The Young Conservative: A profile

[Number_6]

Why do you think this is? Behavior learned thru their parents? Does one's political leanings automatically dictate one's value system?

The lefties are always questioning authority. That seems to be from where the problem stems. They use the questioning of authority to justify things like not doing their homework, not keeping up with the readings, etc.

Most of our leaders, left and right, have parents who are baby boomers. I dare say some of them are responsible.

What is the generation after baby boomers? X? I think that's where your blame lies.

No, most of our leaders right now are Baby Boomers. And it's their children, by and large, that I am teaching in college.

Generation X actually appears to be doing a good job of raising their children, when they are actually having them, as Gen X is not doing so well, financially, as a generation.

From most reports, they are siding with their kids' teachers against their children when their children misbehave, but at the same time questioning the lack of standards in their children's education, etc. They are not happy with the "progressive" curriculum, feeling that they were themselves cheated out of a rigorous education in the name of "progressivism."

Many expensive colleges are actually worried about the time when the children of the Gen Xers reach college, because most are not willing to pay $20-30K a year for what's currently being provided. I know that as an Xer myself, I would have a very hard time with most schools, because I wouldn't feel like they were demanding enough from my children.

 

[The Question]

Does one's political leanings automatically dictate one's value system?

Exactly the other way around, actually.

 

[Friday]

The lefties are always questioning authority. That seems to be from where the problem stems. They use the questioning of authority to justify things like not doing their homework, not keeping up with the readings, etc.

In my opinion, questioning authority is a good thing. No one should be given a free pass becuase they are "in charge". No one is infallible (not even the Pope ), and if someone making sure your motives and methods are up to par gives you pause, then maybe you shouldn't be in charge.

Of course, that doesn't excuse personal responsibility. Expecting students to have their work completed is part of the educational process. However, if your students are questioning your theories and lectures, that is a good thing, no?

No, most of our leaders right now are Baby Boomers. And it's their children, by and large, that I am teaching in college.

It appears I missed being a gen x-er by one year, by a chart that I read. This point is conceded.

From most reports, they are siding with their kids' teachers against their children when their children misbehave...

Hmmm...please send some of these parents my way.

...but at the same time questioning the lack of standards in their children's education, etc. They are not happy with the "progressive" curriculum, feeling that they were themselves cheated out of a rigorous education in the name of "progressivism."

Questioning authority? Isn't this what you were complaining about above?

Of course, you are referring to informed, educated parents. Most parents I deal with are happy to get the kids out of the house during the day. Sad, but true.

Many expensive colleges are actually worried about the time when the children of the Gen Xers reach college, because most are not willing to pay $20-30K a year for what's currently being provided. I know that as an Xer myself, I would have a very hard time with most schools, because I wouldn't feel like they were demanding enough from my children.

It sounds like these colleges should take a long, hard look at their curriculum, and make it more rigorous. Take out the "feel good" fluff courses, in favor of a harder line.

 

[Friday]

Exactly the other way around, actually.

I can see that. Actually, yeah, that's probably true.

 

[TJHairball]

Well, that's an impressive piece of gymnastics, there. Here's another in that same theme:

"Well, of course if you define what a car is, only objects matching that definition will be labeled cars!"

So.... are you going to go by what most people call cars, or are you going to invent a definition?

No, in fact it's not. It's a case of determining criteria for your definition before setting out to determine which subjects under investigation meet that definition.

The criterion here is self-identification.

I see. So if I identify myself as a watermelon, are you prepared to take my word for it?

"Watermelon" is not something people are expected to say whether or not they are.

"Conservative" or "liberal" is.

If you wish, you may like to read my results as "many young people who identify themselves as conservative are in fact not conservative." As you wish.

 

[TJHairball]

Well, I could have told you that.

However, what I'd add to this is that those students who are more conservative are generally willing to accept the consequences for their actions, whereas those who are more liberal--really more left, not liberal--are more likely to want to either place the blame elsewhere or to demand that the system change to accommodate their values.

I disagree firmly, based on my sample.

If there is any difference at all in that regard, it comes when you ask about someone else.

Keep in mind that because of the nature of what I teach--literature and composition--students' political viewpoints are inevitably revealed during class.

I would love to see the literature and composition class that does so... or demonstrates how young people choose to act in non-classroom scenarios. What sort of literature are you covering, Marx and Adam Smith?

Many of the young conservatives in my sample, which you would regard as irresponsible, will pay lip service to personal responsibility, so long as they're not actually running into a problem.

