Liberal Parents, Liberal Children

When it comes to politics, today's college freshmen resemble their baby boomer parents of 40 years ago in all ways except two. One way makes perfect sense; the other is a puzzle.

The evidence about kids and their parents isn't anecdotal; it's documented in a study just released by UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute, which has been investigating the attitudes of a massive national sample of American freshmen since the 1960s.

More freshmen today say they frequently discuss politics than at any time since Lyndon Johnson announced that he wouldn't run for re-election. Just since 2000, that slice of young people -- 35.6 percent -- has more than doubled, and it even exceeds by a couple of points the previous high-water mark, when Richard Nixon was elected president. When you add in the number of today's freshmen who say they occasionally discuss politics, you're talking about nearly 86 percent of them, another record.

Today, the proportion of freshmen calling themselves liberal has hit 31 percent, the highest it's been in 35 years. At the same time, the number of students calling their political views middle-of-the-road has hit an all-time low, just over 43 percent, territory it hasn't been in since 1970. Only one out of five students today describes him or herself as conservative, an erosion of more than two points since the year before.

You can see expressions of that liberalism -- a word that doesn't seem to be a boogeyman to today's college freshmen -- in the support by two-thirds of them for same-sex marriage; in the agreement by more than 60 percent of them that "the wealthy should pay a larger share of taxes than they do now"; in the belief by three-quarters of them that "addressing global warming should be a federal priority." More than four out of 10 freshmen want marijuana legalized, while only 28 percent of them want higher military spending, a steep drop from the high of 45 percent in the wake of Sept. 11.

One difference between today's freshmen and the ones buying the Beatles' new "Sgt. Pepper" album -- the difference that makes sense -- is a drop in the number saying that it's very important or essential to find a meaningful philosophy of life. It was 86 percent in 1967. By 2004, that had fallen to a record low of less than 40 percent. Though it stands now at 51.4 percent, that's still a huge drop since 1967. At the same time, the percent saying that being well-off financially is essential or very important has risen from 43.5 percent in 1967 -- half the number looking for a philosophy of life -- to nearly 77 percent today.

Who can blame them? The years between the 1960-61 recession and the 1973 oil crisis saw economic growth, which made it an opportune time to worry more about the meaning of life than about financial security. But with the pall now cast over the economy, it's a wonder that only three out of four freshmen are worried about making ends meet.

To me, the real conundrum in the attitudes of today's freshmen has to do with news. In the late 1960s, keeping up with politics was an essential or very important goal to 60.3 percent of freshmen. By 2000, the number had fallen to less than half of that, a record low. It rose after Sept. 11, but today the figure is still south of 40 percent. How can it be that almost nine out of 10 freshman say they talk about politics, but six out of 10 don't think it's important to keep up with politics?

Here's my guess, completely unsupported by empirical evidence: The opinion-mongering on talk radio, the food-fight culture of cable news, the rumors and screaming sirens online: These, plus campaign invective, are what most of today's freshmen conceive of as political discourse and political news. It's the world they've grown up in.

No wonder that six out of 10 freshmen don't think it's important to keep up with politics. Who would want to, when that means Bill O'Reilly calling people he disagrees with "un-American," or Rush Limbaugh rooting for Barack Obama to fail, or the Drudge Report retailing Republican talking-points as breaking news, or Sarah Palin labeling Obama a terrorist-by-association, or Karl Rove's minions lying about John Kerry's purple hearts?

I know, I know: the fifth of the country who still believe that George Bush was a good president also believe that the real villains of political discourse rule PBS, MSNBC, public radio and the blogosphere. But I believe that my favoring Bill Moyers over Bill Kristol, Rachel Maddow over Sean Hannity, Amy Goodman over Michael Savage, or Glenn Greenwald over Glenn Beck, is a matter not of partisanship, but of truth-value.

I suspect that some young people have figured this out as well. They're the ones who increasingly call themselves liberal, and who don't by that term mean traitorous; they're the ones who have found sources of political information actually worth keeping up with; they're the ones who watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and who get more of the news that citizens need from a half-hour of satire than they do from a half-hour of the soft features and consumer segments that dominate the networks' evening newscasts below the fold of the first commercial.

Maybe the other freshmen, the six out of 10 who talk about politics but don't keep up with it, simply haven't yet found their way to political discourse that doesn't insult their intelligence. What's encouraging is that the trend lines are now going in the right direction. Maybe journalism is on the verge of having a new constituency. It may have to be delivered online, or on TV, instead of on paper, but there's no reason not to follow an audience to where it's spending its time. Who knows? Maybe someone will figure out a new business model that will actually pay for its production.

This is my column from The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. You can read more of my columns here, and e-mail me there if you'd like.

