Posted on Mar 3, 2016
Why does the older generation tend to be conservative while the younger generation today is more liberal?
17.5K
223
124
6
6
0
I will always be about progress, I will always be about moving forward as a society. So why is it people cling onto outdated ideology? by which I mean those who are against things like interracial relationship, the LGBT movement, or anything that was generally accepted as the norm over 60+ years ago. why is it that some people don't want society to change?
Politics
Liberal
Conservative
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 48
2
2
0
"Liberal" and "Conservative", "Left" and "Right" are just labels used by those that identify with a particular ideology. Some people chose to form their own opinions and beliefs based on their own values and not that of a political faction. Make your own choices on what you believe is right, not on what side its on.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Mark Ramos
I wish that were true. Humans are not as independent as we like to think. We're basically pack animals.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Simple answer, young people are much more infuenced today by the educational system and the media than they are by their parents. The media and educational system(at least in the past 50 years) are bastions of liberalism. While they hem and haw about being unbiased they consistantly present one side of an issue and silence any criticism.
I found this interesting quote by a former foresensic psychologist Marlin Newburn, now a professor at Lake Superior State University. He spent 30 years working in the Michigan State Prison and Court System and examined all kinds of criminals.
"Over the years I've examined and found a trait of sociopath in most liberals. They have this sadistic gratification in creating or fomenting social chaos and conflicts,then, presenting themselves as "above it all", they arrive to fix the problem they themselves caused or perpetuated. Think of it as a mental illness. A Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome, but on a very large scale"
I found this interesting quote by a former foresensic psychologist Marlin Newburn, now a professor at Lake Superior State University. He spent 30 years working in the Michigan State Prison and Court System and examined all kinds of criminals.
"Over the years I've examined and found a trait of sociopath in most liberals. They have this sadistic gratification in creating or fomenting social chaos and conflicts,then, presenting themselves as "above it all", they arrive to fix the problem they themselves caused or perpetuated. Think of it as a mental illness. A Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome, but on a very large scale"
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
All change is not for the better. Why should people who have worked all their life, pay for college for students who did not work to learn in high school?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Because youngsters tend to be idealists (which leans them towards being liberal) while older folks have been smacked around by reality (which leans them towards being more conservative).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Because the older generation has a lot of experience with multiple presidencies covering both parties of which the Republican side has generally been stronger. That and when you are used to things being the way they are for years with you still being well off then it makes sense to want to keep things that way. You know the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Now the items you specifically addressed are generally based on religious views of which the majority of religious individuals are conservative. LGBT in particular is viewed as sinful and wrong in many Christian denominations and with Christianity being the largest religion in the country and with the majority of Christians being conservative it makes sense that they don't want things to change. Also makes sense that older generations are those ones clinging to the past as many in the younger generation aren't Christians, whether they don't hang on to their faith or never believed in the first place.
The younger generation has been impacted a lot by the recession as well so hearing people like Sanders getting up on stage and promising free/lower cost college, $15 minimum wage, and other benefits is obviously going to draw the younger crowds attention whereas your older generation (not in every case but in many cases) has solid jobs, nearing retirement or at least working towards it, have a house whether they are still paying it off or are done paying it off, etc. They are fine with what they have whereas the young generation sees that they have all of that and of course want it themselves but don't want to put forth the work it takes to achieve those goals.
I am personally conservative myself despite being only 21. Most of the people I went to school with (who also unsurprisingly have no military, government, or political experience) are flocking to either Sanders or Clinton because they both promise such amazing things. I won't lie, even early on I didn't mind Sanders, thought he would be a good choice and if I were to dump my Conservative Christian mindset I would probably be on board with him like everyone else my age. But the fact is he's a politician like everyone else. Every single promise he makes should be taken with a grain of salt not with the blind dedication that most of his supporters are giving him. It all sounds good initially but how is he going to achieve any of what he proposes, especially with a primarily Republican house, many members of which I support. After thinking about it I just can't get on board with him. It's not because I am not progressive but simply because I don't believe he can achieve the goals he is promising.
I am not racist, I have no issues with interracial relationships, I have no problems with blacks or Hispanics or Asians. I am not a homophobe, although I don't agree with homosexuality I understand it isn't my place to judge nor deny another human of their rights to love who they want to love. I don't believe college should be near as expensive as it currently is, I also don't think it should necessarily be free but it should be attainable by the average citizen. I don't think minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour because no, McDonald's is not meant to be a permanent job, it's not meant to be a long term sustainable income, and you shouldn't be getting paid near as much if not more than someone who is willing to place themselves in harms way for your right to bitch about it. It's not that I am not a progressive, it's that I am sick of being force fed liberal logic and propaganda being told I need to tolerate it but the moment I want to voice my opinion on the matter even in a civilized conversation I am labeled an intolerant racist bigot who just wants to force the Bible on everyone in this country which couldn't be further from the truth.