Many forms of "irresponsible" behavior come attached to justifications. Take drunk driving - increasingly "uncool," but still happens. Among the common excuses - "It's not bad if you have practice driving drunk. Most people don't; I do."

"It's nobody's business if I'm driving drunk. It only matters if I get in an accident. It's my call to make." [Accidents, of course, "won't happen."]

Also, I've taught at one of the most leftist institutions in the U.S., as well as at an institution commonly regarded as conservative. So I've seen not only how individuals act out or do not act out their political beliefs, but also how the political bent of the institution can affect the student population.

IMO, it's not as much the political gradient of the college that affects the conformity to stereotypes as much as the character of the institution - large, small, private, public, prestigious, not... etc. At, for example, Harvard, membership in a fraternity means diddly squat. (There's another type of organization that does - sorta - but the common name escapes me at the moment.)

At, say, UNC, it does, and the relations between the town and Greeks is frequently tense as a result of certain "stereotypical" behaviors on their part.

I would love to hear what you find to be the difference in student behavior at a liberal and a conservative institution. While I've had some chance to try and compare the relative behavior of - say - Smith students vs Liberty students, I really haven't had a good chance to observe more than a small sample of both student bodies in detail to compare.

But, on the whole, I'd say that the Baby Boomers have done a pretty piss poor job of raising their children to become responsible adults.

Some have done a spectacular job. Others not at all, and this is regrettable.

For reference, there's Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Generation Dot-Net is today's youth. Some people place a Generation Y between X and Dot-Net.

 

[TJHairball]

Many expensive colleges are actually worried about the time when the children of the Gen Xers reach college, because most are not willing to pay $20-30K a year for what's currently being provided. I know that as an Xer myself, I would have a very hard time with most schools, because I wouldn't feel like they were demanding enough from my children.

Interesting tidbit. Hearing more about the administration of public colleges, I'd not heard of this at all.

(If you live in NC, you will hear about the UNC system's administrative garbage on the news regularly... thank state legislators with lots of wrangling to get in.)

 

[The Question]

So.... are you going to go by what most people call cars, or are you going to invent a definition?

I'm not sure why you're even asking that, seeing as you're the one arguing that we should disregard these kids' actions in favor of their words -- essentially arguing for subjectivism over objectivism.

The criterion here is self-identification.

"Watermelon" is not something people are expected to say whether or not they are.

"Conservative" or "liberal" is.

That's beside the point -- self-identification can only go so far. Remember that "actions speak louder than words" became a cliche because it is so often true.

If you wish, you may like to read my results as "many young people who identify themselves as conservative are in fact not conservative." As you wish.

That is precisely my point. They can call themselves conservatives all day long, but when their behavior directly contradicts their self-identification, their self-identification is the weaker of the two.

 

[TJHairball]

I'm not sure why you're even asking that, seeing as you're the one arguing that we should disregard these kids' actions in favor of their words -- essentially arguing for subjectivism over objectivism.

I'm saying that the so-called "conservatives" among the young do not match claims set forth about conservatives on these forums, namely, that conservatives endorse and express personal responsibility.

As far as fitting a strict definition of the commonly-misused term conservative, you may recall that the definition of conservative is one seeking to preserve the status quo. This means that most so-called "conservatives" aren't really, as they seek to change the status quo. The New Deal, for example, is very much an established institution in this day; most of the "conservatives" trying to get rid of it weren't even born then. (You could say reactionary - one who wants to turn back the clock - and that would fit.)

Ironically, I find the "conservative youth" profiled here match that definition. They are preserving the status quo regarding the behavior of young people as seen in their earlier age-mates. It is normal behavior for them, and - in particular regarding the issue of "young men are intrinsically wild and women reform them and get them to settle down" - expressed widely and prominently in their culture (i.e., Hollywood movies.)

They're doing exactly what they think they're expected to do, and what their older brothers, sisters, cousins, and friends have done.

That's beside the point -- self-identification can only go so far. Remember that "actions speak louder than words" became a cliche because it is so often true.

Actually, in the case of Democrat vs Republican, self-identification is the actual qualification for party membership. Anybody is free to register themselves as Democratic and Republican.

In the case of "conservative" and "liberal," the terms are so widely abused in such a variety of fashions that you'll get nowhere.

 

[Laker_Girl]

And all this information comes from where, exactly?

Took the words right out of my mouth.

And why have you mistakenly chosen to define conservatives in terms of religion or morality? There are other ways of being conservative, you know.

Again, took the words right out of my mouth.

I'm not exactly sure when being a born again became synonomous with being a conservative or why the possibility doesn't exsist to Democrats that you may not be a staunch conservative but you still believe that voting Republican is your best option.