Comments

[Aranxa]

Only 31% consider themselves liberal? What has happened to the ideaiisim of youth? Everyone I knew in college (circa '82-'86) considered themselves liberal. We danced to "Free Nelson Mandela" and meant it. 31% seems rather complacent.

[Teresa Tate]

Was anybody besides me confused about the "math" of this article?
"Today, the proportion of freshmen calling themselves liberal has hit 31 percent, the highest it's been in 35 years. At the same time, the number of students calling their political views middle-of-the-road has hit an all-time low, just over 43 percent, territory it hasn't been in since 1970. Only one out of five students today describes him or herself as conservative, an erosion of more than two points since the year before."
31% plus 43% plus 20% (1 out of 5) equals 94%. What happened to the other 6%? Were they abducted?

[rkg]

"Independent" and "Apolitical" are some of the possibilities that come to mind. Not everyone falls into the three categories of "liberal," "conservative," and "middle of the road."

[roger37]

People on the Right refer to anybody who doesn't agree with them as "lib'ruls.­" So the term is not very definitive.

But it's interesting that kids take their parents "Liberal" positions more now than in the past. Could it be that the liberal are RIGHT?

[isonomist]

I think it is worth noting that the entire notion of the "political spectrum" has shifted to the right in recent decades, such that "liberal" has come to encompass liberalism, progressivism, populism, and really every sort of moderate ideology. "Conservatism" as we have come to know it has been badly damaged by a single administration, and is therefore naturally repulsive to youthful idealism, but that doesnt mean that young people are ready to embrace the social movements of the past. They have simply been lead to believe by that skewed political spectrum that because they do not belong to that outrageous fringe group that is posing as nearly half of the spectrum that they now fall into the liberal category. That because they have a degree of pragmatism they are not spoken to by those that don't. It might be helpful to remember that that pragmatism could lead them to dispise the other extreme just as easily!

[joeyfoto]

Isomist: Although you post is densely written, I think I generally agree with much of it. There is, however, one phrase with which I profoundly disagree. ""Conservatism" as we have come to know it has been badly damaged by a single administra­tion..." I don't believe that is correct.

The dissolution of "Conservatism" did not start with Bush but Reagan. Helms' "circus" in North Caroling got the gimmick of religion; Viguerie developed the mailing list; Schafley added anti-feminist nastiness; "the Boy Scout" Reagan provided a poster boy. In waves of reactionary ugliness fueled by lower-class-white resentment, they built a major party that undermined organized labor while supporting corporate welfare, which resulted in massive income distribution away from the people who voted for them.

Good trick, they got majority votes for economic suicide. In the final phase, of course, they sent their supporter's jobs to India and China, without free trade in return. Eventually the golden goose ran out of eggs, so a massive theft of resources was their coup de grace and parting shot. The devaluation of "Conservatism" began before it reached its popular ascendency. There was no way that the self-reliant philosophy of Goldwater, Friedman, Hayek et al would become so popular without deception. In fact, "social conservatism" is diametrically opposed to the principles of individual liberty that deserve to be called "Conservat­ive." Anyway, "Conservatism" wasn't "damaged by a single administra­tion." The populist "conservative movement" was born with seeds of its own destruction.

[joeyfoto]

How about the hope of rational parents raising rational children to be rational adults with a sense of humanistic values that supersedes the need for a political ideology. How about the hope for a pragmatic generation of young people who are educated to understand that government policy profoundly affects people's lives; therefore, policies must be judged by the balance of their positive and negative impacts; not by whether they are "liberal" or "conservative" but whether or not they work.

The most gratifying conversation that I had during the last election cycle was with my 20 year old daughter who has lived with me not only in America but in France. I about jumped up and cheered when Justine said: "Dad, the stifling power of big government concerns me. I want to vote for a Republican but, when I look at these candidates and their platform, I just can't." In terms of political maturity, I don't know what more a parent could hope for than that.

[Angelzfantasy4]

You must be wealthy... I have lived in France for many years, and I can agree that the government is too big, and the taxes are too high (although it’s a beautiful place). I also lived in the UK for a while and they are a socialist/­capitalist society. Less taxes and much less government benefits.

There is nothing wrong with having a large government as long as the government puts the best interest of the people first. Everyone falls down sometime and most people rely on their family and/or themselves to help pick them back up. What about those who have no family, or who are terminally ill, or children who cannot help themselves? Should the government turn a blind eye? A small government isn’t able to help them because it wouldn’t have the resources.

I am a firm believer in having a capitalist society. However, I believe in hard economic times, the government must increase its size to balance out the private sector decreasing its size. Socialist economies are not all bad, they have many positive attributes that shouldn't be shunned.