So maybe the BLUF is the older generation, like me, is simply tired of being forced to change things that already work or have better solutions while the younger generation whines and complains about not getting their freebies and participation trophies and tries to make everyone else provide those to them.
Now the items you specifically addressed are generally based on religious views of which the majority of religious individuals are conservative. LGBT in particular is viewed as sinful and wrong in many Christian denominations and with Christianity being the largest religion in the country and with the majority of Christians being conservative it makes sense that they don't want things to change. Also makes sense that older generations are those ones clinging to the past as many in the younger generation aren't Christians, whether they don't hang on to their faith or never believed in the first place.
The younger generation has been impacted a lot by the recession as well so hearing people like Sanders getting up on stage and promising free/lower cost college, $15 minimum wage, and other benefits is obviously going to draw the younger crowds attention whereas your older generation (not in every case but in many cases) has solid jobs, nearing retirement or at least working towards it, have a house whether they are still paying it off or are done paying it off, etc. They are fine with what they have whereas the young generation sees that they have all of that and of course want it themselves but don't want to put forth the work it takes to achieve those goals.
I am personally conservative myself despite being only 21. Most of the people I went to school with (who also unsurprisingly have no military, government, or political experience) are flocking to either Sanders or Clinton because they both promise such amazing things. I won't lie, even early on I didn't mind Sanders, thought he would be a good choice and if I were to dump my Conservative Christian mindset I would probably be on board with him like everyone else my age. But the fact is he's a politician like everyone else. Every single promise he makes should be taken with a grain of salt not with the blind dedication that most of his supporters are giving him. It all sounds good initially but how is he going to achieve any of what he proposes, especially with a primarily Republican house, many members of which I support. After thinking about it I just can't get on board with him. It's not because I am not progressive but simply because I don't believe he can achieve the goals he is promising.
I am not racist, I have no issues with interracial relationships, I have no problems with blacks or Hispanics or Asians. I am not a homophobe, although I don't agree with homosexuality I understand it isn't my place to judge nor deny another human of their rights to love who they want to love. I don't believe college should be near as expensive as it currently is, I also don't think it should necessarily be free but it should be attainable by the average citizen. I don't think minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour because no, McDonald's is not meant to be a permanent job, it's not meant to be a long term sustainable income, and you shouldn't be getting paid near as much if not more than someone who is willing to place themselves in harms way for your right to bitch about it. It's not that I am not a progressive, it's that I am sick of being force fed liberal logic and propaganda being told I need to tolerate it but the moment I want to voice my opinion on the matter even in a civilized conversation I am labeled an intolerant racist bigot who just wants to force the Bible on everyone in this country which couldn't be further from the truth.
So maybe the BLUF is the older generation, like me, is simply tired of being forced to change things that already work or have better solutions while the younger generation whines and complains about not getting their freebies and participation trophies and tries to make everyone else provide those to them.
(1)
(0)
A1C Melissa Jackson
I will throw in my two cents, here.
I automatically think of "the older generation" as the baby boomers because my parents are baby boomers.
I will keep this as brief as possible by listing some key differences.
1) more baby boomer children had stay at home mothers
2) far lower divorce rates for baby boomers
3) one income could ordinarily support a family during baby boomer's time
4) fewer things were "possible" then. Technology has shot MUCH further in the last 30 years than it had for many centuries.
We "generation x" sorts grew up with FAR less stability. We came home to empty houses. We watched a lot more television. We learned how it use a computer early. When most of us emerged to the other side of childhood and tried to fledge the number and quality of jobs just WEREN'T there for us. A lot of us thought that our only option to avoid poverty (we could not stay in our parent's homes as long as we might otherwise had to give us time to get on our feet- they were remarried, maybe even for the third or fourth times- and we were hangers-on that reminded them of their exes and were not wanted around) many of us thought to avoid instant poverty at 18 was going into the military and then we would be given the necessary resources to survive. Some of us were mislead about the Montgomery GI Bill. We thought it would pay for college tuition and books. It did not. Then we figured it would be sufficient to pay living expenses. It was not. So most of us in our drive to succeed in spite of the many factors working against us- went into tremendous hock to get educations. These loans strip our income back down almost to the lower levels we sought to escape. Labor Unions have pretty much been stripped to the bone due to our nation's economic decisions and anti-labor law-making practices over the last 30 years, so most of us did not have that old standby- join a union and learn a trade. Turns out that we were getting "trickled" all over by rich white men.
