don’t know, sending police to harass a 4 year old girl over library books…

        Yes, I read the whole article, I’m teasing a bit here.

        Still, the more often I see public schools calling the police over mildly troubled kids, or regulatory bodies using SWAT teams for inspections, etc. the more I worry that distrust of the police will extend to other public service areas.Report

  4. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    Somehow I doubt that distrust of police is going to translate into greater preference for libertarian politics. African-Americans and Hispanic Americans distrust the police in the present but are otherwise vote for pro-Government over anti-Government politicians. Many of them are decidedly not impressed with Rand Paul or similar politicians despite their attempt at outreach.

    Libertarians have a problem in that lots of people see their policies as favoring the wealthy over the poor when it comes to economic issues. For people of color this translates to helping whites over people of color because of the number of people of color that are poor or at least perceive themselves as poor. If libertarians really want to be an important political force rather than a political club they need to overcome this problem.Report

  5. Avatar Damon says:

    @jaybird

    But Jay, you’re forgetting, and so is the cartoon author, that this generation of kids are growing up fully wired, steeped in political correct thinking conformity, and the inability to critically think for themselves. They’ll knuckle under when their cell phones get remotely shut down by the cops.Report

  6. Avatar Saul Degraw says:

    @jaybird

    I am going to agree with nob. I think you are highlighting one of the biggest divides between liberals and libertarians.

    The libertarian view is that one government program can lead to abuse in all other areas of government. Liberals believe you can deal with police brutality and oppression of civil liberties while also having national healthcare and a robust welfare state/social safety net.

    If anyone is doing any projecting here, it is you. Where does the cartoon address how much these kids are going to love the magic of the market?Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Saul, both you and Lee seem to be assuming that my argument is that they’re going to join up with the Libertarians.

      In my *FIRST FREAKING COMMENT*, I said that they aren’t going to jump to Libertarians (and, needless to say, they aren’t going to jump to the Republicans either).

      So. Let’s assume that not only I but the cartoon writer in the first place both know that these kids are not going to grow up to be either Republicans or Libertarians.

      Are there other options?

      I mean, *ANY*? Like “The Democratic Party might actually change” or is that even crazier than someone who doesn’t pass the paper bag test voting for anyone but the (D)?Report

      • Avatar Chris in reply to Jaybird says:

        I imagine that if you have a bunch of new people determining the direction of the Democratic party, it might… ppffffhhahahahahaha… oh man, I almost got that out!Report

      • Avatar dragonfrog in reply to Jaybird says:

        I’m probably going to sound like the dumb on here, but – how is partisan politics more than tangentially relevant to this cartoon?

        I mean, the cartoon is about how the majority of Americans will have experienced law enforcement, the law in general, social power as a whole. A change in the culture of a country, the conversations that will happen there, the viewpoints people will be exposed to, the art they will make, the books they will read and write, the songs they will sing, the perspectives they will consider when they raise their children.

        Political parties are generally a decade or more behind the curve on any social change, immune to nuanced discussion, and anyway not even mentioned once in the OP or the cartoon it links to.Report

      • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to Jaybird says:

        ” how is partisan politics more than tangentially relevant to this cartoon?”

        Well, Jaybird is a well-known pro-libertarian, so obviously anything he says must be pro-libertarian. We don’t even need to see what he posted or think about what it means; he’s a pro-libertarian and so obviously what he posts is pro-lib, even if it’s not obviously obvious how.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

        how is partisan politics more than tangentially relevant to this cartoon?

        Well, my question was wondering what happens next when you’ve got more of the population with bad experiences than with good experiences.

        The nice answers involve partisan politics.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

        @jaybird

        You are ignoring the damage the fiscal crisis has done to younger Millennials feelings on free-market capitalism. Every poll and view point I have read shows that people under 30 or under 35 have favorable views of universal healthcare, the welfare state, trade unions, and believe that government has an active role in dictating economic policy.

        http://www.mediaite.com/online/krugman-chait-and-frum-call-the-libertarian-moment-a-load-of-bollocks/Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

        So your argument is that, despite these demographic changes, nothing else will change?Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

        @jaybird

        What @greginak said below and what @leeesq said above.