[rowzeer]

"The question isn't whether government is too big or too small, it's whether it works"

[super]

How come no one refers to the size of the military ("defense") budget in relation to this "big government"/"small government" debate? The success of Republicans at making generations of Americans think that Democrats are the party of "big government" is the real mystery and scandal.

[RonMar]

Although I agree with Kaplan, someone needs to tell the Lear Center Director/Annenberg School Professor: 1) Many liberals now prefer to be called progressives. 2) Proposition 8 voters defeated same-sex marriage in CA. 3) Global warming has been morphed into climate change as the great threat since global cooling is evident, and that Nancy Pelosi said in a San Francisco Chronicle interview they view it as a revenue source. Surprise, surprise! 4) Drudge collects news and references to news sources and columnists regardless of liberal vs. conservative viewpoints. 5) Un- or ill-informed opinions, e.g., about politics by people who limit their news sources and pay scant attention to news are un- or ill-informed opinions – period. 6) Traditional news media are in trouble due to many self-inflicted wounds.
This would be a kindness to the communications professor and LA Journal writer to help him keep up, especially on local news, politics, media practices and trends.

[LeftRight]

3) Global cooling??? Any evidence of this would be MUCH appreciated, since all the SCIENTIFIC evidence is that we are experiencing warming overall. The reason that it was changed to Global Climate Change is because people like you were confusing the majority who do not educate themselves whenever this weird phenomenon called "winter" popped up!

4) Drudge is ALMOST as much of a rightwingnutjob as Limbaugh! To claim that he's simply collecting news and presenting to the people is insane!

[RonMar]

I agree with Kaplan. Expressions of liberalism are support for same-sex marriage, the notion that "the wealthy should pay a larger share of taxes …" regardless of what they are paying already, belief in global warming, wanting marijuana legalized and freezing or lowering military spending for national defense although we are in a world war with Islamic jihadists. Yes, some struck the WTC and elsewhere on Sept. 11 to complete what they started in 1993 during the Clinton administration. Expressions of liberalism are disdain for O’Reilly, et al, and Republican politicians and preference for PBS, MSNBC, Moyers, et al, comics Stewart, Colbert and Democrat politicians like Kerry.
Expressions of liberalism also include low regard for a philosophy of life in preference for being well-off financially. This is regardless of the clear facts that 1) being well-off financially pushes the liberal toward paying a larger share of taxes than they do now, and 2) a philosophy of life and being well-off financially are not mutually exclusive. Examples of the latter are in Kaplan’s academic titles. Both Norman Lear and Walter Annenberg had philosophies of life and wealth that they used as philanthropists to advance their philosophies of life.

[JessWonderin]

Seems that the more EDUCATION one gets the "less conservative" one becomes . . . hence the apparent Republican drive to DESTROY higher eduction funding, pre-school and generally debasing "learning" as a purpose in education.

Non-thinking followers, content to gather "facts" from drop-out media entertainers suits the Republican Party agenda for the fleecing of the working person . . .

[RonMar]

All you say is untrue. Matter of fact it is just the opposite. Liberal takeover of US schools at all levels took hold 40 years - a generation - ago. Ironically the takeover was advanced by disenchantment with JFK/LBJ and their Best and Brightest advisors - Ivy League-educated idiots. Their advisement got us into the disastrous Southeast Asia War and the loss of 55,000 US lives along with hundreds of thousands of our allies, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians and others. RMN got us out of that debacle with an exit strategy that could have been an entry and quick victory strategy long before the slaughter and waste.
Since the liberal domination we have had a dumbing down in our schools. That has led to the Clinton win, close elections with Gore and Kerry, loss of the Congress in '06 and the Obama victory. Further evidence of the dumbing down is the Howard Stern, Zogby/Ziegler, Leno street interviews, American Civics Literacy Test scores and election of Obama who has fleeced the gullible.
Entertaining it is not, but your wrong and thoughtless comments are supported by the s/n JessWonderin.

[LeftRight]

Again, any evidence of this? Didn't think so. The fact of the matter is that our schools are not the bastions of liberalism that you think they are, nor are the students involved in them dumb enough to be brainwashed. They simply happen to be more liberal because of the fact that the more educated you are, the more liberal you tend to be. Has to do with that whole "meeting people who aren't like you" thing!

[WritusMaximus]

An obvious conclusion, no study necessary. In today's world with the financial mess sure to eat trillions of dollars and likely to persist for years to come, SURVIVAL is king.

[kellygrrrl]

BTW, the book advertised on this page "Mama Voted for Obama" is adorable!!!!!
I bought it for my grandchildren, and both their Mamas loved it!

