They turn their back on young people

[MSimon]

Establishment Republicans are a breed unto themselves. If you go to their long-term planning meetings, if you listen to them talk about their Party’s future, it’s like listening to well-known lyrics of familiar tunes. It’s all about broadening the base, getting more young people involved, becoming relevant, how to capture enthusiasm, more young people, using the internet, reaching out to young people, figuring out how to fundraise in the digital age, getting more young people.

Now, along comes Ron Paul, who offers them exactly what they want: young people, enthusiasm, an unbeatable social media campaign, devoted volunteers, better demographics, new fundraising success, a campaign worthy of the digital age, relevance, money, excitement, and (did I mention?) young people.

It’s exactly what they have wished for. Exactly what they need. And they turn their back on it.

http://lewrockwell.com/goyette/goyette26.1.html

The young are going libertarian. And the GOP hates that. See Santorum, Rick.

I hope to be around to see what politics looks like in 2024. It should be very amusing.

BTW I did my part - 4 kids - libertarian or libertarian leaning. Heh.

[djolds1]

Establishment Republicans are a breed unto themselves. If you go to their long-term planning meetings, if you listen to them talk about their Party’s future, it’s like listening to well-known lyrics of familiar tunes. It’s all about broadening the base, getting more young people involved, becoming relevant, how to capture enthusiasm, more young people, using the internet, reaching out to young people, figuring out how to fundraise in the digital age, getting more young people.

Now, along comes Ron Paul, who offers them exactly what they want: young people, enthusiasm, an unbeatable social media campaign, devoted volunteers, better demographics, new fundraising success, a campaign worthy of the digital age, relevance, money, excitement, and (did I mention?) young people.

It’s exactly what they have wished for. Exactly what they need. And they turn their back on it.

http://lewrockwell.com/goyette/goyette26.1.html

The young are going libertarian. And the GOP hates that. See Santorum, Rick.

I hope to be around to see what politics looks like in 2024. It should be very amusing.

BTW I did my part - 4 kids - libertarian or libertarian leaning. Heh.

Sincerely doubt you're correct. IMO the next 10-15 years will see a swerve into conformity and regimentation. The insane regulation prevalent today will fall by the wayside, but only because there is agreement that things need to get done. That is not where we are now, but neither is it Libertarianism.

If anything, I expect the Santorum Template will be the policy pattern that succeeds. Populism; Main Street economics sufficient to subordinate High Finance for a few decades and put more than a few Wall Street CEOs in prison pour encourager les autres; and Social Conservatism sufficient to satisfy Hispanics but not the Christian Coalition. I.e. the Truman Democrats with a new title.

The ideas of Progressivism are 100+ years old, near-fully implemented, and failing across the board. But simultaneously, the libertinism of the last 50 years is now old, stale and in accelerating disrepute. Libertarianism is too close to that libertinism to succeed. Crisis is confronted via discipline, and social discipline is inherently regimented.

Something a lot of people miss - American Conservatism is not so much nostalgic for the '50s as conservative for the New Deal; not the Great Society, the New Deal - the unity of purpose and people built during the '30s and '40s. The '50s were the happy-happy penultimate expression of that. The institutions and reforms of the New Deal built unity; the Great Society and its Boomer Prophets tore that unity to pieces and indulged their appetites without restraint.

Now is the time when appetites are restrained.

[kunkmiester]

And all around the edges, as people become more and more educated, agorism and other forms of anarchism will chip away at the smart people in the system, slowly increasing the brain drain.

It may not be much now, but the repubs will eventually have to deal not just with people who want smaller gov than they do, but people who don't want to have anything at all to do with government.

[MSimon]

Libertarianism is too close to that libertinism to succeed.

Ah. But that is exactly the life young people are living these days.

Do you read the news? Are you aware of Game, PUAs, slut culture, etc.? The fact that by age 25 about 50% of the population has tried an illegal drug?

It is not that all the above are widely practiced (even drug use is transient for most), it is that the youth don't think that the government should get involved.

And yes - controllers will try to control - until they find it is a losing proposition. Then they will co-opt.

The only question is will the co-option be from the left or the right? My guess? The right does not have the fortitude for it.

[ladajo]

The fact that by age 25 about 50% of the population has tried an illegal drug?

62.1% for lifetime (tried it) with 25 yr olds in 2010.

Once again, look before you cite.

Ther appears to be a down trend in younger ages, a "hump" moving through the "in-crowd" age bracket 18-25ish, and lessening use at older ages overall, with a hump in the "in-crowd" from the 70s or so.

There does seem to be a correllation to social values of society impacting the actions of the largest use zone, what I am calling the "in-crowd".

The total populace experience is slightly declining. I have to wonder if this is a combined effect between boomers getting old, and drug use boomers kicking off sooner than non-users. There is a defined trend in the statistics that shows a marked loss rate of older folks that have ever had drugs (lifetime), or are recent users (last year/month).

