Changing Political Stance

[lonestar]

During the Presidential Election of 2004, I would have told you that I was pretty squarely in the Kerry Camp - not because I liked him per se, but rather because I did not like George W. Bush and wanted to see him go.

In the past year and a half, my political stance has slowly changed since graduating and starting out in the workforce. I can honestly say that I still can not stand the Bush administration but that I am also becoming decidedly anti-government. This is not to say that I am anti-democracy. Rather, I am against this sham of a two party political system we currently have. More and more, it seems like its all fake and this country was bought and paid for a long time ago. I think that Lewis Black summed it up best when he said that the Democrats are a party of no ideas, and the Republicans are a party of bad ideas.

Also, I have become less sympathetic to Katrina victims in the last few months. A lot of them came to Austin and they are just now kicking them out of hotel rooms. The ones that have relocated here and started a new life, great. Its the ones that are complaining that they shouldn't have to get jobs and that FEMA should continue paying for their hotel rooms...pisses me off. Go to work.

Do other QLCers new to the workforce notice similar changes in point of view?

[yankeeyosh]

Mine has changed too...I first registered for a Republican and voted for Dole in 96 because mostly of parental influence...over time, my views became more liberal, and by my senior year of college, I became a liberal, and voted for Hillary Clinton for senator and Gore for president. I've been a Democrat since, but a more moderate Democrat...one can even consider me Libertarian. I like to call myself a "Giuliani Democrat". I agree with the Dems on most domestic issues, but when it comes to the military, defense, and law & order, I side mostly with Bush and the Republicans. I voted for Bush in 04, and continue to support him to some degree...even though I'm disappointed with some of his recent domestic legislation. While I think he's doing well with the War on Terror and with the economic situation overall, his education, health care, Social Security, abortion, and other domestic policies have something left to be desired.

[and1grad]

Democrats are a party of no ideas, and the Republicans are a party of bad ideas.
Its sad how true this is. I pretty much went from not caring to caring to disgust.

[Dreamchasa]

Idealism is dead in this country.

Two party system is a joke. Its not a democracy its a democrazy.

They make you feel like the everyday man can influence the politics in this country when truth of the matter is mainly only millionaires run for office.

Spend millions and millions for jobs that pay little. Hmmmm i wonder why....

[SunDevil]

I'm not a big fan of either the democrats or republicans. I think the democrats do less damage though. But lobbyists and money control the government now. The media just looks at certain issues (that they pick) to get the masses outraged. Sometimes they get it right, other times they miss important things.

In a perfect system, the green and libertarian parties would make up a percentage of the government.

I am definitely a fiscal conservative, and can understand the problems faced by businesses in the US today. They do provide jobs for the general population. However the current idea of making as much money as you can at the expense of the productive workers isn't a very good one.

The current administration has strained foreign relations with quite a few countries, but they have made changes. Some people are glad that something is being done regardless of long-term consequences. I think that fighting ideological wars with the military-industrial complex isn't very effective. Using special forces and covert operatives would be much more effective, IMO. I also think that they could use economic embargos to get the countries to change.

I'm not sure what would be the best policy for the environment, but some parts are getting better while others aren't. More could be done with CO2 emissions, alt fuel cars, and coal power plants though.

I don't know what should be done with drugs (prescription, smoking and illegal), health care, public schools, home prices, prisons, abortion, affirmative action, disaster insurance and rebuilding, retirement accounts, welfare and urban planning. I have ideas, but I'm not sure if they would work out for everybody.

I wish more people would think for themselves and not just blindly follow what the leaders think should be done. I also feel you should vote for who you want to win and not who you think will win(or against the candidate you don't want to win).

[RudeGirl]

I started out as a Republican (big surprise), mostly because when I first became politically aware, the Dems' big issue was environmentalism, and I've never been into that sort of thing. In mid-high school, I favored the Democratic party because the GOP was starting to really push the anti-abortion/Religious Right shit. After that, I became interested in the idea of a third party, any third party. I read in-depth profiles of Ralph Nader and Steve Forbes and Barry Goldwater, and while I didn't agree with all of their ideas, I liked the fact that they weren't same-old-same-old types.

