If the data you cite is accurate, the message that can be gleaned is that they will be strong anti-establishment types. What direction that takes them politically is yet to be determined.
This is the main takeaway I have seen. Generation Z trends more libertarian and socialist than Republican or Democrat. Sites like this have some interesting data. It seems one major trend is that Generation Z is less nationalistic than older generations. Demographically, it’s also worth noting that Generation Z is more diverse than previous generations, with a significantly higher proportion of Latino and mixed-race people.
No, they’re not, but they’re far more correlated with age. The reason questions such as these have shown racist attitudes dropping by 50% over the last two decades is not that racist America is engaging in self-reflection and changing its tune; it’s that the racists are dying out. From the survey data I read, I don’t think more than 6%-8% of America currently holds overtly racist views at this point in time; and it would not surprise me in the least to find that the average age of those is elderly.
I’d be very surprised if the number of people with overtly racist attitudes is really that low. Some of this depends on how you define “overt racism,” but I would say you don’t have to be in the KKK to qualify. People who say things like “Black Lives Matter is a terrorist group,” should be counted in the overtly racist crowd.
Regarding whether trends of racism are more highly correlated to age than political affiliation, that’s may be true, but Republicans are older than Democrats, too, so it’s hard to parse that data and know whether age or party affiliation is really the stronger predictor of racism:
Good luck with that. The first round of Tea Party candidates were ninnies. Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, then that idiot Todd Akin in 2012. The GOP map was beneficial to them in both 2010 and 2012, and it took until 2014 to win the Senate because “activists” got “their candidate” through the primaries, but “their candidate” did not have the political gravitas to seal the deal in the general.
As I said before, the analogy to the Tea Party is flawed. What works to garner Republican votes does not necessarily work to garner Democratic votes, and vice versa.
I’m 62, and grew up when people were challenging the status quo from the left in a far stronger fashion than they were today. Then, those radicals either became college professors or got MBAs and voted for Reagan.
Challenges to systemic problems are not always readily apparent. Radicalism is a simple concept:
The term political radicalism (or simply, in political science, radicalism) denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways.
Liberalism isn’t seeking to uproot social structures or value systems in the same fundamental ways as radicalism. As an example, a liberal might say the Senate should be less corrupt, while a radical might say the Senate shouldn’t even exist.
That said, on a broad level, radicalism has probably subsided compared to the Civil Rights era, but there are still radicals around, trying to make a difference.
In a nation the economic and bureaucratic size of the US, overall radical political change is impossible, and if it WERE to occur, the medicine could very well be worse than the disease.
Radicalism serves to change the discourse. It could be that not even incremental change is possible without radical voices talking about things the mainstream would rather ignore.
What CAN happen is that people can make change occur in certain key areas against the establishment if they are united in doing so. The problem is that the US left is so diverse in its ‘priorities’ that they are unable to apply themselves to one single area in a unified fashion. For example, we would probably agree that income inequality and climate change are rather large problems that need to be addressed. However, you probably only have the political muscle to fix one of them.
That is not remotely how things have worked during the American slide rightward in the Fox News and Citizens United era. The right is also diverse in its priorities. A given Republican may prefer a stronger military, while another prefers smaller government. No two are going to have the same list of priorities.
Here’s the lesson of history: political activism is, for the most part, a sport of the young. After household formation occurs, and which is occurring NOW for the millenials (later than normal, due to the recession), priorities shift from the political to the personal. You get fewer people at rallies because they are at their kid’s soccer games. There’s strong data coming out now showing how quickly the movement of millenials into the cities has reversed, and how the suburbs are now growing again as millenial households form.
As you have noted, this trend, itself, is changing. Household formation doesn’t mean at all what it used to. Seeing as how America’s birthrate has been dropping, and is basically at an all-time low, those soccer games aren’t going to be such a distraction anymore.
This has all happened before, and will all happen again. It’s a pendulum, not a progression. Politics never moves in a straight, uninterrupted line towards any political pole.
I’m not sure how you can believe it is a pendulum when it used to be that women could not vote, but now women can vote, and it used to be that black Americans were enslaved by white slavers, and now are not.
I think a problem with the analogy to pendulums, progressions, and poles is that there are a lot of processes and poles in play, and the poles themselves are not static. We can simultaneously progress toward a conservative pole on one metric and a progressive pole on another.