Friday and I are both Episcopalian and I think you'll agree that our political beliefs are polar opposites. You don't have to be religious to be conservative or to vote Republican and vice versa, it's not in the "Dear God, This is Margret I'm Going to Vote Republican, Should I?: The RNC's Guide to Voting" handbook.

 

[TJHairball]

In which case you should read what I already replied to those... or at least the nattering back and forth between TQ and myself about how I've chosen to define "conservative." You may find it enlightening.

 

[Laker_Girl]

Okay so basically your example is any group of people at any given time and you're not going to reveal if they're real or figments of your imagination. I'd be fascinated if it wasn't so typical.

As I've said before, not once, in my entire life have I been randomly selected or otherwise selected to participate in the polls and/or studies that you and so many like you base your "facts" on.

The New York times polls it's readers and I'm supposed to believe that the outcome of that poll is indicative of what America is thinking? Why? The New York post is trash to me...and anyone with half an ounce of intelligence.

Pigeon-holing is a sad practice.

 

[Peter Octavian]

Okay so basically your example is any group of people at any given time and you're not going to reveal if they're real or figments of your imagination. I'd be fascinated if it wasn't so typical.

As I've said before, not once, in my entire life have I been randomly selected or otherwise selected to participate in the polls and/or studies that you and so many like you base your "facts" on.

The New York times polls it's readers and I'm supposed to believe that the outcome of that poll is indicative of what America is thinking? Why? The New York post is trash to me...and anyone with half an ounce of intelligence.

Pigeon-holing is a sad practice.

Exactly.

It may as well have read, "Hi, I'm T.J. Hairball, I have no credentials, and like most propagandists, I am fabricating all of this, so I don't have to cite methodology, nor do I have to adhere to any of the requirements of scholarship (even though I want you to accept what I've written as credible and scholarly).) Now, just shut the fuck up and take what I've said as the gospel truth."

It's a shame that this, and material like it from both the left and the right is accepted as reliable.

 

[TJHairball]

Okay so basically your example is any group of people at any given time and you're not going to reveal if they're real or figments of your imagination. I'd be fascinated if it wasn't so typical.

I see you didn't read.

All are completely real. I've known these people, and many more like them. I have no need to identify them individually.

Admittedly, I only have a few hundred such young people to work from (although I can dig up more with minimal effort), and it's not a completely randomized sample. I won't pretend it is, but it's a fairly representative sample that's not particularly biased by political affiliation.

As I've said before, not once, in my entire life have I been randomly selected or otherwise selected to participate in the polls and/or studies that you and so many like you base your "facts" on.

And?

The New York times polls it's readers and I'm supposed to believe that the outcome of that poll is indicative of what America is thinking? Why? The New York post is trash to me...and anyone with half an ounce of intelligence.

And did I cite any such opinion polls? No.

I've cited a few studies that talk about teen pregnancy rates and follow up on sex ed programs.

It may as well have read, "Hi, I'm T.J. Hairball, I have no credentials, and like most propagandists, I am fabricating all of this, so I don't have to cite methodology, nor do I have to adhere to any of the requirements of scholarship (even though I want you to accept what I've written as credible and scholarly).) Now, just shut the fuck up and take what I've said as the gospel truth."

Try "hi, welcome to the real world. This is what's happening, if you took the chance to watch young people outside of the settings most of you usually do."

You can call me a liar all you like. It just makes you one. Want to test my assertations? Slip into the scene and start taking notes. You may not find at as easy I did, but then, you probably don't have lots of drunken fans in the 18-25 age bracket.

 

[Peter Octavian]

You can call me a liar all you like. It just makes you one. Want to test my assertations? Slip into the scene and start taking notes. You may not find at as easy I did, but then, you probably don't have lots of drunken fans in the 18-25 age bracket.

What scene?


And exactly how am I a liar because I have dismissed your claims for lack of credible reference?

The fact is, for all you've written, it's likely that this is entirely fabricated. Even if it isn't, we don't know who these people are, where you "slipped into the scene" and so forth.

As far as anyone knows, you went into some little bohemian coffeehouse and talked to the cast of some local theatre company's production of "Rent", thereby guaranteeing the result you wanted, and have presented here.

It's just not good enough, not here, and really, not anywhere in academia. A study has to have more than just claims of veracity to be accepted as credible.

And no, your word that you actually did this research isn't good enough.

So, if it makes you feel better sparky, call me a liar. I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims while trying to pass them off as cold, hard facts.

 

[TJHairball]

What scene?

See? You don't even know where to begin to look at what young people are doing.