        No one disagrees that changing demographics will change the laws and policies of the United States. Some people welcome this and others panic about it. Others are indifferent.

        What I want from you and in simple and direct and non-cryptic language is proof that people are going to be further inclined towards free-market capitalism because of a distrust in the police. You are seemingly refusing to give it.Report

      • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to Jaybird says:

        “What I want from you and in simple and direct and non-cryptic language is proof that people are going to be further inclined towards free-market capitalism because of a distrust in the police. ”

        Jaybird has explicitly stated that he is not talking about that in this post and that he never was.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

        What I want from you and in simple and direct and non-cryptic language is proof that people are going to be further inclined towards free-market capitalism because of a distrust in the police. You are seemingly refusing to give it.

        Dude, I am not, in any way, talking about free-market capitalism.

        Here is my observation followed by my question, again:

        Over the next 10 years, we’ll have more people coming of age who mistrust the police (and, perhaps by extension, public servants?) if not with (reasonable?) hostility than not. Then what?

        (I cut and pasted that.)

        Here is my complex, indirect, and cryptic suspicion (also cut and pasted):

        The nice answers involve partisan politics.Report

      • Avatar dragonfrog in reply to Jaybird says:

        @jaybird “The nice answers involve partisan politics”

        That’s rather well put.Report

    • Avatar Mad Rocket Scientist in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      police brutality and oppression of civil liberties while also having national healthcare and a robust welfare state/social safety net.

      Sure you can, but not many people seem interested in doing that. I mean, how many more times do I have to hear about lemonade stands getting shut down, or bake sales being banned? Certainly it’s not an abuse of liberty on par with police brutality, but there is a connection between the little abuses & the bigger ones. And such small abuses damage trust in the institutions, trust that they can be reasonable.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        @mad-rocket-scientist

        I think I have seen many more lemonade stands and bake sales than I have heard stories of lemonade stands and bake sales being busted by the cops. I think those stories are very rare and get more attention than normal because of how absurd they are. Hell in San Francisco, I often see immigrants operate impromptou street groceries for homeless people and junkies in the sketchier districts or people selling boxes of Krispy Kreme donuts on the street.

        As I see it the large sections of the libertarian movement are still more concerned about economics and the welfare state as than they are about civil and social liberties. The idea of universal healthcare seems more noxious to them than the War on Drugs and all of Balko’s reporting is for naught because most libertarians can enjoy their weed from the quiet of suburban homes.Report

      • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        “I think I have seen many more lemonade stands and bake sales than I have heard stories of lemonade stands and bake sales being busted by the cops. ”

        I’ve seen many more people than I’ve heard stories of people being robbed or beaten up, but that doesn’t mean we consider robbery and assault to be minor issues unworthy of further discussion or mitigation.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        @mad-rocket-scientist Since those bake sales and lemonade stands are being shut down by local police, it’s obvious just another mark against local governance and for more power to be entrusted in the national government, whose too busy to care about bake sales, unlike busybody neighbors and the cops who listen to them.Report

      • Avatar Mad Rocket Scientist in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        @jesse-ewiak

        Read the link. The bake sales are being shut down by the federal government.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        That’s not an abuse of liberty. That’s a policy decision, not Michelle Obama’s Food Police coming down to break down doors. Schools accept federal money, they have to accept federal rules.Report

      • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        “Schools accept federal money, they have to accept federal rules.”

        And if the school won’t accept federal money there’s always HHS regulations relating to the ACA, and if all else fails there’s Wickard.Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        MRS- Sounds like a stupid rule on bake sales, but you are going a bit overboard. From the link it says school bake sales can’t have high fat/sugar treats. Yeah, that is stupid, no argument there. But its not like the FBI is raiding bake sales. I’m sure they can have plenty of bake sales, or just have the state get the waiver and its not like we have a shortage of cream filled treats in this country. And of course the schools could just fund the schools properly instead of having them run bake sales, but that is off the point.

