Machine Politics
Will the new
technologies make a
difference in
November?
by
Fred Barnes
Millennial
Makeover
MySpace, YouTube
& the Future of
American
Politics by
Morley Winograd
& Michael D.
Hais Rutgers,
336 pp., $24.95
Unconventional
Wisdom Facts and
Myths About
American Voters
by Karen M.
Kaufmann, John
R. Petrocik, and
Daron R. Shaw
Oxford, 272 pp.,
$21.95
You've heard this
before. A political
earthquake is
coming--and soon. Young
people in their late
teens and early 20s are
ready to vote like never
before. They're a new
and different
generation, inclined to
vote Democratic in large
enough numbers to
precipitate a political
realignment that could
make Democrats the
majority party for years
and years to come.
Indeed, this could
happen. But Republicans
shouldn't panic yet.
Political projections
like this have a
history. In 1972, with
18-to-21-year-olds
permitted to vote for
president for the first
time, George McGovern
thought a tidal wave of
young people would elect
him president over
Richard Nixon. McGovern
lost by 23.2 percentage
points. In 1992 Arthur
M. Schlesinger Jr.
declared that Bill
Clinton's election had
touched off a new era of
Democratic rule. Two
years later, Republicans
won both houses of
Congress and numerous
governorships and state
legislatures in a
historic landslide.
So there's reason enough
to be skeptical of a
realignment led by young
folks (or anyone else),
but not dismissive. The
millennial generation,
consisting of those born
since 1982, is the
largest such cohort in
history, bigger than the
Baby Boomers (born from
1946 to 1964) and not as
conservative as
Generation X (1964 to
1982). And millennials,
in their initial surges
to the polls, voted
slightly Democratic in
2004 and overwhelmingly
(60 percent) in 2006.
In Millennial
Makeover, Morley
Winograd and Michael
Hais argue that this is
just the beginning.
America is about to
experience another
electoral upheaval,
or realignment, just
as it has throughout
its history. ...If
Democrats can
maintain this
initial generational
allegiance during
the next two
presidential
elections, they
should gain a
decisive electoral
edge for decades to
come.
Perhaps they will, but
Winograd and Hais aren't
-unbiased observers.
Both are California
Democrats with extensive
political experience,
and they indulge at
times in Democratic
spin. But they have a
case, based partly on
current political
circumstances in which
Republicans are
retreating and even more
on the nature of the new
generation: "What does
seem clear," they write,
"is that the Democrats'
approach to political
and social issues
appears more compatible
with Millennial
attitudes."
At least for now, I'd
add.
How so? Winograd and
Hais adopt the
generational theory of
history invented by
William Strauss and Neil
Howe that is too
complicated to go into
here. Suffice it to say,
the millennials (aka
Generation Y) fit the
theory perfectly as
civic-minded young
people who are socially
tolerant, optimistic,
academically
accomplished, supportive
of activist government,
and surprisingly
partisan. Their time has
come and, as luck would
have it, right in line
with the Strauss-Howe
theory.
What's particularly
important is their
technological savvy.
"The political world is
about to be shaken to
its core by the arrival
of these new
capabilities for
reaching voters,
especially the
generation that uses
them every moment of
every day," Winograd and
Hais insist. We're
talking here about the
Internet, YouTube, and
iPods, plus the online
social networks MySpace
and Facebook. For
millennials, these are
the preferred channels
for news and information
and for communicating
with friends.
Democrats are far ahead
of Republicans in using
these tools, both to
connect with voters and
raise money. This has
ominous implications.
Republicans once led in
fundraising through
direct mail to millions
of small donors and in
winning elections with
massive TV advertising.
But these are less
effective today. In 1965
a party could reach 80
percent of
18-to-49-year-olds with
three 60-second,
prime-time television
commercials. Now it
would take 117 of these
TV spots to achieve 80
percent coverage. The
Internet is not only an
easier way to contact
young people, it's
cheaper.
"History suggests,"
according to Winograd
and Hais, "that those
who find ways to
integrate the new
technology with existing
tactics to produce
multi-faceted campaigns
that reach all voters
will be especially
successful in future
elections." Barack
Obama's presidential
campaign is the reigning
example.