And exactly how am I a liar because I have dismissed your claims for lack of credible reference?

The fact is, for all you've written, it's likely that this is entirely fabricated. Even if it isn't, we don't know who these people are, where you "slipped into the scene" and so forth.

As far as "where" - as I've implied earlier, my information comes mostly [albeit hardly exclusively] from university students, public and private, in a variety of locations - although mostly concentrated in the Southeast, with practically nothing on the West Coast. I already mentioned this, too.

As far as anyone knows, you went into some little bohemian coffeehouse and talked to the cast of some local theatre company's production of "Rent", thereby guaranteeing the result you wanted, and have presented here.

Which gives me the broad sample of hundreds of people I mentioned earlier, including some very virtuous young conservative types? No.

It's just not good enough, not here, and really, not anywhere in academia. A study has to have more than just claims of veracity to be accepted as credible.

Did I claim this as a formal study? No.

Could someone else make a more rigorous writeup and study of the topic? Yes. Expect to do a lot of work if you're going to get better results.

And no, your word that you actually did this research isn't good enough.

So, if it makes you feel better sparky, call me a liar. I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims while trying to pass them off as cold, hard facts.

Whine all you like... but these are pretty cold facts, as far as I can tell.

And as far as the hard facts, I can also support my thesis through peer-reviewed studies already on the market, or widely respected polls (which, of course, Laker_Girl never believes, because she doesn't believe in sampling). You'll note I referred to a couple such when I make my most sweeping statements about "young conservatives" and personal sexual responsibility...

...however, I thought a personal look behind the scenes was in order to show what the face behind this was, and suggest a more detailed explanation of why. I did title this "The Young Conservative: A Profile," not "The Young Conservative: A Study."



So, dearie, what's your reasoning as to why conservative youth are having so much trouble with teenage pregnancy, drug use, STD transmission, unstable relationships, binge drinking, and other ailments of virtue? Or would you say it's just a "white trash" problem?

We could take it center stage in dealing with the largest identifiable segment of well-to-do secular conservatives in the student body: Social fraternal organizations. These aren't exactly "white trash," but if anything, their noted behavior at some schools is the strongest exemplification of so-called "conservative" youth. Unfortunately, there are relatively few studies dealing specifically with social fraternities and sororities, and almost none that seem to be trusted. More actual scientific data on the topic can be seen correlating members of social fraternities within studies dealing with the college population as a whole, in which case social fraternities/sororities have a tendency to stand out in spite of their best efforts to put on a good face. To quote from one such study:

"It is also found that peer group norms in some college environments, such as fraternities and sororities, are to drink heavily and to engage in casual sex."

Now, of course, social fraternities and sororities aren't exclusively conservative organizations... but on campuses where there seems to be a difference (membership in a social "greek" organization belongs to a notable and visible fraction, rather than being either endemic or invisible), it seems to be mostly [overwhelminly, in fact] conservative, in my oh-so-humble personal overview of the topic.

(If you want an empirical "bulk" confirm of that, you might consider reviewing MySpace or a similar widely used "college personal profile" website. Go through a few thousand profiles and get back to me if you're doubting my judgement on that one. It's a pity such online organizations (there are several with statistically significant memberships, as I read in my local paper lately) don't commonly run or aid studies.

You may instead choose to remember that such organizations are widely stereotyped as elitist, and most young "liberalz," as you might say, at least like to pretend to be populist, and trust my personal gauge of the matter as a result.)

 

[Dark Link]

The more I read about this profile, the more the Anthropologist in me what's to scream, "Wrong! You fucked up!"

First off, Anyone who's taken any sort of Anthropology class will tell you that your survey is bias therefore invalid.

Second, You're basing these profiles without any numbers or facts to back you up, just your word and a few bullshit articles that this is all true. Though I must say the article from BMJ was nice, scientific, but not touching the point you were trying to make.

 

[TJHairball]

The more I read about this profile, the more the Anthropologist in me what's to scream, "Wrong! You fucked up!"

No detail, I see.

First off, Anyone who's taken any sort of Anthropology class will tell you that your survey is bias therefore invalid.

Elaborate, please. Is this another accusation of "You must be making these people up!" or a note on the demographics of the sample?

Second, You're basing these profiles without any numbers or facts to back you up, just your word and a few bullshit articles that this is all true. Though I must say the article from BMJ was nice, scientific, but not touching the point you were trying to make.

BMJ Study: Abstinence-only sex ed fails.

