Henry Olsen proposed that America’s economic stagnation exists primarily within a segment of the population: the working class. For Olsen, the political party that taps into this group’s declining income and offers a solution to this problem in terms of “comfort, dignity, and respect” will win elections in the future. Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson concluded the panel discussion with a description of Millennials and why they are “a generation worth fighting for” electorally. According to Anderson, Millennials’ and conservatives’ values coincide on several key points, including the importance of hard work, education, family, and individual social responsibility.
I attended the session. In response to my question, Anderson said that she thinks that Millenials’ belief in individual community service rather than government programs provides an opportunity for conservatives.
I disagree. I think that young people are indoctrinated in school to believe that they can identify moral individuals by looking for signals like:
–belief that straight white males have “privilege,” and other classes of people are victims
–belief that intention toward the poor is an indicator of the morality of economic policy
–belief that fossil fuels are evil
Against such indoctrination, conservatives offer arguments like those of Yuval Levin and others that government crowds out civil society. That may be true and important, but it is much too subtle for most young people to grasp. Although they may have acquired some skepticism about big-government solutions, when push comes to shove they will still apply the intention heuristic that the community-service ethic inculcates. The supporters of government programs will get credit for trying, and the supporters of smaller government will be viewed as immoral.
they are “a generation worth fighting for” electorally
And after winning an election, what then? Many of these issues are baked in via demographics and the natural distribution of traits. I would think that ever more promises from aspiring rulers would wear thin over time, but it seems to occupy a wide bandwidth.
When and why did American young people become so docile and easily brainwashed? I went to high school in the 70s and college in the 80s; I don’t remember my peers as such ideologically programmed zombies.
It probably began with the increasing emphasis on “subject specialization” coupled with the maturation of the Guild complex within the institutionalizing of the “Educational Systems” in the elementary and secondary levels c. 1955 on and reaching post-secondary mid 60s.
Results are an institutionalized “System” with an internal Guild structure in which “education” (certification) has become “teaching” rather than learning.
The importance of the “certificate” has become paramount.
That sounds like a plausible explanation, but I was in high school from 1976 to 1980, a decade after the changes to which you refer, and I don’t recall any leftwing indoctrination in high school. Moreover, in the postwar era, the Republicans had their best showing with new voters (such as myself) in the 80s; we were the most Republican cohort of new voters since WWII, from what I’ve read. So something must have changed in the last 30 years. Perhaps it was the kids themselves, who seem to grow up having little independence and with little encouragement for genuine creativity, individuality or risk-taking. That’s the best answer that occurs to me.
The foregoing is in response to R. Richard Schweitzer.