Saw an interesting little snippet on NPR this morning: The youngest generation trusts the governent (and other big organizations like churches, corporations) more than previous.

We've debated plenty back and forth whether corporations, government, etc deserve more trust than the other or at all, and I think we know where most of us stand... but I'm interested in what you think this means for the next generation.

I think it's sort of a universal rule of thumb that the generation just previous to the youngest has a pretty bitter feeling towards the younger, I know I find the attitudes of many of my students to be totally baffling, and at times pathetic. But I try to remember history in this regard and assume that each generation has its place and time.

But I'm not sure why this generation would be so trusting... is it because nothing bad has happened? No recent scandals (on the level of impeachment)? No major disasters (we have a decent track record on terrorism now these past 9 years)? A change in values? Is all this self-esteem generation BS generating people so interested in themselves and the minutia of their lives that they never look at the world outside?

Here is the article:

Quote:Opposite Of Radical: Today's Youth Trust Uncle Sam Listen
May 11, 2010
A generation ago, young people vowed never to trust anyone over 30. But as it turns out, those under 30 today are actually more trusting of the government of all age groups, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center.

"As of now, I trust the government," says Brittany Tucker, a poli-sci major at Northeastern University in Boston. "I feel like they are trying to do what's best for us and their constituents."

Tucker believes the government helps more than it hurts. The percentage of young people who agree with her is significantly higher than is the percentage of older people who agree, though it's worth noting that it's still only about a third of the younger set who say they trust the government all or most of the time -- and it's often with caveats.

As another poli-sci major, Jennifer Kral, puts it, everything is relative.

"I definitely think that politicians are given a really bad rap. There are certainly plenty of CEOs and executives who are just as bad, and we certainly shouldn't be pointing fingers just because they're politicians. There are plenty of people in the public spotlight who are just as bad," Kral says.

Both Kral and Tucker made their first foray last week into what they still see as the noble pursuit of politics. They're running for office in their College Democrats' club. (Both won their bids -- Tucker for president, Kral for vice president.)

'Obama-Love' Or 'Blissful Ignorance'?

Like so many of her peers, Tucker was inspired to get into politics by the campaign of President Obama.

"It gives you hope, and that hope turns into trust in the government, because you believe that things can change -- or like good things can happen," Tucker says.

Analysts say that "Obama-love" may be what's propping up young people's trust. Most under-30s supported Obama in 2008 and still do today. But it doesn't explain everything. Even young Republicans who believe the best government is less government are also more trusting than their elders.

Jay Altschuler, a member of Northeastern's College Republicans, says it's basically "blissful ignorance."

"We haven't had a lot of experience with government for the most part," Altschuler says. "I think the most we had to deal with is the [Registry of Motor Vehicles] is what it comes down to."

Attitudes will change when government starts to mean more than just the registry of motor vehicles -- or as one expert put it, when the young people grow up and get "mugged by reality."

Altschuler and fellow Northeastern student and College Republican Michael Sabo agree -- "the second they get a paycheck and they see what comes out of it," Sabo says.

"I think we are all about to learn the hard way," Altschuler says.

The Opposite Of Alienated

If history is any guide, they may be right. Polls going back to 1958 show that trust always begins to head south sometime after age 30. But there are some clues that this generation may be different.

"The millennials are quite positive toward other big institutions -- like corporations and the military and faith -- so it does give you the feeling that it's a different generation," says Tufts University researcher Peter Levine.

Levine says young people today are not angry or alienated like previous generations were.

"They don't define in terms of opposition or trying to smash everything. They don't have a generation gap, really. They really cite parents as role models or political guides. The current thing is you call your mom on your cell phone to ask what she thinks, which I really don't think was a '60s attitude," Levine says.

Indeed, it may be why young people today are largely not swayed by the Tea Party movement, according to the Pew Research Center poll. The Pew survey says more than half of young people didn't know what the Tea Party was. Back at Northeastern, the mere mention of the Tea Party leaves students perplexed.

"What do you mean about the Tea Party?" replies Northeastern senior Will DuComb to a question about the movement.

"The Boston Tea Party?" asks fellow senior Jen Trost.

Like DuComb and Trost, nearly half of young people say they don't follow politics.

"I figure I'll work on that as I get older. I really don't follow it at all. I've just been studying," says Trost.

"Yeah, I just care about my finals," says DuComb.

It's a pretty good bet that these young people will begin to care more as they start looking for work in coming years. And ultimately, it may be the economy more than anything else that determines whether or not they continue to trust the government. If the recession ends sooner, young people may give the government the credit -- and their eternal trust.

But if the economic downturn persists, their positive attitude most likely will not.

"I know I find the attitudes of many of my students to be totally baffling, and at times pathetic."

How so?

At the outset, I will say that trust does not always carry with it a moral component. To trust someone or not to trust him may depend on one's evaluation of the other person's morality, willingness to lie, etc. But it also may be something far less judgmental: it may be that you just don't trust the other person's judgment because the other person views the world differently than you. In other words, when you don't trust him, what you're not trusting is his ability to represent/agree with your interests.

That said, to address your topic, I think trust--whether it be in institutions or fellow men--is something people have until experience shows them that it can bite them in the ass. Hard. At my current point in life (mid-30s), I have a spectrum of trust, where I may trust A more than I trust B but less than I trust C, but at the end of the day I only truly trust my closest friends, my family, and myself. I voted for Obama, but I don't always trust him to do what I feel is right--not necessarily because I think he's a bad guy, but because I think he has certain agendas and cares that I don't have, and vice versa.

The wife and I (both young Rice grads) heard the same story this morning and thought we must be in a dumb generation. I don't trust the either the government or any corporations further than I can kick them.

Maybe the story is just a long-winded way of saying that young people are naive. That's hardly news.

Of course, there's Churchill's observation that if you're not a liberal when you're 20, you don't have a heart. And if you're not a conservative when you're 40, you don't have a brain. I'd like to think the two aren't mutually exclusive.

There's speculation that the WWII generation is more prone to scams these days because they grew up in an era when people were more trusting, in general.

well, very broadly speaking, the ideological curve is something like idealistic and liberal when young, moving to conservative and more cynical mid-life, and then inexplicably reversing as you get older and (I guess) gain wisdom or acceptance. Obviously not everyone, but it seems to be a trend among some.

I don't trust anyone or anything with power, and the more power they have, the less I trust them. I'm a strong believer that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I tend to trust corporations more than government because:
1. Corporations have inherently less power. Exxon can't put me in jail; even a small municipality can if they want to.
2. Corporate employees are subject to more scrutiny than government bureaucrats. Compare what happened to the Enron executives with what happened to the Freddie/Fannie executives, or to Dodd/Franks if you want to argue that Freddie/Fannie are private organizations (they aren't, not really).

What I don't buy, not one iota, is the standard assumption on the left that corporations are run by greedy b@st@rds out to screw you but government agencies are staffed by altruistic people who have your best interests at heart. Government agencies are staffed by the same human beings as corporations, and they are subject to exactly the same pressures--in short, greedy b@st@rds out to screw you. Since pretty much all big-government thinking rests on this assumption, I'm a small-government guy. If that means corporations have more power, I'm willing to accept that trade-off.

(05-12-2010 06:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't trust anyone or anything with power, and the more power they have, the less I trust them. I'm a strong believer that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I tend to trust corporations more than government because:
1. Corporations have inherently less power. Exxon can't put me in jail; even a small municipality can if they want to.
2. Corporate employees are subject to more scrutiny than government bureaucrats. Compare what happened to the Enron executives with what happened to the Freddie/Fannie executives, or to Dodd/Franks if you want to argue that Freddie/Fannie are private organizations (they aren't, not really).

What I don't buy, not one iota, is the standard assumption on the left that corporations are run by greedy b@st@rds out to screw you but government agencies are staffed by altruistic people who have your best interests at heart. Government agencies are staffed by the same human beings as corporations, and they are subject to exactly the same pressures--in short, greedy b@st@rds out to screw you. Since pretty much all big-government thinking rests on this assumption, I'm a small-government guy. If that means corporations have more power, I'm willing to accept that trade-off.

A great post.

(05-11-2010 09:19 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  Saw an interesting little snippet on NPR this morning: The youngest generation trusts the government (and other big organizations like churches, corporations) more than previous...

But I'm not sure why this generation would be so trusting...

The article you cite, emmie, provides the most compelling answer:

Quote:Like so many of her peers, Tucker was inspired to get into politics by the campaign of President Obama.

It is quite fashionable on this board to diss Obama. (After all, he's incredibly unpopular, right? Everybody hates him! Wait -- What did you say? More people approve than disapprove of the job he's doing? Liar!...)

My conservative friends ignore the long-term effects of the 2008 election at their peril, however. As the Pew Report shows, Millennials voted overwhelmingly Democratic at historically high levels. The gap between the votes of younger and older voters was the largest in four decades. While cohorts certainly tend to become more conservative over time, as many here have observed, political views formed when coming of age tend to persist. Witness Gen X-ers who matured around 1994, or our friends who grew up idolizing Ronald Reagan.

Obama advocated for pragmatic liberalism and the good that government can do in a way America hasn't heard in some time. His slogan, after all, was "Yes, we can." Sounds like a message endorsing trust in government and institutions to me.

Cranky conservatives can roll their eyes at the gullibility of the young'uns and holler "Get off my lawn!" all they want, but the Pew study you reference, emmie, documents in great detail important developments that could shape politics and society for decades to come. It is an exciting time. The times, they certainly are a-changin'.

(05-12-2010 04:39 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(05-11-2010 09:19 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  Saw an interesting little snippet on NPR this morning: The youngest generation trusts the government (and other big organizations like churches, corporations) more than previous...
But I'm not sure why this generation would be so trusting...

The article you cite, emmie, provides the most compelling answer:

Quote:Like so many of her peers, Tucker was inspired to get into politics by the campaign of President Obama.

It is quite fashionable on this board to diss Obama. (After all, he's incredibly unpopular, right? Everybody hates him! Wait -- What did you say? More people approve than disapprove of the job he's doing? Liar!...)
My conservative friends ignore the long-term effects of the 2008 election at their peril, however. As the Pew Report shows, Millennials voted overwhelmingly Democratic at historically high levels. The gap between the votes of younger and older voters was the largest in four decades. While cohorts certainly tend to become more conservative over time, as many here have observed, political views formed when coming of age tend to persist. Witness Gen X-ers who matured around 1994, or our friends who grew up idolizing Ronald Reagan.
Obama advocated for pragmatic liberalism and the good that government can do in a way America hasn't heard in some time. His slogan, after all, was "Yes, we can." Sounds like a message endorsing trust in government and institutions to me.
Cranky conservatives can roll their eyes at the gullibility of the young'uns and holler "Get off my lawn!" all they want, but the Pew study you reference, emmie, documents in great detail important developments that could shape politics and society for decades to come. It is an exciting time. The times, they certainly are a-changin'.

I'm just glad somebody is happy with all these developments. I wish I were.

I simply don't see how this can possibly work. If we stay on the course Obama is charting, I see us being Greece within 10 years. I wish someone could explain how we dodge that bullet, but I just don't see it.

(05-12-2010 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I simply don't see how this can possibly work. If we stay on the course Obama is charting, I see us being Greece within 10 years.

You mean, "If we stay on the course Bush and the GOP charted..." Obama and the Democrats are reducing the deficit. But you knew that.

Perhaps as you experience more politicians lying to you, but still getting elected, you grow in your cynicism/mistrust. Most of the young people who voted for Obama haven't experienced it at all, or were lied to by Bush, so Obama was the obvious response. I'm sure that some, though certainly not all are feeling lied to... and/or realizing that people like Pelosi and Franks drive the bus more than Obama does... Of course, some will be fine with that, but others will lose faith. Reagan was unique in that he was an older person who still appealed somewhat to younger people. McCain wasn't.

(05-12-2010 04:57 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(05-12-2010 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I simply don't see how this can possibly work. If we stay on the course Obama is charting, I see us being Greece within 10 years.

You mean, "If we stay on the course Bush and the GOP charted..." Obama and the Democrats are reducing the deficit. But you knew that.

Help me out here.
On my computer screen, I see a line that shows a rising trend, on a scale where rising seems to indicate bigger deficits.
So how is Obama reducing the deficits?
Is my computer screen defective?
What am I missing?

You'll get no argument from me that the course Bush charted was wrong.
That is insufficient to make the course that Obama is charting right.

If your point is that the red line is lower than the blue line, I'd say that the extent of that difference is only sufficient to make a year, maybe two at most, difference in our ETA Greece.

(05-12-2010 04:57 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(05-12-2010 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I simply don't see how this can possibly work. If we stay on the course Obama is charting, I see us being Greece within 10 years.

You mean, "If we stay on the course Bush and the GOP charted..." Obama and the Democrats are reducing the deficit. But you knew that.

Oh C'mon Boston. Bush had the same charts and graphs prepared by the same CBO that showed a much rosier picture than actually happened.... Notice that this isn't the CBO's projections... but the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" projections of the status quo versus their interpretation of the CBO's numbers. Do you even know who those people are or what their agenda is?/ Trust me when I say it can greatly impact a 10yr budget projection.

Like Owl, I'll agree 100% that Bush had us headed in the wrong direction... but I'm smart enough to to my own interpretations of economic policy than to simply buy into some group with an agenda's projections. Being "marginally better than Bush", if that is your argument... isn't what Obama promised


ETA: A quick scan of the pieces put out by the CBPP makes them appear to be the "marketing department" for the Democratic party. Forgive me if I don't find their projections of the status quo OR the impact of Obama's policies to be without bias.

(05-12-2010 05:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Help me out here.
On my computer screen, I see a line that shows a rising trend, on a scale where rising seems to indicate bigger deficits.
So how is Obama reducing the deficits?

Heh. I think you know the answer and maybe are pulling my leg. But anyway, it's the gap between the blue (baseline/status quo) and red (Obama) lines. The red line is lower than the blue line. Thus, compared to what would have happened, Obama reduces the deficit.

It would be fair to say that Obama and the Democrats should do more to reduce the deficit. It would even be fair to say that Obama and the Democrats (and the Republicans) should do what is necessary to turn the red line downward. But that must come with the acknowledgment that the issue is a pre-existing deficit that Democrats have already begun to reduce, not one that Barry somehow magically created. That's all.

(05-12-2010 05:13 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  Heh. I think you know the answer and maybe are pulling my leg. But anyway, it's the gap between the blue (baseline/status quo) and red (Obama) lines. The red line is lower than the blue line. Thus, compared to what would have happened, Obama reduces the deficit.
It would be fair to say that Obama and the Democrats should do more to reduce the deficit. It would even be fair to say that Obama and the Democrats (and the Republicans) should do what is necessary to turn the red line downward. But that must come with the acknowledgment that the issue is a pre-existing deficit that Democrats have already begun to reduce, not one that Barry somehow magically created. That's all.

Nobody says that Barry created the mess. And if you've followed along, you've noted that I'm no fan of Shrub.

But Shrub is wrong does not equal Obama is right.

If you want me to give Obama any credit, then the red line or the blue line or whatever line needs to keep trending downward after 2013, not heading back up. And that needs to be a realistic projection, not an optimistic one. So far he falls far short on both counts.

As I said above, the difference between the red line and the blue line is how long it takes us to become Greece.

So no, I'm not willing to give Obama one iota of credit for reducing the blue line to the red line. Particularly since what I can find seems to indicate that both the blue line and the red line are wildly optimistic speculations.

(05-12-2010 04:39 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(05-11-2010 09:19 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  Saw an interesting little snippet on NPR this morning: The youngest generation trusts the government (and other big organizations like churches, corporations) more than previous...

But I'm not sure why this generation would be so trusting...

The article you cite, emmie, provides the most compelling answer:

Quote:Like so many of her peers, Tucker was inspired to get into politics by the campaign of President Obama.

It is quite fashionable on this board to diss Obama. (After all, he's incredibly unpopular, right? Everybody hates him! Wait -- What did you say? More people approve than disapprove of the job he's doing? Liar!...)

My conservative friends ignore the long-term effects of the 2008 election at their peril, however. As the Pew Report shows, Millennials voted overwhelmingly Democratic at historically high levels. The gap between the votes of younger and older voters was the largest in four decades. While cohorts certainly tend to become more conservative over time, as many here have observed, political views formed when coming of age tend to persist. Witness Gen X-ers who matured around 1994, or our friends who grew up idolizing Ronald Reagan.

Obama advocated for pragmatic liberalism and the good that government can do in a way America hasn't heard in some time. His slogan, after all, was "Yes, we can." Sounds like a message endorsing trust in government and institutions to me.

Cranky conservatives can roll their eyes at the gullibility of the young'uns and holler "Get off my lawn!" all they want, but the Pew study you reference, emmie, documents in great detail important developments that could shape politics and society for decades to come. It is an exciting time. The times, they certainly are a-changin'.

Actually not everyone who voted Republican has dissed Obama or said he was unpopular. Actually quite the contrary. As a public speaker, Obama is clearly gifted. I've said all along that the election had less to do with the platform or the political issues, and a lot more to do with popularity and unpopularity. Obama won the election. Howard Dean would not have.

Idealism has always won adherents. If people actually study what Christ taught, they'd have a better understanding of why Christianity still exists (as opposed to studying the form and function of church policy, politics and human failing).

Obama's followers were no more passionate than Bobby Kennedy's. Obama has more of an affinity with certain demographic groups than Bobby did, as it is presumed as a minority, that he can relate (to all minorities) to them.

But all in all, the passion involved in Kennedy's campaign was certainly equal for the core followers.

Idealism as a motivator is good, but it's generally not good at sustaining massive populations for extended periods. That's because some people are idealistic for idealism's sake, while others are idealistic about results.

When results don't match the idealism long term, (how can they? people, even idealistic ones, are prone to self-service, selfishness, and human error; and you can't enforce idealism on a population of hundreds of millions . . . .without becoming a dictator . . . . . you have to compromise) only the true idealists tend to remain.

The followers of MLK and FDR were fueled by idealism (and in both cases also out of some desparation, heck Bobby Kennedy's core base was also motivated by desparation in some cases as well). But (not equating the ideals) so were the followers of Marx and Lenin. to name a few.

Your desire to see Obama change the landscape is understandable (and idealistic). He may change things indeed. But ultimately it seems unlikely that he could change thinking permanently (as you allude to).

I mean, he's not Chavez, and there is no move to change the constitution to extend his term beyond 8 years.

It's also funny how perception and reality sometimes diverge.

Bobby Kennedy had intensely passionate followers, and exuded idealism, some of whom hated LBJ with a passion.

Yet LBJ, with his passage of civil rights and Great Society legislation may have been the most effective champion for idealism . . . . and he certainly was the king of pragmatism.

Obama is smart, popular, and may well be unbeatable. You call him a pragmatic liberal. That may be effective (see LBJ), but fails to engender long-term passion. Ultimately, if he stays pragmatic, he will need to rely on his popularity and the demographic coalations he's set up, to continue in office. Personally, I think he's smart enough, a good enough speaker and has a strong enough base to do just that. Absent Vietnam, LBJ would've been unbeatable in 1968.

That doesn't mean that the results of the idealism will be achieved . . . . or if the goals of the idealism are achieved that the end result will be what the idealists wanted at the start, or what they will want at the end.

Face it. to use an example, true communism would be one of the most idealistic pursuits you could imagine . . . . . . . IF it were a philosophy of perfect, selfless individuals and that all individuals thought alike and defined perfection, fairness and selflessness in the same way.

Problem is that in the laboratory of human living, it fails miserably because the requisite perfection, uniformity of thought and definition and requisite selflessness do not exist. It requires dictatorship and totalitarianism to enforce.

And dictatorships are one reason why people don't trust governments as they grow older.

(05-12-2010 04:57 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(05-12-2010 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I simply don't see how this can possibly work. If we stay on the course Obama is charting, I see us being Greece within 10 years.

You mean, "If we stay on the course Bush and the GOP charted..." Obama and the Democrats are reducing the deficit. But you knew that.

Agree that it's unfair to only blame Democrats . . .

But the deficit isn't being reduced in that graph, it's just being increased at a slightly reduced rate.

And the graph, no doubt, is produced by the same people who came out this week saying that the cost savings they projected to health care reform, in their updated projections, have disappeared.

Bring me the graph in two years with actual results (not optimistic projections) and then we can talk.

I don't know if there is a winning budget hand to be dealt, but I do know that government isn't going to slow the problem down by expanding services.

(05-12-2010 05:13 PM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(05-12-2010 05:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Help me out here.
On my computer screen, I see a line that shows a rising trend, on a scale where rising seems to indicate bigger deficits.
So how is Obama reducing the deficits?

Heh. I think you know the answer and maybe are pulling my leg. But anyway, it's the gap between the blue (baseline/status quo) and red (Obama) lines. The red line is lower than the blue line. Thus, compared to what would have happened, Obama reduces the deficit.

It would be fair to say that Obama and the Democrats should do more to reduce the deficit. It would even be fair to say that Obama and the Democrats (and the Republicans) should do what is necessary to turn the red line downward. But that must come with the acknowledgment that the issue is a pre-existing deficit that Democrats have already begun to reduce, not one that Barry somehow magically created. That's all.

Democrats (who've controlled Congress for longer than just the last year) have not already begun to reduce the deficit.

The deficit is increasing. The graph shows a marginally slower rate of increase, not a decrease at all, and there is no explanation of how they come to those projections.

Right now, the only ones who could REALLY reduce the deficits are the Democrats. They have control of the White House and both Houses.

What they've done instead is use their window to affect real, meaningful change not on reducing the deficit and quitting the policy of pushing the problem out to the cliff (the one Greece and Europe are teetering on, despite their higher tax rates and more socialized systems), but rather on expanding services, and allowing the deficit to continue to build.

As a result, their overarching majority has been lost in the Senate and will be further eroded in all likelihood this fall.

They had a unique opportunity. In fairness, the economy got in the way to a degree. But focusing on health care also allowed that opportunity to slip through their fingers.