Then our (late) attempts at REALLY joining the economy were shot down by the housing crisis. We were so smothered by the loss of our homes, jobs, and the overwhelming debt that we used in getting our educations thinking it would balance out in the long run....many of our lives were damaged LONG TERM.
Let's go back to that parental support- a lot is us did not have any. Do I mean our parents should support us financially for an indefinite quantity of time? No- but once again they were so focused on themselves and their multiple marriages that they were not even available for support other than to admonish: you really ought to get a job.
A person can have education and experience out the wazoo, but if there are NO JOBS then what can a person do?
Some of us have spent nearly our entire adult lives in an untenable "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" spiral.
I think that accounts for some of the differences.
I automatically think of "the older generation" as the baby boomers because my parents are baby boomers.
I will keep this as brief as possible by listing some key differences.
1) more baby boomer children had stay at home mothers
2) far lower divorce rates for baby boomers
3) one income could ordinarily support a family during baby boomer's time
4) fewer things were "possible" then. Technology has shot MUCH further in the last 30 years than it had for many centuries.
We "generation x" sorts grew up with FAR less stability. We came home to empty houses. We watched a lot more television. We learned how it use a computer early. When most of us emerged to the other side of childhood and tried to fledge the number and quality of jobs just WEREN'T there for us. A lot of us thought that our only option to avoid poverty (we could not stay in our parent's homes as long as we might otherwise had to give us time to get on our feet- they were remarried, maybe even for the third or fourth times- and we were hangers-on that reminded them of their exes and were not wanted around) many of us thought to avoid instant poverty at 18 was going into the military and then we would be given the necessary resources to survive. Some of us were mislead about the Montgomery GI Bill. We thought it would pay for college tuition and books. It did not. Then we figured it would be sufficient to pay living expenses. It was not. So most of us in our drive to succeed in spite of the many factors working against us- went into tremendous hock to get educations. These loans strip our income back down almost to the lower levels we sought to escape. Labor Unions have pretty much been stripped to the bone due to our nation's economic decisions and anti-labor law-making practices over the last 30 years, so most of us did not have that old standby- join a union and learn a trade. Turns out that we were getting "trickled" all over by rich white men.
Then our (late) attempts at REALLY joining the economy were shot down by the housing crisis. We were so smothered by the loss of our homes, jobs, and the overwhelming debt that we used in getting our educations thinking it would balance out in the long run....many of our lives were damaged LONG TERM.
Let's go back to that parental support- a lot is us did not have any. Do I mean our parents should support us financially for an indefinite quantity of time? No- but once again they were so focused on themselves and their multiple marriages that they were not even available for support other than to admonish: you really ought to get a job.
A person can have education and experience out the wazoo, but if there are NO JOBS then what can a person do?
Some of us have spent nearly our entire adult lives in an untenable "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" spiral.
I think that accounts for some of the differences.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Good question because we grew up in the depression in the '30s & lived through WWII & Korea. We never had much money. So conserving everything is our way of life which effects how we think and .
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
PFC Alexander Oliveira , though I consider myself a Liberal, in the classical sense, I believe that makes me a Constitutional Conservative, as our Constitution was written to epitomize the ideas of individual and economic freedom. I am a liberal in the vein of Friedrich Hayek, Bernard Mandeville, David Hume, Adam Smith, John Locke, Adam Ferguson, Rousseau, Condorcet, Montesquieu, Tocqueville, Thomas Hobbes, Priestley, Richard Price, and Thomas Paine. These men are the basis of a renaissance of thought that involved the idea that governments obtain their power from the consent of the governed, and not from God, or from heredity, or from the point of a sword, or the muzzle of a gun as Mao suggested.
So, I am in solidarity with you, and your desire to recognize relationships of all types among consenting adults. Where I believe we're likely to differ, (based on your description as a progressive), is in the role government should play in these relationships. Where I believe civil relationships should have no bearing on our relationship or interactions with government, progressives wish to "legitimize" such relationships for the purpose of obtaining special benefits, or privileges that stem from being "married". The Classical Liberal/Constitutionally Conservative position is one where the Federal government acts generally, and would, or should have no policy, benefit, or penalty, either for, or against any form of relationships between consenting adults. This position holds that "societal" changes don't need to be shoved down people's throats, that people, as individuals, have freedom of association, and that the government should keep it's nose out of our personal business, and do it's job, which is clearly enumerated in the Constitution, and does NOT involve granting special favors, or monetary benefits for being in some types of relationships, or not being in others.