When I was old enough to register to vote, I registered Green, because at that time, there was no compelling candidate to vote for, and I was planning to do a write-in for Jello Biafra. I've also since done write-ins for friends and various inanimate objects. I switched my registration to Libertarian in college, because my political beliefs are most closely associated with that party, and when I worked in the city, I noticed how much money the local government was taking out of my paychecks to blow on their pay raises and fancy offices, while fuck-all actually got done.

My stance on George Bush: Big spender; piss-poor education reform plans; tax cuts nice but not enough; doesn't understand the concept of separation of church and state; into welfare of all kinds; sure loves them handouts to farmers; abysmal and kamikaze foreign policy strategy (strategery); dullest bulb in the box; probably makes his father embarassed to associate with him; single redeeming quality is that he's not as much of an asshole as Hillary Clinton.

[slacker00]

During the Presidential Election of 2004, I would have told you that I was pretty squarely in the Kerry Camp - not because I liked him per se, but rather because I did not like George W. Bush and wanted to see him go.

In the past year and a half, my political stance has slowly changed since graduating and starting out in the workforce. I can honestly say that I still can not stand the Bush administration but that I am also becoming decidedly anti-government. This is not to say that I am anti-democracy. Rather, I am against this sham of a two party political system we currently have. More and more, it seems like its all fake and this country was bought and paid for a long time ago. I think that Lewis Black summed it up best when he said that the Democrats are a party of no ideas, and the Republicans are a party of bad ideas.

Also, I have become less sympathetic to Katrina victims in the last few months. A lot of them came to Austin and they are just now kicking them out of hotel rooms. The ones that have relocated here and started a new life, great. Its the ones that are complaining that they shouldn't have to get jobs and that FEMA should continue paying for their hotel rooms...pisses me off. Go to work.

Do other QLCers new to the workforce notice similar changes in point of view?

Amen.

Wait. Um. Err. I'm an atheist. ;)

After years of brainwashing in school, saying pledge of allegiance to the USA every day, you're starting to think for yourself. Welcome to the real world.

P.S. The political system is completely corrupt. The best chance to avoid an absolute fascist regime is to maintain a split democracy as much as possible. Always vote for the minority power in control. Thus, I vote straight Democrat for now. If Dems gain majority, it's back to the flipside. Silly me, I started out voting libertarian, Nader, and Perot.

[HereComes30]

I know I will be in the minority here....but nothing new for me on QLC...

I was originally registered as a Democrat. I voted for Clinton the first time around because he said he would give more money to college students. That is all that I knew about him. Of course that didn't happen. Since getting out of college I have followed politics more closely, have a better understanding of myself and what I find to be important. With that said, I am now registered as a Republican. I still vote for who I think will be the best candidate for a position and have voted for a Democrat for a county position here. He is actually doing a great job and when I hear him speak I tend to think he is a republican at heart. I would gladly vote even for a Presidential candidate whose ideals, values, and stands on important issues lined up with mine....but I doubt I will ever see such a candidate on the Democrat side of the ticket. There was absolutely nothing that I agreed with John Kerry on and although there is a lot more that I would have hoped for GW to do, I think he was the better candidate.

I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if an Independent would someday win and shake up the whole 2 dominate party system a little.

[wordsmith]

I wouldn't say that I've changed political stance so much as I've gained a political stance. Politics were never discussed much in my house growing up, with my mother vocally disinterested in party characteristics, and my dad intentionally not ever giving any indication of which way he voted. I understand why he didn't share that info, he wanted us to form our own opinions, rather than just be indoctrinated into what we were around, but at the same time, I feel that I could have received more education. Politics is pretty intimidating for a kid to latch onto if nobody's interested in explaining it to you, and by the time you get to a certain age, it's completely overwhelming. I ended up with a lot to sort out on my own, and I still have a long way to go.

My views are most solidly in line with moderate Dems...I'm socially liberal, and those leanings are far stronger than any of the conservative leanings I do have, so it's very rare that a Republican candidate appeals to me. When one does, though, I don't discount him/her on party affiliation alone. It's situational.