        When we discussed school shootings it was, correctly, pointed out that they are really very rare. Same thing with shutting down lemonade stands. Stupid and rare, not some massive crackdown on kids slinging tart water from a curb.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        That’s not an abuse of liberty. That’s a policy decision,

        Let’s think about how well that argument generalizes.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        @jim-heffman Welcome to the complexity of governing a society with 300 million people in it. Things get complicated and sometimes, shockingly, you can’t always do whatever you want, for the greater good of the overall society.

        @greginak – It bans on-campus sales during school hours. Perfectly reasonable. You can still guilt parents into selling candy at their workplace for their kids or sell all the crap you want during athletic events. But, I know, not being able to push candy during school hours is the end of freedom.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        Yes, some things are an actual right, @james-hanley. Selling baked goods during school hours on campus isn’t one of those things.Report

      • Things get complicated and sometimes, shockingly, you can’t always do whatever you want, for the greater good of the overall society.

        So get back on the sidewalk. Oh, you won’t? BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAMReport

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        Yes @jaybird , because I believes federal regulation should sometimes rightly overright the wants of some of the local citzenry, I’m totally for police murder. You got me.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        So government can ban how many activities that aren’t classified as rights before it becomes an abuse of liberty? All of them? Just a few?

        Let’s just mark that down as another area where you find me crazily anti-government and I find you crazily pro-government.Report

      • Either you believe that these laws are important enough to enforce against people who are resisting them or you don’t.Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        @jesse-ewiak Its not the end of freedom at all. However limiting what people can sell at fund raising bake sales creates to many rules and messes with people in a way that serves no effective purpose. Should school breakfasts and lunches be healthy and not consists of pop tarts…yes, there should be rules for them. But bake sale brownies aren’t paid for by gov money. If people want to stuff their cake hole with cookies and Krispy Kreme’s well they can and setting up rules around that just leads to far more fuss than good. That rule won’t protect anyone from treats since they can get them on their own and isn’t meant to provide basic daily nutrition like school bfast and lunch. Its the kind of rule that will even piss off authoritarian types who will be fine with cops hassling “thugs”.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        Case by case, @james-hanley. And yes, if you truly think schools being unable to sell baked goods on-campus during school hours is a loss of liberty, we live in different worlds. Even though I agree with the policy decision, at the end of the day, that’s all it is. When I was in high school, there were plenty of dumb policy decisions. I didn’t lose any liberty as a result of it, though.Report

      • When I was in high school, there were plenty of dumb policy decisions. I didn’t lose any liberty as a result of it, though.

        Somebody’s white.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        Please @jaybird , when you have the power of the purse, using guns is no uncouth. But, by your measure, if you’re not willing to inflict capitol punishment for any law, then you don’t really “believe in that law.”

        @greginak, I think making it so that schools are no longer pushing sugary foods on campus during school hours is perfectly effective. Yeah, the kids can just go somewhere else, and I say, good. Kids can also go somewhere else and get all sorts of things that aren’t great for them. I don’t think the school should sell those things to fill a hole in the budget either.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        Yes @jaybird. Actual racist policy proposals that actually hurt kids are bad.

        Policy proposals that mean kids have to walk across the street to get some Krispy Kreme are perfectly fine. Even though, you’re showing your whiteness by comparing kids being able to sell Krispy Kreme to the racial issues within the public school system.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        You have a weird definition of liberty, then, Jesse. Liberty is acting without restriction, so restrictions, even when justified, do constrain our liberty. I get the feeling that your definition of liberty is less generalized, and more limited to just those things you think are important enough to qualify for the term.Report

      • Welcome to the complexity of governing a society with 300 million people in it.

        If only there were some way to break down that gargantuan body politic into somewhat smaller units. That way you could have the broad and important decisions made collectively, but other decisions – like, say, school lunches – could have the decisions made by those with more proximity to the situation. You could start by dividing by, say, fifty or so…Report

      • Avatar Mad Rocket Scientist in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        @greginak

        Let’s talk about the FDA using a SWAT team against raw milk producers, and then rethink the possibility of the FBI raiding bake school sales.

        Sheesh people, you can justify any government action, especially with the whole “greater good” tripe. “Greater good” is not a definable quantity & can be used to justify all sorts of petty sins on behalf of the gov. Are sugar sweets at bake sales such a danger to American health that we need to try & control them through federal policy?