Regards.
So, I am in solidarity with you, and your desire to recognize relationships of all types among consenting adults. Where I believe we're likely to differ, (based on your description as a progressive), is in the role government should play in these relationships. Where I believe civil relationships should have no bearing on our relationship or interactions with government, progressives wish to "legitimize" such relationships for the purpose of obtaining special benefits, or privileges that stem from being "married". The Classical Liberal/Constitutionally Conservative position is one where the Federal government acts generally, and would, or should have no policy, benefit, or penalty, either for, or against any form of relationships between consenting adults. This position holds that "societal" changes don't need to be shoved down people's throats, that people, as individuals, have freedom of association, and that the government should keep it's nose out of our personal business, and do it's job, which is clearly enumerated in the Constitution, and does NOT involve granting special favors, or monetary benefits for being in some types of relationships, or not being in others.
Regards.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Mark Ramos
PFC Alexander Oliveira, I'm right there with you brother. Perhaps a few caveats: There are strong voices espousing the separation of Church and State. Yet those same voices want the State to define a sacrament, or concept, of the Church (marriage). I say the State should not be involved in marriage at all. If two people want their "marriage" recognized by the state for property and other legal rights, then form a partnership. Members of the partnership would have all the same legal rights and responsibilities that spouses have today. But "marriage" as far as the State is concerned, would have no legal meaning. Church weddings would involve the participant and their god, but have no legal meaning. Just as any other legal partnership, States, not the federal government, would define and protect laws pertaining to the partnership. But, as usual, all the federal anti-discrimination laws would apply. Children's parents would be registered at birth.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Well argued Sgt Mark Ramos,I would go even further though, and divorce the idea of enjoining property rights to civil unions. These mechanisms can be executed civilly by contract, without the need to have a civil relationship recognized by the government. My opinion, respectfully submitted.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Mark Ramos
SSG Gerhard S. - Interesting. However, I like the protections afforded a single legal entity. Like Fifth Amendment rights of protection against self incrimination, and shared property rights.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Sgt Mark Ramos - All, fine, and good, so long as one recognizes that such protections are subject to the ever shifting whims of politicians, and bureaucrats, who will decide WHO gets those protections, or who gets punished for not engaging in the "proper" behavior. This whole process becomes expanded to ever growing numbers of groups, ethnic, sexual oriented, religious, etc, and ultimately takes away from the individual rights that serve us all, in favor of some "preferred", group. Property rights can easily be managed through contract without the need for government incentives, or disincentives. I'm not sure what the reference to the 5th amendment is though... as it applies to individuals married, or otherwise.
Great conversation, thanks!
Great conversation, thanks!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Our country has changed significantly since I was a kid...we didn't have cell phones and pc's...nor the social media platforms like we do now. We recited the pledge of allegiance every day in school...In God We Trust meant more than just the empty statement seen on our currency today. We were taught that we actually had to treat our elders with respect...and got our asses whooped when we did wrong. These days society teaches that everyone is entitled to everything without earning it, and that the wealthy are greedy and should be forced to give up what they've worked hard to achieve to be given to those undeserving...I could go on and on...but I'd wear out my keyboard, lol. In other words liberalism hadn't taken hold yet...God help us all.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Older people don't like change... we are already pissed off because our back and our knees hurt, because we have to get up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom, and we and/or spouse and/or dogs snore like freight trains so it's hard to get a good nights sleep. Now you want to bother us to fix a problem that we didn't care enough about to fix when we were your age, or even worse one that we created? You can take a long walk off a short pier.
I also realize that I have a lot to be thankful for... that I didn't always harvest the worst possible scenario from the poor decisions I and others made, that I have been given more advantages and opportunity than most and that the proper way to show thanks for those blessings is to try and extend them to others. It's why I've become more liberal as I've gotten older.
I will admit that I am decidedly more conservative before my second cup of coffee each day.
I also realize that I have a lot to be thankful for... that I didn't always harvest the worst possible scenario from the poor decisions I and others made, that I have been given more advantages and opportunity than most and that the proper way to show thanks for those blessings is to try and extend them to others. It's why I've become more liberal as I've gotten older.
I will admit that I am decidedly more conservative before my second cup of coffee each day.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google