I do agree that the two-party system leaves much to be desired, and I get MUCH more excited about local politics than national, because at least at the local level, there truly ARE people with untained ideals, and people looking out for the little guy; it's not all just a clash of the same asshole million- and billionaires, each under a different label, but essentially the same. Also, independents and non-partisan candidates do get in often at the local level of politics, which is refreshing.

None of my thoughts have much to do with entering the workforce, just with becoming more informed.

[NCFotoman]

It seems to me that our government has, over the years, grown far too large and widespread to accomplist the job it was intended to do. America is to me still the greatest nation in the world, and I would not wish to live anywhere else. Both major political parties are more concerned with their own agendas and have lost sight of the people's needs. This took many generations to get this way and will probably take many more to correct it. What does it take?..I think it takes the younger generation to get involved, and not give in to the temptations of power and wealth that seems to come with political office today.

[wordsmith]

This is exactly why I put far more stock in local government, they're far more concerned with actual people and actual needs. They, of course, have to contend with big govt. for federal funding and support, naturally, but the legitimate concern is at least there and not a charade.

[SmilesSoSweet]

I'd have to say that I'm more liberal now then I was five or six years ago while in college. And that's not even just with politics. I'm also more liberal on my religious beliefs (I'm Catholic, but I don't agree with every the Church believes).

I think my views changed the more I am on my own and make my own decisions. I also feel the anti-government too. It just seems like as much as this is a "free" country, you still can't do what you want to do without some government trying to tell you not to do it. A part of me is glad that I wasn't a born US citizen, and that I was naturalized. What I really want to do is get back my citizenship from my home country (dual citizenship) but because it isn't a high priority in my life right now, I haven't bothered to look in to it.

When I was in Italy for school back in 2000, the Italians highly made fun of the US. I was there during the 2000 election and the US was the laughing-stalk of the Italians. I found it quite funny too.

[MollyMe]

I haven't changed my political stance, but the Republicans have changed theirs. I am very disappointed in Bush. I'm registered Republican but will vote Democrat if I like the person and what he has done and will do, usually local candidates. The local democrat governor has done nothing to help this state...we are now more white-trash than ever, and more businesses are leaving.

I don't think politics is anymore corrupt than any other area. It is just that more focus is on them.

[wordsmith]

Politics=power and power corrupts. I feel as if corrupt politics are an inevitability once you get to the level where you're talking about that kind of money.

[ebruening]

*Begin rant* I am furious with my city council, state legislature, and the school board in the town where I teach. Our city council does not listen to its constituents, tears down PROFITABLE local businesses in order to build poorly-placed parking garages (and yet leaves the chain restaurants surrouding the parking garage intact), our state legislature continues to underfund education, while increasing the difficulty level of their state standards, and the school board in the town where I teach is simply a mutual admiration society of parents with axes to grind. Oh, also, I am ticked at Bush's cutting the educational budget, while ramping up defense spending. I am TERRIFIED at the very real prospect of a HUGE tax increase once Bush leaves office. I believe it will be completely justifiable and necessary to pay down the debt our president is currently accumulating. I am extremely frightened that the money I have involuntarily taken out of my paycheck every month is not being set aside in an account, as was promised. Why do I think that? Because everyone with whom I have tried to meet in order to discuss my nonexistent quarterly contribution statements has "cancelled due to conflicts." I also think that nothing will be done if I am, in fact, "missing" my retirement contribution money. I have no faith in any authority figure at present. I am one angry, socially liberal, fiscally conservative (except when it comes to education) teacher at this point. I am very seriously considering moving out of the country in the next year. I am very seriously considering leaving the teaching profession because, although I love my students, I cannot see the point of continuing in a profession that is not fairly compensated in terms of pay, and is increasingly tied to national/state standards yet horribly underfunded to reach said standards *Rant ended*

[wordsmith]

I'm with you on the un/underfunded mandates, all the way. Is nobody getting proof of their quarterly contributions? That's a major deal.

We are fortunate that in the last election, the community and the teachers saw fit to actually elect a board with education as its formost interest, rather than one composed of the elite movers and shakers of small-town society, who were predominantly interested in making everything about tea at the country club. It took ten years to get rid of dead wood on the governing board, and there's still some there, but now they're in the minority, and stuff is finally getting done. Like the hiring of a superintendent who actually seems capable of working with the staff, rather than acting as an adversary. Hopefully, we won't continue to have bad feelings and strikes continually looming on the horizon, and people will finally be treated with mutual respect befitting their positions.

Only thing is, now that dead wood administrators and board members are being dealt with, dead wood teachers are the next to come. And, sadly, they certainly do exist.

[yankeeyosh]

*Begin rant* I am furious with my city council, state legislature, and the school board in the town where I teach. Our city council does not listen to its constituents, tears down PROFITABLE local businesses in order to build poorly-placed parking garages (and yet leaves the chain restaurants surrouding the parking garage intact), our state legislature continues to underfund education, while increasing the difficulty level of their state standards, and the school board in the town where I teach is simply a mutual admiration society of parents with axes to grind. Oh, also, I am ticked at Bush's cutting the educational budget, while ramping up defense spending. I am TERRIFIED at the very real prospect of a HUGE tax increase once Bush leaves office. I believe it will be completely justifiable and necessary to pay down the debt our president is currently accumulating. I am extremely frightened that the money I have involuntarily taken out of my paycheck every month is not being set aside in an account, as was promised. Why do I think that? Because everyone with whom I have tried to meet in order to discuss my nonexistent quarterly contribution statements has "cancelled due to conflicts." I also think that nothing will be done if I am, in fact, "missing" my retirement contribution money. I have no faith in any authority figure at present. I am one angry, socially liberal, fiscally conservative (except when it comes to education) teacher at this point. I am very seriously considering moving out of the country in the next year. I am very seriously considering leaving the teaching profession because, although I love my students, I cannot see the point of continuing in a profession that is not fairly compensated in terms of pay, and is increasingly tied to national/state standards yet horribly underfunded to reach said standards *Rant ended*

Amen, Erika...Bu$h's policies will keep everything afloat through 2008, and I think we'll even enter an era of irrational exuberance similar to the late 90s (if we're not already in it now). But it's like plugging a dam with bubblegum. The Boom turning 65, the whole social security issue, the peak of the Echo Boom graduating college, and larger and larger deficits will come to a head at some point, and it could be a disastrous situation five years from now. It's the "new" meritocracy getting richer, and the rest of us falling through the cracks. I have faith that some policy measures will come about which could reverse this doomsday, and I still have confidence in the government as a whole, but the clock is ticking...

[RudeGirl]

I am one angry, socially liberal, fiscally conservative (except when it comes to education) teacher at this point.

I agree with your rant, especially the above statement. Replace "teacher" with "artist-and-writer-type-jerk" and you have me.

I know -- I just know -- that the tax cuts aren't permanent. I can see Dubya, in fact, raising taxes in the last year or two of his term, just like his dad did. And I'm gonna live like a cheap bastard for as long as I can and squirrel away for retirement now, because I don't think those government IOUs will produce returns in 50 years, for me.

Yankee: I don't agree with the "new meritocracy getting richer" statement, though. Over time, different groups and individuals rise and fall from different income brackets. Wealth is not static, and, in fact, most people DO move out of the "entry-level" pay bracket.

That's one of my major criticisms of those books written that bemoan America's poor and what the fiscal conservatives have "done to them." In many of the case studies, the sbjuects move into a higher-paying income tier, but that's not discussed -- the studies proceed to re-iterate the wierd idea that everyone needs to be earning the same amount of money, or close to it. It is as possible for the rich guy in my high school class to wind up on welfare as it is for the poor girl in my college class to wind up making 60K.

[RudeGirl]

It seems to me that our government has, over the years, grown far too large and widespread to accomplist the job it was intended to do. America is to me still the greatest nation in the world, and I would not wish to live anywhere else. Both major political parties are more concerned with their own agendas and have lost sight of the people's needs. This took many generations to get this way and will probably take many more to correct it. What does it take?..I think it takes the younger generation to get involved, and not give in to the temptations of power and wealth that seems to come with political office today.

Just from the polls I've seen -- and I'm aware that polls are horribly inaccurate -- younger generations are more economically liberal and socially conservative than The Boomers' generation is. This is a combination that also seems to be most condicive to the growth of government, and, not coincidentally, it's the road that both the Dems and the GOP are taking -- since every damn politician's religious now, and pro-life, and into way, way huge federal and welfare spending.

[yankeeyosh]

Yankee: I don't agree with the "new meritocracy getting richer" statement, though. Over time, different groups and individuals rise and fall from different income brackets. Wealth is not static, and, in fact, most people DO move out of the "entry-level" pay bracket.


I don't disagree that it's possible, but it's much harder today than it was say, seven years ago...I seriously believe that if you don't have the right "connections" and have the "right" experience, more likely than not, no matter how smart you are, your resume is going into some big black hole. There are a hundred people going for the same job, and they will always choose the person who knows somebody or who worked at a direct competitor and they want to grab that person before they become "big" or something like that.

Of course, with my reasoning, I should be very optimistic about the interview decisions that I'm awaiting (especially Boston)...but I'm not really because I know there's some 23 year old out there who did a specific internship and they'd rather snatch that person than someone like me for some odd reason like they're a better salesman/woman when it comes to interviewing... :googly:

[RudeGirl]

This is something we could debate, because what kind of prior experience you need or which connections are required vary considerably from area to area and from field to field.

Let's talk about writing, for example. I had a friend in school who majored in the good, "useless" design stuff that I did. She's had no prior writing experience other than some fiction classes, either. Two months after graduation, she landed a copy and layout editing job with a pretty big paper in D.C. I chalk this up to her natural talent, her optimal location (D.C. has more papers than we will possibly even know about), and perhaps a bit of good timing on her part, as well. She didn't need a single internship or connection, despite the popular wisdom about the journalism field.

I'm just talking about basic economic prosperity, though -- that's the meat of my argument. It is a group of privledged people, and usually only those, who have the luxury of deciding on exact careers. To a certain extent, this QLC-related career worry is a result of the privledge that is a college education. If you just got through high school, and you were able to rise from a fast-food wage to a salaried secretary position in two or three short years, you're upwardly mobile, despite your lack of traning. That's the kind of trend I'm talking about, and it's the rule rather than the exception.

[RudeGirl]

I want to add something to my last post, too. Mark, I understand how you're feeling. Job-market instability is a new development for all Americans; I guess it's best that we get used to it now, than be like the Boomers and be heading into it all of a sudden.

In one sense, I'm very glad I'm NOT my parents' age. If they got laid off, they would have a hell of a time switching fields, and it would probably even be harder for them to find a new job. They'd probably just be forced to take early retirement.

[yankeeyosh]

This is something we could debate, because what kind of prior experience you need or which connections are required vary considerably from area to area and from field to field.

Let's talk about writing, for example. I had a friend in school who majored in the good, "useless" design stuff that I did. She's had no prior writing experience other than some fiction classes, either. Two months after graduation, she landed a copy and layout editing job with a pretty big paper in D.C. I chalk this up to her natural talent, her optimal location (D.C. has more papers than we will possibly even know about), and perhaps a bit of good timing on her part, as well. She didn't need a single internship or connection, despite the popular wisdom about the journalism field.


Well, that's just luck. She should count her lucky stars every night she got it without the "right" experience.

I'm just talking about basic economic prosperity, though -- that's the meat of my argument. It is a group of privledged people, and usually only those, who have the luxury of deciding on exact careers.

Exactly. The meritocracy (and possibly their parents).

To a certain extent, this QLC-related career worry is a result of the privledge that is a college education. If you just got through high school, and you were able to rise from a fast-food wage to a salaried secretary position in two or three short years, you're upwardly mobile, despite your lack of traning. That's the kind of trend I'm talking about, and it's the rule rather than the exception.

That's fine and dandy, but if you're making $7 an hour and starving in NYC, and then you get a salaried position making $25K in NYC, you're still starving.
Maybe you can move out of your rat infested apartment to one that's just mouse infested, but it's still a crappy lifestyle. I mean, I'm not arguing that the average college graduate should get the big $80K job...just the opposite. The argument is that companies are getting AFRAID of hiring entry level people because they know that our generation will demand big salaries and/or leave after a year because they don't have enough "responsibility". Not that this is everyone, but the meritocracy, who makes up most of this group of people, is hogging the headlines, and making it difficult for the rest of us. Yet, on the flip side, because entry level positions are not that common than they were in 2000, and the younger generation is so much more educated than they were ten years ago, it's an all-out battle to fight for these jobs, and in the end, it's who you know, not what you know that results in the Man (or Woman)'s final decision.

[yankeeyosh]

Just from the polls I've seen -- and I'm aware that polls are horribly inaccurate -- younger generations are more economically liberal and socially conservative than The Boomers' generation is. This is a combination that also seems to be most condicive to the growth of government, and, not coincidentally, it's the road that both the Dems and the GOP are taking -- since every damn politician's religious now, and pro-life, and into way, way huge federal and welfare spending.

Hmmm...well, I actually think the opposite. The Boom (or at least since 1983 or so) has become much more conservative socially, and more fiscally liberal, and I think their children...while much less of a gap than previous generations, are more socially liberal and fiscally conservative.


I want to add something to my last post, too. Mark, I understand how you're feeling. Job-market instability is a new development for all Americans; I guess it's best that we get used to it now, than be like the Boomers and be heading into it all of a sudden.

The problem is not that the job market is so unstable more than everything has become so specialized. You not only have to have THIS degree to work in some field, but you have to do THAT and SOME OTHER stuff. Compared to the vast majority of American history, the job market is very stable, and very sound. However, everything is in its own little niche, and companies don't want to pay anyone to train, so you have to be off and running from day one.

In one sense, I'm very glad I'm NOT my parents' age. If they got laid off, they would have a hell of a time switching fields, and it would probably even be harder for them to find a new job. They'd probably just be forced to take early retirement.

That's what happened to my aunt...she got her MBA in her mid-late 40s to train for another field, and for the last six, seven years, all she has been doing is temping...despite lots and lots of interviews, she can't get a job. And that kinda makes me nervous :neutral:

[RudeGirl]

Mark, if anything, entry-level positions are more common. The job market is flooded with them. True, a majority of them are concentrated in high-cost-of-living areas like NYC and D.C., but that doesn't make them exist any less.

People continue to get entry-level positions without experience all the time, and conversely, people are denied entry-level positions after having a bajillion internships. Purely anecdotal evidence, for sure, but it leads me to believe that the majority of this college-career counseling, career-assessment, personality-type hooey that The Establishment emphasizes for college kids is a bunch of hogwash.

New York is tough to live in when you're making 40K. If I lived there, I'd be sleeping in a loft with five other people. Since this isn't the lifestyle I want, I don't want to live in NY. Many Americans have "made it" in NYC, including in the most menial positions. Many will continue to "make it."

[RudeGirl]

Hmmm...well, I actually think the opposite. The Boom (or at least since 1983 or so) has become much more conservative socially, and more fiscally liberal, and I think their children...while much less of a gap than previous generations, are more socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

Interesting. I guess it depends on which benchmarks you use. I don't see anyone moving that way...in fact, the political party that I love so much usually gets a 1 percent showing or less in the polls during any given election.

A good number of people our age are religious, pro-life, and of the opinion that it's the state's role to decide what we should put into and what we should do with our bodies. Maybe it's just the media -- and it probably is -- but I recall Gen. X portrayed, socially, as having a different mindset.

[yankeeyosh]

Mark, if anything, entry-level positions are more common. The job market is flooded with them. True, a majority of them are concentrated in high-cost-of-living areas like NYC and D.C., but that doesn't make them exist any less.

Well, I was comparing it now to 2000, when there were recruiters setting up shop at Daytona Beach for spring break...and when the average graduate expected to be a millionaire by age 40 (although the majority of grads today still do).


People continue to get entry-level positions without experience all the time, and conversely, people are denied entry-level positions after having a bajillion internships. Purely anecdotal evidence, for sure, but it leads me to believe that the majority of this college-career counseling, career-assessment, personality-type hooey that The Establishment emphasizes for college kids is a bunch of hogwash.

Maybe. But it's a billion dollar market, and no one is out there to stop it from rolling on.


New York is tough to live in when you're making 40K. If I lived there, I'd be sleeping in a loft with five other people. Since this isn't the lifestyle I want, I don't want to live in NY. Many Americans have "made it" in NYC, including in the most menial positions. Many will continue to "make it."

They may, but the chances are decreasing. New York is too expensive for the average person. Same goes true for Long Island. I could live like a king on my salary if I was still in Tallahassee. Can't even move out of my parent's house here.

[yankeeyosh]

Interesting. I guess it depends on which benchmarks you use. I don't see anyone moving that way...in fact, the political party that I love so much usually gets a 1 percent showing or less in the polls during any given election.

A good number of people our age are religious, pro-life, and of the opinion that it's the state's role to decide what we should put into and what we should do with our bodies. Maybe it's just the media -- and it probably is -- but I recall Gen. X portrayed, socially, as having a different mindset.

Well, Gen 'X' is quite conservative...since their mortal enemies are the Boomers, they are "rebelling" against them by being more conservative. They had latchkey childhoods of divorce or parents who cared more about themselves than their own children. As a result, they're the ones stressing family values (even more than Hillary), tighter communities, and more responsiblilty.

Our generation, on the other hand, had nothing really to rebel about...at least in general...since we grew up in the go-go 90s when everything was A-OK and we had the Internet and self-esteem movement to let us know everything's gonna be great. There are obviously many exceptions to this, but because we grew up in a more optimistic time, with more smothering and family involvement, our values tend to mirror the Boom's for the most part. However, mostly due to our great diversity in many respects, we are more socially liberal, and are more tolerant to other people's opinions.

[RudeGirl]

However, mostly due to our great diversity in many respects, we are more socially liberal, and are more tolerant to other people's opinions.

I call that "conservatism" at its finest. "Tolerance" is one of those empty buzzwords of the 1990s that usually means "mandated speech policing" or "covert affirmative action recruiting," or "flirting is now, and forevermore, sexual harassment." I would agree, our generation likes that stuff. They like it a lot, and they learned to love it from the Boomers themselves, who we can credit with the introduction of the post-modernist teachings that now make up the liberal arts university system.

If you examine the underside of the new "tolerance," you'll find it's not really that "tolerant," as it mostly preaches to the "middle-class-white-men-are-the-devil" choir that is so attentive and prevalent in academia.

I don't jive with the "abstinence-only-abortion-is-a-sin-sodomy-damns-you-to-hell-gays-are-sinners" conservative stances. I find them to be repugnant, and antithetical to liberty.

I DO believe that people should not have children until they're emotionally and financially ready to support them, and I do think children are best raised by more than one parent (whether that be two moms, a mom and an aunt, or whatever, just so the burden isn't falling on one individual). I think parents also need to take more responsibility for their children's education, especially their sex education, their reading ability, and what they are or aren't getting from certain "adult" Internet sites. And yes, I don't like Hillary's "It takes a village" attitude. I didn't have that child, and I'm not raising him, so he's not my problem, and I'm not paying for him, economically or socially. That's his parents' job.

(And yeah, I probably do attribute some of that to being a latchkey kid, being the product of a shit divorce, and being a cynic in general. And all fiftey-eleven of my Pearl Jam albums. Eddie Vedder agrees. ;) )

[MollyMe]

Politics=power and power corrupts. I feel as if corrupt politics are an inevitability once you get to the level where you're talking about that kind of money.
True, there is power in politics, given that we are a democracy. However, who says power corrupts? Are corrupt people only the ones with power? Are all powerful people corrupt?

they'd rather snatch that person than someone like me for some odd reason like they're a better salesman/woman when it comes to interviewing...
That is true. Your job in an interview is to tell them why they should hire you over someone else.

[wordsmith]

Are corrupt people only the ones with power? Are all powerful people corrupt?




Good question. I lean more and more that way. I am an idealist and believe in the basic goodness of people. However, I'm increasingly skeptical that the people who are truly on the up and up are the ones who ultimately arise the the positions of highest power. I've grown at least that much cynicism.