        As for Lemonade stands, it probably is a problem, just not one making the rounds currently on the national news cycle (which seems to currently be parents who give their kids just a bit too much freedom, and police problems), but back in 2011

        (Hey, there is a familiar name)

        Here is the thing. With a government as big & as complex as ours, we will always have stupid policies & inflexible tin pot dictators enforcing them. What I see too often, what happens that damages trust in the institutions, is what we are seeing out of Ferguson. Government that, when caught screwing up, circles the wagons & goes as opaque as possible. Sure, some cop or city health inspector shut down a lemonade stand because whatever. The proper response is to apologize to the people involved & either re-write the regulation to have a little give, or to tell enforcement personnel to demonstrate some humanity.Report

      • But, by your measure, if you’re not willing to inflict capitol punishment for any law, then you don’t really “believe in that law.”

        Damn straight.

        I don’t make much of a distinction between myself and my government, really. So if I say that “the government should do this”, then I make pretty freaking sure that it’s something that I wouldn’t have a problem with if *I* did it.

        This includes telling moms what they can or can’t sell at a bake sale. Or shooting people for being mouthy.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        Welcome to the complexity of governing a society with 300 million people in it.

        Some people would say one of the ways to reduce that complexity is to let some of that governance happen within smaller chunks of the society, through, oh, something like states, or even municipalities. It’s a crazy thought I know. Who wants to be governed in the way hellholes like Canada, Germany or Switzerland are?Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        @will-truman If the states would actually fund themselves and create adequate school systems without federal help, especially when it comes to feeding low income students. Or ya’ know, maybe those precious states and localities should actually increase taxes to pay for band uniforms and such collectively instead of making their children use 6th period to shill Krispy Kreme or whatever.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        Dammit, @will-truman!Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        If the states would actually fund themselves and create adequate school systems without federal help,

        You might oughta learn a little bit about the history of federal funding of public K-12 education.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        @mad-rocket-scientist – Well, first, I do think we should try to limit the intake of sugary sweets and such. Now, personally, I would do it by removing corn subsidies and other things Europe has done to limit HFCS investing their society along with some sin taxes on soda and the like.

        Second, the regulations that lemonade stands run into from what I understand are basically the ones that stop people from selling food on the side of the street without a license. Now, yeah, rewrite the regulation to say, I don’t know children under 13 who make less than $50 daily from selling beverages from a non-permanent stand are exempt. Great! The problem is, people are using it as an excuse for wanting to remove any regulation of people who sell food, which is dumb.

        @jaybird – Mom’s can still have all the bake sales they want. Hell, they can still sell stuff during school events. They just can’t do it during school hours on campus.Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        I’m arguing with MRS and Jesse….I feel so centrist, i’m all tingly.

        @mrs I don’t particurly disagree with you though. Raw milk dealers don’t need SWAT teams, they should ahve to loudly label their product as Death Milk or something like that. I’ve seen plenty of lemonade stands just in my neighborhood. That just comes off as a stupid thing that got attention based on being stupid, not on its level or severity of problem. To many people in power, whether in gov or business or wherever, choose to circle the wagons instead of apologizing, No disagreement there. I think most of the above issues are far more isolated bits of stupidity, then wide spread issues. Talking about them gets in the way of dealing with the widespread issues like actual police brutality.
        @will-truman The obvious retort to pushing things down the lowest level is “Ferguson.” Local community org that seems to reside somewhere between comically incompetent and actively malevolent. What is just as important as whether something is a proper state or local or Fed task is who oversees and can effectively give feedback. Local is great, but often needs state or fed level oversight. I’d love to see the FBI take a much stronger watchdog role on local police like Ferguson. Heck i’d ditch the ATF and give the resources to DOJ or the FBI just for investigation local cops.
        @jesse-ewiak Pick your battles. Bake sale regulations are a losing battle.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        @james-hanley – I’ll be blunt. Aside from not knowing the vagaries of school funding for Canada or Germany, I trust those countries, basically. Maybe if I lived there, I’d think their school funding or their local/national scope or regulations were dumb as well. However, I know America and yes, basically, I don’t trust large swathes of the country not to turn into hellholes, especially for poor and minorities, if they aren’t occasionally swatted back into line. I’m sorry for having a low opinion of many of the state legislatures and county councils across this great land.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        @greginak – I’d argue that most likely, these regulations will still be in effect in 10 years, especially if a Democrat wins the Presidency in 2016. Yeah, some parents will be upset, but parents are always upset. I think it’s a good thing in the long run. Obviously, it won’t be a crushing blow, but it’ll help. Hopefully, with other more substantive things.

