I know, the silent gen republicans are the lowest of support for marijuana legalization, however most silent gen people I’ve met have been democrats leaning further left than most boomers and gen X. Off the top of my head I can cite Bernie Sanders and Tom Willett.
Assuming my the premise Silent gen is more left leaning than boomers, why is that? Is it because they lived under FDR and saw the fucked up shit the world was doing before we established the UDHR and basic human and civil rights?
Another interesting point in the above survey is that the younger the group, the wider the gap between men and women, with women voting more and more Democratic until you see Millennial women voting 70% Dem while Millennial men are only 49%. Men always vote more Republican than women in every group, but Silent men are the only group which the majority votes Republican. All the others, Dems have the edge.
Silent gen and greatest gen are the ones who attacked hippies with tear gas, and shot anti-war college students.
The earlier you go, the wingnuttier they get.
Gen. Z is sometimes called the “doomed generation”.
Millennial (1981-1996) 44% I, 35% D, 17% R
Generation X (1965-1980) 39% I, 31% D, 25% R
Boomer (1946-1964) 32% I, 35% D, 30% R
Silent (1928-1945) 27% I, 33% D, 38% R
So the percentages of independents has slowly grown, the percentage of Democrats hasn’t changed much, and the percentage of Republicans has slowly decreased. This isn’t a perfect reflection of liberalism and conservatism, but it’s clear that there has been a steady decrease in liberalism and a steady decrease in conservatism. Incidentally, there are a fair amount of Lost Generation and Greatest Generation people still alive in the U.S., although it’s hard to tell what their political beliefs are because it’s hard to sample a group that small relative to the overall U.S. population. Does anyone have a source for how many Americans born in 1927 or earlier are still alive?
This website says that 1.9 million Americans were 90 and older in 2010. That number has presumably increased since then. So, to answer my question, I suspect that the number of Americans born in 1927 or before is somewhere in the range of 700,000 to 1,700,000:
People’s political opinions are affected by (among other things) gender, income level, marital status, employment, race, religion, region, age, union membership, and parental politics. How much each one affects one’s political opinions is harder to say. Does anyone have any statistics on how much each affect it?
So, one stat shows us Boomers as almost as D-leaning as the Xers. Yay, Boomers!
Socioeconomic status (more socio than economic) might be a better indicator than age, but the simple income-to-party correlation is long gone: the D-R split is now almost the same across income cohorts. Two decades ago, religiosity was the one of the strongest indicators: church-goers tended to vote R. Now, education is one of the strongest indicators: college-goers tend to vote D. Gender is also a strong indicator; hence the D’s frequently blaming “white males” when R’s are elected.
I get a different interpretation. Rather than looking at it as a synchronous effect, look at it as how people change politics as they grow older. It looks like most people, when liberal or conservative in their youth, don’t change their politics as they age, but the middle-of-the-roaders tend to get more conservative. Of course, virtually everyone gets somewhat more conservative as they age; that’s unavoidable. And there’ll be individual exceptions, but it’s a general pattern.
If old people are more conservative than young people, though, that could be a result of the people changing, or it could be a result of the environment which defines “liberal” and “conservative” changing. An idea that was considered liberal once, could be considered conservative now.
Or vice versa. Reagan was considered a conservative, but his rhetoric on, for instance, illegal immigration was enormously softer than anything I’ve heard from the Republican party for more than a decade.
As a nation we have grown more liberal regarding inter-racial marriage, same-sex marriage, and pot. But we’ve grown more conservative regarding pretty much anything financial as best as I can tell.
That people get more conservative as they get old is conventional wisdom, true, but I don’t know of any good evidence that it’s true today.
Gallup has a pageon conservative/liberal self-identification by age group. The second chart on that page shows that for the past 20 years, the cohorts have identified fairly steadily within margin of error.
That’s what I was going to say. (Though I would say that most people get more conservative once they have families and property and become more invested in the status quo). To have a fair comparison, you would have to look at the political distribution when the cohorts were the same age.
That’s another confounding factor. In the 1950s, interracial relationships or marriage were not just shocking, they were illegal in much of the country. The same goes for homosexual relationships between the 1960s and now. What were once liberal positions have now become mainstream.
This was an amazingly sloppy typing error on my part. I wrote “it’s clear that there has been a steady decrease in liberalism and a steady decrease in conservatism.” What I meant was “it’s clear that there has been a steady increase in liberalism and a steady decrease in conservatism.”
> Of course, virtually everyone gets somewhat more conservative as they age; that’s
> unavoidable.
I’m not convinced of that at all. My supposition has always been that society as a whole is getting more liberal. The positions that fifty years ago would have been considered typical of a somewhat liberal person are now considered typical of a somewhat conservative person. So without anyone changing their opinions at all, some people (who were around fifty years ago) who were considered liberals then are now considered conservative. I don’t see any evidence that people change their opinions very much as they age.
As an adolescent I backed Goldwater but then I grew up and have been a green rad-lib ever since. Conservative? I want to conserve the best and change the rest.
(Consider cerebral function. Before morning coffee, I’m Republican; after the first cup, I’m a Democrat; after the second cup, I’m a Green. Think of it as evolution in action.)
I sense a continuing disjoint between society and the scope of political power, now worsened by suppression and disenfranchisement. What benefits a liberal society when many are denied the franchise? Have we numbers, by age cohort, of those excluded?
I also object to stereotyped “age cohorts”. I grew up in an old (for Southern California) farming town with a newer missile factory. In my parent’s era, Hollywood tested films here because it was the most “average” American town. We moved to a nearby town hosting farms, dairies, and a state prison. Many of my classmates’ parents there were guards, prisoners, or farmworkers.
My schoolmates ranged from pobrecitos, to scions, to a child TV star. Varieties of White, Black, Latino, Indian, Mayan, Hindu, Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran, Quaker, Baptist, Adventist, you name it. They’re my age cohort. Gone in many directions, they’re certainly not all my social cohort now. Can we be meaningfully generalized?
I also object to the claim that American society can be neatly broken up into standard generations like these:
Lost Generation
Greatest Generation
Silent Generation
Baby Boomers
Generation X
Millennials
Generation Z
I only used them in my post because someone else had already used them in a previous post. Also, it’s possible to find them discussed in various websites with useful statistics. The changes in society are always slow and gradual without any sudden breaks. We should all quit thinking of ourselves as nothing but a member of a generation.
No, an example of evolution in action would be when those who can’t figure out the differences between the different forums on this message board eventually get banned, leading to a board population who mostly can figure out the differences.
The misunderstanding of evolution isn’t a violation of board rules, but the political jab is. As you already know, or at least should, because you already got an official Warning for it yesterday. And now you have a second one. Learn more quickly.