[kellygrrrl]

I love this piece, Marty, but I don't think today's freshmen are technically the offspring of Boomers.

[Chic Bowdrie]

As a boomer with a daughter still in school, I say, not all of us were early-bloomer Boomers.

[Swedishgal]

Amen. I was on the tail end of the Boomer gen and I have kids in school. Granted one of my oldest is not a freshmen in college anymore but she is a liberal along with my son and slow conversion of my other daughter. We may actually be able to bring this country back into the light! There's hope for us yet!

[lisa12345]

What is amazing Kelly is that some of them are the kids of my own GenX. What the heck??!! the oldest genXers now have college-aged kids. What an interesting combo, the last of the boomer's children and the first of the genXer's children

[RenoSage]

I read doom and gloom. They say "my generation worked harder than young people now, and were
better educated." Consider please that the younger generation may be learning things that are more
in keeping with the world today and the new technology. We could learn a lot from today's students.
If I want to refresh my memory about the Constitution I have it at my fingertips. But I must consult a
first grader about the cell phone and the computer.

[Swedishgal]

Good point. The older generation had to work harder because that's all there was but the technology of the last several years has made it so people are not working harder but they are working smarter. I think these kids now are hard wired for technology coming out of the womb. : )

[joeyfoto]

I am 64 years old, but I live in Silicon Valley and I'm a geek. I still would not want anyone to conflate the ability to use a Blackberry or an iPhone with having an education. Access to information does not necessarily impart the ability to process it; even in hardware those are separate functions.

I have come to believe that "generation-gap" is the dumbest phrase in the American language. Thinking in generational stereotypes adds nothing to our understanding. My kids generally come to me to learn the latest technology, except of course for the damned remote control that operates both the TV and the DVD.

[Nancyok]

"Access to information does not necessarily impart the ability to process it; even in hardware those are separate functions. "

Brilliantly said. I work every day with college students and prior to this semester, I was incredibly fearful for our future. They think they know so much more than they do. Plus, the technology hard-wired from the womb finds them truly less connected, less able to process information. There are exceptions, but their lives characterized by REAL face to face conversations with body language, eye contact, inflection and deeper discourse than you can possibly achieve with a pair of thumbs. But over the last 6 months I see a profound change....­Leadership is my theory. We have someone at the top calling them to action, waking them up and holding them accountable. If Obama achieves nothing else, he may just importantly wake this generation up from their technological slumber.

[oldandintheway1]

HMMMMM, can someone explain to me why my 26 year old son Joined The JINDAL for president campain???­..

[kellygrrrl]

rebel phase?

[DorianCorso]

"HMMMMM, can someone explain to me why my 26 year old son Joined The JINDAL for president campain???­.."

Alex P. Keaton syndrome.

My parents were both very conservative, I went the other way

[idest]

Is your son fascinated by exorcisms?

[nimblehuman]

He wanted to vote for the most coconutty Indian man in American politics?

[TommyObama]

Marty -- you're a professor, right? Do math much?

Today's college freshmen, who are turning 18 or 19, are very, very unlikely to be the offspring of Baby Boomers, no matter now much the Boomer Peter Pan complex might wish it so.

They are the children of the vanguard of Gen X. They were born in 1990 or 1991.

[kellygrrrl]

I had the same thought

[ohioan73]

True. If Gen X spans from 1967 to 1979, then yup, those are our kids entering college this year or next year. I have a 17 year old. Some of them are Gen Joneses kids as well. (1955-66?) Baby boomers' kids would be in there as well because the youngest ones were in their 40s in the 1990s but not many.

[Swedishgal]

Gen Joneses? The last of the baby boomers? I would say the kids now entering college are probably the offspring of the beginning of the Gen Xers. Born between 1989-1991 are the kids that are entering college and consider themselves liberal. Who cares? As long as they remain liberal we'll be okay.

[vim876]

Actually, my mom was born in 1953. My little sister is a senior in high school this year. I'm the oldest and she's the youngest, but we know a relatively significant number of other families in similar situations agewise.

[EasyCheese]

You forgot to mention that most college freshman are not very well informed when it comes to politics..­.actually they aren't really well informed about much...

Pretty much, they don't know anything..­.thanks to our freakishly terrible education system.

[mescalitospoke]

That's a generalization, a pretty ignorant one at that.

[RudyV]

Depends entirely on where the school is located. Suburban kids whose parents are well-to-do tend to be intelligent and thoughtful, rural kids tend to echo the know-nothing conservatism of their less-well off parents, while urban kids whose families are more or less non-existent and economically destroyed couldn't care less about anything that isn't on MySpace.

[idest]

I can safely say that I knew more about World Affairs when I was a college freshman in 2000 than one of the presidential candidates that year did.