        I’m sure there were lots of “dumb” regulations against say, smoking on school campuses that people railed against when they were first put in place. A few years down the road, the only people who remembered were some old teachers and a few alumni.Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        @jesse-ewiak Oh i’d guess the Great Bake Sale Rules will be gone. Either State govs will loudly get rid of them while trumpeting their love of freedom or the 2014 R dominated congress will do something about it. Of course they may do nothing about the TSA, drones or police brutality, but they can shriek about a petty violation of freedom. And the petty regulation will have little effect and be hoop people will fixate on. If gov is going to set rules for people that relate to the public good they should be about really important things AND that which the rule will have a significant effect. Food is important but there is only so much any gov should do to say who can eat what. But effect will be a nothing burger. How many bake sales does any school have? How many brownies are people being saved from?Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        Jesse,

        Where did anyone suggest fundamental condtitutional rights should be left to states/localities? Is it all right if we put that strawman away until Halloween?

        As for “not trusting” other sections of the country, what that really comes down to is not being willing to let the people of those regions make their own choices unless their choices approximate your preferences closely enough.

        I’ve been accused of being anti-democratic, but I’d point out here that you are desirous of overriding local democratic decisions.

        And as I said to Robert Greer the other day, this demand that others live rightly (by our own definitions) requires a confirmity that requires greater enforcement power and denies others the opportunity to live as they would prefer. A more live and let live approach, in contrast, has plenty of room for municipalities or even states that are more in line with what you want. It asks only that you leave a space in this country for those whose collective decisions differ.Report

      • @greginak I responded mostly out of amusement, given Jesse’s animosity towards any devolution of power, and then saying here that such rules are the inevitable byproduct of a lack of devolution.

        Like James, I support wholeheartedly the federal government being the watchdog of rights – at the basic level, at least – and I would rely on them heavily for enforcing abuse of power and corruption. At some point, though, it’s less about that and more about wanting to tell people what to do. It’s really, really hard for me to view mandated school lunches outside that context.

        I wouldn’t call these rules an infringement of liberty, but this is not exactly using the government as a defender of liberty and rights, either. Talking about how a federal government is necessary in defense of those rights, in the context of this conversation, doesn’t quite wash. (I know your position on bake sales and am speaking more abstractly.)

        But mostly, I spoke up because I was amused.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        @greginak – Sure, I can think some part of the compromise to stop the Shutdown of ’15 involves removing those rules. But, again, I’m sure if we all had limitless time, we could all find rules that parents were pissed about in 1978, 1989, 1996, or 2005, that are still in place today.

        Also, I’m not saying “stop people from eating what they want.” But yeah, schools probably shouldn’t be in the business of selling it. Just like I think the fact that soda machines have been removed from a lot of school districts is a good thing as well.

        @james-hanley

        You can make life plenty horrible for poor people and minorities, especially when poor people are disproportionately minorities without passing laws that don’t pass Constitutional muster.

        As for overriding local government decisions, you forget that I don’t think the local government should do that much in the first place. Make sure the grass in the local parks are kept trimmed, pave the local roads, keep the streetlights on, pick up the trash, and so on. As for local school boards, I’d consolidate and remove lots of power from them, as the only people worse than local and state legislators are local school board members.

        And yes, I’m perfectly happy limiting local and state governments “creating the world they prefer” when it hurts the most vulnerable and those without power in a society. I have zero problems with the federal government saying, “this is the absolute minimum you’ve got to do for the people in your state, you numbskulls.”Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        I would rely on [the federal government] heavily for enforcing abuse of power and corruption

        Those are areas state governments excel at.Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        @will-truman To think i started off this morning without even having a position on bake sales.