[GIThruster]

I just can't say how amusing it is to read the total nonsense here about how people think the world will be, would be, could be or should be.

There are so many of you, right out of your frick minds! It's like reading facebook with twelve year-olds!!!

[MSimon]

The total populace experience is slightly declining. I have to wonder if this is a combined effect between boomers getting old, and drug use boomers kicking off sooner than non-users

Pot users - the vast majority of illegal drug users - live longer. One study I saw said four years longer.

BTW the drop (to about 40%) lasted 10 years and for the last 10 years it has gone back up to the 50% by age 25 number.

And boomers? Well they got a lot of publicity for their drug use - but actual numbers are low. Right now it is the over 60 crowd that holds back reform. And even that is not solid. Most of the old folks in the family came out against the drug war once one of our younger relatives got a 10 year sentence.

The drug war will work nearly indefinitely as long as its focus is people of color. If they started going after whites (as they should - use rates are about equal across populations) the war would be over in days.

A former police officer explains the whole deal in this video - the good stuff starts about 2 minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmgeCeGk--I

If you look at enforcement it was never a drug war. It was always a race war. In fact if you look at the agitation for the various drug laws (up until the late 50s) you will find that the campaigns were based on race.

You can start with "cocainized negros" to learn more.

For the pot laws it was Mexicans and you are not going to believe this: the Mormon Church. Too many Mormons in Mexico had taken up the habit. Mitt's family might have been involved - I haven't looked it up. But his family did live in Mexico for a while.

=====

BTW 60% vs 50%? I was being conservative.

But think about it. Every one of those 60% was at one time an enemy of the state. Many still are. From a practical point of view - what is the value of having so many enemies of the State? Other than to prop up the left?

The drug war certainly isn't stopping the drug flow (according to 80+% of adult Americans - I have never seen a survey on the subject in the last 10 years that was below 65%)

You can read about the Mormons and the cocainized Negros here:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

It is a talk by a professor of history to a Judges Conference. A similar speech was also given to the FBI.

=====

Funnier still - Prohibition was a Progressive program. The State was going to make us moral people according to a coalition of Progressives and socons.

Alcohol prohibition supposedly taught us a lesson. You can't make people moral by fiat. A lesson better forgotten by those who still want to try.

=====

Well. Time is on my side. Look up the Massachusetts initiative on pot legalization. It almost reads like a libertarian manifesto. Probably to appeal to the youth.

From: http://www.alternet.org/drugs/148782/ma ... a_in_2012/

“This is a good sign for marijuana reform given that midterm elections tend to have much lower turnouts among young voters,” Walker said, “who are, in general, more supportive of legalization — and this midterm in particular had a higher than normal turnout among older conservatives, who tend not to support marijuana reform.

“For these reasons, the 2012 electorate is almost assured to be even more supportive of legalization than the 2010 electorate,” Walker said.

Time Is On My Side

[MSimon]

acknowledging that 100 years of criminalization in Massachusetts has failed to stop the production, distribution and use of marihuana, and that sustained enforcement efforts cannot reasonably be expected to accomplish that goal

http://www.malegislature.gov/bills/187/house/h01371

[MSimon]

If you look at history prohibitions typically last about 50 years. Alcohol prohibition at 13 years was an aberration.

If we start with Nixon in 1970 and add 50 years that gets us to 2020. Since people are living longer it may take 5 more years than that. The trends though are obvious.

And I have a large group (80+% say prohibition is not working) to recruit from. I'd say that nationwide the numbers against prohibition are in the 45% range. All I need to do is pick up about 1/4 of the remaining 40% and the war is over. Or just wait a decade for more OFs to die off.

Time is on my side.

[ladajo]

So, today, are you trying to "legalize" marijuana or are your still trying to legalize all drugs?

What tune are you singing today? Your core theme has alwasys been ALL.

My old assessment remains, your interest is selfish, and you want to breath easy about keeping pot plants on your kitchen window sill.

Too bad you have not studied the National Household survey numbers en-mass. I have offered to send you the spreadsheet/analysis graphs I built for the last 12 years of age verses lifetime/previous year/previous month usage data.

You might learn that some of your thoughts are off base. But that would not be useful for your campaign would it?

[MSimon]

So, today, are you trying to "legalize" marijuana or are your still trying to legalize all drugs?

You have to start somewhere.

23 million Americans have a drug problem for 19 million of those the problem drug is alcohol.

http://letterstotheeditorblog.dallasnew ... g-war.html

We ought to make that crap illegal. ;-)

BTW read also what the retired police detective has to say about prohibition at the link. It isn't working. Who knew?

I also note you are still objectively favoring violent drug cartels to handle the distribution of prohibited drugs. How you going to get law and order that way?

Time is on my side.