I.e., youth growing up in conservative communities are practicing more irresponsibly in sexual terms after growing up, as communities installing abstinence-only education are almost invariably "conservative." It's a piece of firm supprting evidence for my thesis... which is to say so called "conservative" youth are not widely practicing personal responsibility. Some do, of course... but personal irresponsiblity not a "those dang lib'rul kidz" problem, and is if anything ingrained in the so-called "conservative" culture.

And I wouldn't call Harvard's studies on college alcoholism "bullshit articles" myself, but I suppose that's between you and Harvard.

 

[Dark Link]

Elaborate, please. Is this another accusation of "You must be making these people up!" or a note on the demographics of the sample?

Well first, you completely denied any research process. The normal Ideal process is:

Problem -> Method -> Data collection and analysis -> Support or reject Hypothesis

It seems your main type of study is an Internal state-behavioral study. Meaning the interaction between their beliefs and reported or observed behaviors. You could do well in continuing research on it, as long as it's done scientifically and ethically.

What you fail to do is take a random sampling for your study. You have boths sides of an extreme with no middle ground. Some of your sampled people are a bit unbelievable.

You also fail to continue with explaining why you have these people in a research design. You describe them, then completely forget about them.

BMJ Study: Abstinence-only sex ed fails.

I.e., youth growing up in conservative communities are practicing more irresponsibly in sexual terms after growing up, as communities installing abstinence-only education are almost invariably "conservative." It's a piece of firm supprting evidence for my thesis... which is to say so called "conservative" youth are not widely practicing personal responsibility. Some do, of course... but personal irresponsiblity not a "those dang lib'rul kidz" problem, and is if anything ingrained in the so-called "conservative" culture.

And I wouldn't call Harvard's studies on college alcoholism "bullshit articles" myself, but I suppose that's between you and Harvard.

No, BMJ article: "Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: systematic review of randomised controlled trials"

Tanking from the Absract because I dont feel like dealing with SAA endnoting.

"Objective: To review the effectiveness of primary prevention strategies aimed at delaying sexual intercourse, improving use of birth control, and reducing incidence of unintended pregnancy in adolescents."

"Conclusions: Primary prevention strategies evaluated to date do not delay the initiation of sexual intercourse, improve use of birth control among young men and women, or reduce the number of pregnancies in young women. "

All this article was ment to explain was how our current method isn't working.

BUT, if you look at the data, it shows that the Abstinant only program had the same successes as many of the school/agency based education, negating your claim. That and your automatically assuming that all areas that have abstinance only programs are conservative, when many are in fact not, but following a state mandated curriculum.

And your other example was a school newspaper... Do I need to inform you about how stupid that is? Columbia University or not, You'd be laughed out of any place, like you are here. When giving sources to back up claims use Scholarly Jounals, not newspaper articles. If you want to get articles use engines like PubMed, Medline, ERIC, NTIS, OCLC, and others. The articles you'll find there are like your BMJ article done by doctors in different fields.

 

[Peter Octavian]

Well first, you completely denied any research process. The normal Ideal process is:

Problem -> Method -> Data collection and analysis -> Support or reject Hypothesis

It seems your main type of study is an Internal state-behavioral study. Meaning the interaction between their beliefs and reported or observed behaviors. You could do well in continuing research on it, as long as it's done scientifically and ethically.

What you fail to do is take a random sampling for your study. You have boths sides of an extreme with no middle ground. Some of your sampled people are a bit unbelievable.

You also fail to continue with explaining why you have these people in a research design. You describe them, then completely forget about them.



No, BMJ article: "Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: systematic review of randomised controlled trials"

Tanking from the Absract because I dont feel like dealing with SAA endnoting.

"Objective: To review the effectiveness of primary prevention strategies aimed at delaying sexual intercourse, improving use of birth control, and reducing incidence of unintended pregnancy in adolescents."

"Conclusions: Primary prevention strategies evaluated to date do not delay the initiation of sexual intercourse, improve use of birth control among young men and women, or reduce the number of pregnancies in young women. "

All this article was ment to explain was how our current method isn't working.

BUT, if you look at the data, it shows that the Abstinant only program had the same successes as many of the school/agency based education, negating your claim. That and your automatically assuming that all areas that have abstinance only programs are conservative, when many are in fact not, but following a state mandated curriculum.

And your other example was a school newspaper... Do I need to inform you about how stupid that is? Columbia University or not, You'd be laughed out of any place, like you are here. When giving sources to back up claims use Scholarly Jounals, not newspaper articles. If you want to get articles use engines like PubMed, Medline, ERIC, NTIS, OCLC, and others. The articles you'll find there are like your BMJ article done by doctors in different fields.

Thank you, Dark Link, for saying it better than I ever could have.