        I would agree BS rules ( ha , ha) aren’t really tickling my liberty, freedom or public good bones.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        Jesse,

        Will said it well enough that I only need quote him:

        amusement, given Jesse’s animosity towards any devolution of power, and then saying here that such rules are the inevitable byproduct of a lack of devolution.

        Some peope, when an action creates a problem, reconsider the action. Others complain about the problem.

        More seriously, we all have issues we think should be managed at the national level. But in a nation of this size, a general predisposition against sub-national policymaking is a difficult position to intellectually justify, once we start digging in deeply. There’s a logic to subsidiarity, to letting decisions be made at the level of the stakeholders. As Elinor Ostrom often emphasized, local knowledge really matters, and–as I put it, not her–one size fits all policies are often about as ill-fitting as one-size fits all clothing. As the one Linky Friday article from last week reported, local management of forests often is superior to national management.

        There’s also a logic to allowing policy experimentation. We can’t just assume that the one single policy we enact at the federal level will actually be the best one, and without seeing others in action we can’t really compare to see what we could be doing better.

        And while the federal government did take important strides forward in racial protections, it’s all too easy to focus just on those, and conclude the feds are reliably better on those issues, while ignoring its own ugly racial discriminations.

        Overall, when lookef at in a comparative perspective, unitary countries are not, by and large, better run than federalist countries. I get that you have a set of issues you care about, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But it’s necessary to not commit the nirvana fallacy of comparing one real world institution to an idealized version of another institution. Or as Michael Munger puts it, we shouldn’t indulge in the unicorn view of governance.Report

      • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist says:

        “Things get complicated and sometimes, shockingly, you can’t always do whatever you want, for the greater good of the overall society.”

        Remember this when you tell us about how the Tea Party is mindlessly pro-authority.Report

      • And while the federal government did take important strides forward in racial protections, it’s all too easy to focus just on those, and conclude the feds are reliably better on those issues, while ignoring its own ugly racial discriminations.

        It’s worth pointing out here that federalism gave us gay marriage. Would have happened eventually, I’m sure, but allowing it in some states helped demonstrate that the sky did not fall and helped normalize it in American minds. Of this I am pretty well convinced. It’s easier to use a US state as an example of a policy working out well than it is to use Sweden.

        I would add to this that pointing out that the federal government is better on civil rights issues, it’s something of a leap from there to determining school lunches. School lunches are not a civil rights issue, and authority on civil rights issue doesn’t extend easily to authority on every issue. Or put more simply, saying “But Civil Rights!” gets you precisely nowhere with me when we’re talking about bake sales. As I say to Greg, eventually it becomes clear as it being mostly a mechanism of getting to tell people what to do because Majority (or because Public Good, defined by Majority) (or because My State is Wealthier Than Your State).Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      It was your comment about maybe young people starting to distrust “and perhaps, by extension, public servants” that led us to our conclusions.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq says:

        How in the hell did you jump from “they don’t trust public servants” to “therefore he must be not only singing the praises of but predicting the conversation of these people to free market capitalism?”

        I mean, let’s pretend that I was even saying stuff like “I don’t think that they’re going to go Libertarian” in my first freaking comment.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to LeeEsq says:

        Well, what were you going for by that comment?Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq says:

        Over the next 10 years, we’ll have more people coming of age who mistrust the police (and, perhaps by extension, public servants?) if not with (reasonable?) hostility than not.

        (What I was going for follows) Ugh. That’s not going to be pretty.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to LeeEsq says:

        @jaybird, you shouldn’t have put in the remark about other public servants. To a lot of people that reads like libertarian code for shift towards libertarian political preferences.

        My personal take is that the shift isn’t going to be as dramatic as you think. Many of these young people are Asian-Americans, whose experiences with the police are a bit different than those than African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans. There are also going to be plenty of white kids who are just fine with the police. There is also political inertia.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to LeeEsq says:

        Lee, you’ll see that the cartoon mentions public servants.