BTW how sound is it for the Government to make 50% or 60% of the American people enemies of the state? The wise state tries to keep that number under 5%. Limit it to Jews or some other despised minority. When illegal drug use was popular among less than 5% of the population (heroin/cocaine prohibition) no one cared. But you can't expect to make 50% or 60% of the population outlaws (marijuana prohibition) and have no effect. Pot didn't become popular among white youth until the late 60s. That was the death knell for prohibition. It just takes time. And time is about up.

It is a perfect recruiting tool for the left though.

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/02/the-ptsd-party/

So you want strong criminal drug cartels and more leftys. I give you a 100% conservative rating. Because you want to conserve our current way of life.

Me? I'm a radical. I want to destroy the left and the illegal drug cartels.

I consider the left a bigger menace than drugs could ever be. YMMV.

======

And you know what is going to happen? Just like Civil Rights the left will take the credit for the end of this abomination. With way more justification than they had for claiming to be the sole supporters of equal rights.

I really wish the right would take the lead on this. Not doing so is going to hurt them. Pat Robertson is a welcome shift.

[djolds1]

Libertarianism is too close to that libertinism to succeed.

Ah. But that is exactly the life young people are living these days.

Do you read the news? Are you aware of Game, PUAs, slut culture, etc.? The fact that by age 25 about 50% of the population has tried an illegal drug?

The '20s were very libertine (Flappers) and pro-control (Prohibition). The times of regimentation in the next decade and later gave up on the idiotic control. Regimentation does not mean the enforced caste society of North Korea - it means reducing the levers to what can be managed, but then using the levers.

The only question is will the co-option be from the left or the right? My guess? The right does not have the fortitude for it.

The Left is exhausted. Its ideas are old and played out, and the Left is reduced to last-stand defenses when they should be screaming "Transplant!" On both sides of the Pond, the Left has lost sight of the mission (the ends) they embraced c.1920, and are idolizing the bureaucratic institutions (the means) they built over the course of 60 to 80 years. The meltdown we are in the early stages of now demands fresh thinking, and the Left is not producing any. Downside, the Right on the continent is far less appetizing than its cousin in North America, but such are the consequences of decades of marginalization.

[MSimon]

dj,

The left is old and tired? True. But that is not the left we have anymore. What we have is the Frankfort School left. And they are doing quite well thank you very much. Look at the latest contraception madness - their doing - better than focusing on enforced health insurance don't you think?

The Right is always starting culture wars with no clue - zero - on how to win them.

The trouble is that we have far too many "point your guns at those people and make them do the 'right' thing" kind of people in this country. Left and right. Statists all.

I think the kids are wising up.

[djolds1]

dj,

The left is old and tired? True. But that is not the left we have anymore. What we have is the Frankfort School left. And they are doing quite well thank you very much. Look at the latest contraception madness - their doing - better than focusing on enforced health insurance don't you think?

Alynskyite tactics. Old and familiar. Familiar to the point of being utterly predictable and boring.

The Right is always starting culture wars with no clue - zero - on how to win them.

The culture war of 1810-'60 ground down to mutual gridlock, until finally the assumptions of a half-century were shattered and cast aside. The current culture war is now in the period of terminal gridlock. No compromise by either side, no backing down. I do not anticipate mass violence - there are no longer viable alternative centrums of martial power within the US. But the assumptions of 50 years will shatter, one side's dreams cast aside and the other's made manifest for a human lifetime. An irony is that most of the original ideals of the Left c.1950 are now thoroughly integrated into the "Right." The main remaining point of difference is tolerance or intolerance for the Neverending Jacobin revolution, aka "The Great Society" reforms in modern America.

Left and right. Statists all.

True. So what will not be rejected? The statist model is here to stay, but there are different ways to express it.

The "New Deal" state of a modest social safety net (health care possibly included) has broad support, and some variant on it will survive and be celebrated. The balkanization-engine of the "Great Society" state, not so much.

I think the kids are wising up.

The kids are graduating in an economy that provides no jobs, a national economy amidst a global economy which is primed to finish its 2008 meltdown due to any of a thousand possible first dominoes on the outskirts of the maze. Such a generation does not seek ideological novelty - it seeks and builds security, idolizing sacrifice.

The kids and grandkids of today's young, raised in plenty as spoiled brats, will take security for granted and be willing, even eager, to once again roll the dice on a vision, seeing all things as moral absolutes. But such is the world of 40 years from now, not today.

[cuddihy]

Let me suggest that both the "future is libertarian" and the "future is Victorianism" are both wrong. Msimon is right that Santorum types cannot put the genies of the Revolution back in the bottle. But he is wrong thatif the result went the other direction this would be anything but a temporary victory for libertarian sexual ethos, followed by burkhas and paying the jizya.

Welcome to post-revolution Egypt, 2012. Coming soon to Eurabia, then Flintistan Michigan.

Then Chicago, msimon