All of this sounds fine
until Winograd and Hais
get to the shaky
foundation on which
their realignment
scenario rests: "Once
individuals take on a
party identification,"
they write, "they don't
often change it and, as
a result, a rising new
generation spearheads
major shifts in party
identification and the
political realignment
that flows from it." But
the truth is that
Democrats don't yet own
the millennial
generation, and may
never.
The authors of
Unconventional Wisdom,
three political science
professors who
specialize in elections,
certainly aren't
convinced, nor am I. "We
cannot be sure that they
will maintain this
lopsided support for the
Democrats," they write,
"but certainly they
start at a point close
to the New Deal and
Vietnam era voters."
That young voters often
drift to the right as
they get older is a
widely acknowledged
phenomenon. The Vietnam
generation, now 46 to 65
years old, gave
Democrats a 24-point
advantage in the 1960s,
but by 2004 the lead had
shrunk to 8 points.
Young voters in the
Reagan era were slightly
Democratic (5 points) in
the 1980s, but leaned
Republican (6 points) in
the George W. Bush era.
I suspect a critical
moment for millennials
will come, possibly as
early as 2010, when they
face a political
situation they've never
experienced as voters.
So far, their voting
habits have been shaped
by an unpopular
Republican president, a
scandal-ridden
Republican Congress, and
an Iraq war without
victory in sight (until
recently). No wonder
they're Democrats. The
test will come when
they're confronted with
a failed Democratic
president or a reviled
Democratic Congress, or
both at once. My guess
is that they'll begin to
abandon the Democrats in
droves, as they did
during the White House
years of Jimmy Carter
and Bill Clinton.
In general,
Unconventional Wisdom
takes the opposite tack
from Millennial
Makeover. The rise
of millennials is the
hot new story in
politics, touted by the
media and
enthusiastically
embraced by Democrats.
Kaufmann, Petrocik, and
Shaw devote themselves
to debunking trendy
political ideas spouted
by the media and
commentators. They
describe the clash as
"political scientists
versus political
analysts," and it's no
surprise who wins. And
they should win, since
the evidence is on their
side.
They make an especially
compelling case against
"the notion that
elections are generally
won by good campaign
strategies and that
voters are perennially
up for grabs." This
"makes for exciting
journalism and
television commentary,"
but political scientists
know otherwise. In the
real life of elections,
"a predisposition to
favor one of the parties
...remains a dominant
influence on the
political behavior of
Americans." In short,
parties have, by far,
the greatest impact on
the outcome of
elections. No other
factor comes close.
Another myth is that
America is politically
polarized. Political
elites and activists are
polarized, but
rank-and-file voters are
not. Nor do swing voters
come from definable
demographic groups like
soccer moms or office
park dads. They happen
to be voters who are
"relatively less
interested, less
engaged, and less
informed about politics
[and] are spread out
across social groups."
One of the hardy
perennials of politics
is that undecided voters
break decisively for
challengers over
incumbents. Not
empirically true, the
authors point out. And
the modern gender gap
wasn't caused by women
leaving the Republican
party. Rather, it's "a
direct result of white
men moving from the
Democrats to the
Republicans." As for the
notion that a big voter
turnout favors
Democrats, that's true
only if the electoral
mood is going their way.
Usually turnout is "very
nonpartisan." Also, what
matters most about
campaigns is not a
candidate's strategy or
the ability to attract
undecideds: "It is more
common to win an
election by
disproportionately
activating and
mobilizing your
supporters than by
persuading undecided
voters," write Kaufmann,
Petrocik, and Shaw.
We're flooded this year
with political books,
including at least five
instructing
conservatives and
Republicans on how to
rethink their ideas and
policies. But if you'd
rather concentrate on
electoral politics,
Millennial Makeover
and Unconventional
Wisdom should
satisfy. One predicts
the future, the other
deconstructs the
conventional wisdom of
politics.
What more could you ask
for?
Fred Barnes is executive
editor of THE WEEKLY
STANDARD.
© Copyright 2008, News
Corporation, Weekly
Standard, All Rights
Reserved.