        Try to imagine that she said it first and read the sentence again. It might read differently.Report

    • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      The libertarian view is that one government program can lead to abuse in all other areas of government.

      Sorry, that’s incorrect.Report

  7. Avatar KatherineMW says:

    I think the graphic’s point is that when/if you have a generation where the majority of young people regard the police as a enemy, the consequences are going to be a lot more severe than who they vote for.

    The partisan effects, if any, will depend on 1) how many of the young people are inclined to vote, rather than being turned off by the political system as a whole; 2) how the views of older voters change (as people seem, in general, to become more conservative [about things other than retaining social security and Medicare]) as they get older; and 3) how much money those young people and those who share their views possess, compared to the amount of money possessed by the prison-industrial complex (“much less”).

    And Jay, I completely understand if you’re getting aggravated by the number of people assuming you’re saying “they’ll become libertarians” despite your disclaimer that you are specifically not saying that.Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to KatherineMW says:

      It is actually a bit of a myth that people become conservative as they get older. It does happen and people can also go the other way and become more liberal/radicalized but I think there is a lot of research that shows political ideas/ideals cement relatively early and stay the same as people age.

      Paul Ryan is just as right-wing as he was at 17 when he swooned for Reagan.Report

    • Avatar greginak in reply to KatherineMW says:

      Well yeah, people have been pointing out the demographics of the country are changing which will lead to changes in our politics. I don’t think anybody is disagreeing with that, certainly not me. I doubt we can easily predict the actual changes since parties will adapt as they always have and generations aren’t necessarily predictable.Report

      • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to greginak says:

        The concern is not party adaptation, the concern is that America will start looking less like America and more like Serbia.Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to greginak says:

        What does “look like Serbia” actually mean? I could guess, but i’d either be uncharitable or wrong or uncharitably wrong.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to greginak says:

        Looking like Serbia means that we finally get colorful folk clothing to put on for the tourists and honky folk dances to perform for the tourists. Old men with white mustaches would set around and tell kids about the old days and forgotten battles while drinking beer. We get to be Ruritania.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

        Perhaps the answer could also be “we’d look more like Israel.”

        Given my suspicion that the funny costumes are more likely to be muted in color.

        Note: Israel has a social safety net, socialized health care, and several housing programs.Report

      • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to greginak says:

        JB, most everywhere outside the US that gets put in the “developed country” category has a social safety net, socialized health care (sometimes disguised), and housing programs.Report

      • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to greginak says:

        The point is not how many places have these things.

        The point is that we’re told they’re good things to have, and often given examples of how (country) has them and that’s clearly better than the United States.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to greginak says:

        They are good things to have according to many Americans and non-Americans.Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to greginak says:

        But thanks for clearing up and issue with the conservative ID and how it closely tracks to butt hurt.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

        Erm, Michael Cain, I was making a joke about how I was not necessarily making an argument about how distrust in the local constabulary necessarily results in embrace of free market capitalism.

        That’s it.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

        butt hurt

        Haven’t we stopped using this one?

        I mean, if we’re going to use not-pc slams against the opposition, I’d much rather we bring back “retarded” than the vaguely homophobic ones.Report

      • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to greginak says:

        From the other side, Jim, we’re often told how bad such things are, in which case the question is why hasn’t the US raced far ahead of all those other countries in terms of standard of living?

        Myself, I think that the evidence all suggests that so long as there’s enough savings to cover investment needs, and we leave the job of producing things in private hands, “socialization” affects what gets produced/consumed much more than it affects the gross amount. In the US, Medicare and Medicaid mean the collective “we” buy more health care for the elderly and poor than otherwise; the mortgage interest deduction means we buy more and larger single-family homes than otherwise; Social Security means we buy more rounds of golf and trips to visit the grandkids than otherwise.Report

      • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to greginak says:

        “Myself, I think that the evidence all suggests–”

        The evidence all suggests that nobody understands why Jaybird brought up social safety nets in the first place. (Hint: you have to look at what else he brought up to understand why he brought it up.)Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to greginak says:

        Few places have housing programs quite as problematical as Israel’s.Report

  8. Avatar LWA says:

    I think it should be pointed out that generally, when people lose their faith in the justice system, they either find an alternative justice system, or force the existing one to change..

    People want to have a justice system they can have faith in; The desire for some legitimate authority is pretty strong and not going away anytime soon.Report

  9. Avatar Jesse Ewiak says:

    Speaking of demographics, it turns out most self-described libertarians aren’t really libertarians, depending on the issue. It’s almost as if it’s a buzzword grabbed by conservatives because Republican is a dirty word, instead of there being a Libertarian Moment (TM Reason) these days. Nothing against the actual libertarians in our midst, but as always, it’s a reminder that just because something is popular on the Internet, doesn’t mean it’s actually popular.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-of-libertarians/

    Self-described libertarians tend to be modestly more supportive of some libertarian positions, but few of them hold consistent libertarian opinions on the role of government, foreign policy and social issues…..

    In some cases, the political views of self-described libertarians differ modestly from those of the general public; in others there are no differences at all.

    When it comes to attitudes about the size and scope of government, people who say the term libertarian describes them well (and who are able to correctly define the term) are somewhat more likely than the public overall to say government regulation of business does more harm than good (56% vs. 47%). However, about four-in-ten libertarians say that government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest (41%).

    The attitudes of libertarians similarly differ from the public on government aid to the poor; they are more likely than the public to say “government aid to the poor does more harm than good by making people too dependent on government assistance” (57% vs. 48%), yet about four-in-ten (38%) say it “does more good than harm because people can’t get out of poverty until their basic needs are met.”

    Libertarianism is associated with limited government involvement in the social sphere. In this regard, self-described libertarians are somewhat more supportive of legalizing marijuana than the public overall (65% vs. 54%).

    But there are only slight differences between libertarians and the public in views of the acceptability of homosexuality. [b]And they are about as likely as others to favor allowing the police “to stop and search anyone who fits the general description of a crime suspect” (42% of libertarians, 41% of the public).[/b]

    Similarly, self-described libertarians do not differ a great deal from the public in opinions about foreign policy. [b]Libertarianism is generally associated with a less activist foreign policy, yet a greater share of self-described libertarians (43%) than the public (35%) think “it is best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs.”[b]

    None of the seven groups identified by the 2014 political typology closely resembled libertarians, and, in fact, self-described libertarians can be found in all seven. [b]Their largest representation is among the group we call Business Conservatives; 27% of this group says the term libertarian describes them well.[/b] Business Conservatives generally support limited government, have positive views of business and the U.S. economic system, and are more moderate than other conservative groups on the issue of homosexuality. However, they are also supportive of an activist foreign policy and do not have a libertarian profile on issues of civil liberties.Report

    • Avatar Jim Heffman in reply to Jesse Ewiak says:

      tl;dr: No true Scot would act like this.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Jim Heffman says:

        Actually, it’s more like, “libertarian” is the buzzword of the moment for conservatives who don’t want to admit their conservative in mixed company. Actual libetarianism isn’t more or less popular than it was 15 years ago, it’s just that almost every single libertarian is on Reddit, so it seems that way. 🙂Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Jesse Ewiak says:

      Is it true that liberals believe that only people like Darren Wilson should be able to own guns and take them outside?Report

    • Avatar El Muneco in reply to Jesse Ewiak says:

      It’s only fair that the conservatives should steal “libertarian” after the progressives stole “liberal”…
      For me, I see a unifying thread – stand up for the little guy, but do it by getting off his back and use the strength of government to lift up the foot of the guy who’s keeping the little guy down, and be careful what, beyond that, you empower the government to do.
      But like the Pew numbers say, that particular core is about 5%, which is exactly the same as it was back in 1988 when Paul Sr. seemed like a fresh alternative to Reagan/Dukakis. Frankly, I don’t think that 5% number will ever change, certainly not more than 10% – people just aren’t wired that way (it takes a certain combination of passion and dispassion).
      Like others have said, this isn’t a “libertarian moment”, it’s just conservatives running from the fact that extremists are killing that particular brand.Report

  10. Avatar Kazzy says:

    @jaybird

    Part of the hope is that the future police officers growing up in the context of these demographics will behave very differently than their contemporary counterparts.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *