The Fox, the Hedgehog, and the Millennials

President Obama’s student-debt proposal — and the reaction to it — reveal how Democrats and Republicans are courting young people.

US President Barack Obama speaks before signing a memorandum on reducing the burden of student loans on June 9, 2014 in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC. 
AFP/Getty Images
Ronald Brownstein
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Ronald Brownstein
June 12, 2014, 5 p.m.

It was telling that when Pres­id­ent Obama un­veiled his latest pro­pos­al to re­strain stu­dent debt earli­er this week, Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans ini­tially fired back not with a cri­ti­cism of the plan it­self but with a re­lease that cata­logued an ar­ray of grim stat­ist­ics on young people’s ex­per­i­ences in the eco­nomy. The ex­change cap­tured the con­trast between the ap­proaches Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans are us­ing to court the massive mil­len­ni­al gen­er­a­tion, whose elect­or­al in­flu­ence is stead­ily ex­pand­ing.

Obama’s new ef­fort to cap stu­dent-loan debts il­lu­min­ated a Demo­crat­ic strategy of pur­su­ing the mil­len­ni­al gen­er­a­tion by of­fer­ing them pro­grams and policies that align with their views. The Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­an re­sponse shows a GOP that is court­ing mil­len­ni­als around a broad­er ar­gu­ment centered on the eco­nom­ic struggles many of them are fa­cing.

It’s the polit­ic­al equi­val­ent of philo­soph­er Isai­ah Ber­lin’s fam­ous dis­tinc­tion between the fox and the hedge­hog. Like the fox, Demo­crats say mil­len­ni­als agree with them on many things. Like the hedge­hog, Re­pub­lic­ans say Demo­crats are fail­ing mil­len­ni­als on the one big thing that mat­ters most: provid­ing them eco­nom­ic op­por­tun­ity.

So far, Demo­crats have got­ten the bet­ter of the ar­gu­ment. As the first mil­len­ni­als have moved in­to the elect­or­ate since 2000 (the gen­er­a­tion is best de­scribed as the 90 mil­lion-plus young people born from 1981 through 2002), Demo­crats have en­joyed a con­sist­ent ad­vant­age with young­er voters. In 2008, Obama won two-thirds of voters un­der 30. His ad­vant­age slipped in 2012, but he still car­ried three-fifths of them.

Look­ing for­ward, though, the gen­er­a­tion seems more con­flic­ted. Ana­lysts in both parties agree that mil­len­ni­als’ eco­nom­ic struggles have pre­ven­ted Demo­crats from so­lid­i­fy­ing their sup­port as much as ap­peared pos­sible after Obama’s first vic­tory.

The depth of their eco­nom­ic dis­con­tent rang through a re­cent poll con­duc­ted as part of a series of joint Na­tion­al Journ­al/At­lantic mil­len­ni­al town halls un­der­writ­ten by Mi­crosoft.

In the sur­vey, only a little more than one-third of mil­len­ni­als de­scribed cur­rent eco­nom­ic con­di­tions as either very good (8 per­cent) or even some­what good (27 per­cent). Few­er than one-fourth thought the eco­nomy was bet­ter than a year ago. Nor was there much op­tim­ism about the months ahead: In the poll, only 27 per­cent thought the eco­nomy would be bet­ter one year from now.

On all of these ques­tions, young whites without a col­lege de­gree were es­pe­cially pess­im­ist­ic. But the lar­ger story was the con­sist­ency of this eco­nom­ic dis­con­tent across the mil­len­ni­al gen­er­a­tion, even among groups that oth­er­wise have been the most sup­port­ive of Obama and Demo­crats. The share of non­white mil­len­ni­als who said the eco­nomy was good today or likely to im­prove over the next year was not mean­ing­fully lar­ger than the share of whites; wo­men were no more op­tim­ist­ic than men.

The March 14-18 sur­vey by the IC2 In­sti­tute at the Uni­versity of Texas (Aus­tin) was con­duc­ted on­line, so the res­ults may not be as stat­ist­ic­ally pre­cise as those from a ran­dom-di­git-dial tele­phone poll. But they’re con­sist­ent with oth­er polling — polling that paints a dis­tinctly gloomy pic­ture of mil­len­ni­als’ moods.

An­oth­er re­cent on­line poll of this group, this one con­duc­ted by Paul Harstad, a poll­ster for Obama in 2008, crys­tal­lized this dis­con­tent in­to a single an­swer when it asked re­spond­ents wheth­er they agreed that “my em­ploy­ment or edu­ca­tion op­por­tun­it­ies are a lot less than I thought they’d be.” Ex­actly three-fifths of mil­len­ni­als said yes.

All of that maps the op­por­tun­ity for the GOP’s hedge­hog ar­gu­ment that Obama and the Demo­crats have failed mil­len­ni­als on the one thing that mat­ters most. But the IC2, Harstad, and oth­er re­cent sur­veys all show the po­ten­tial power of the fox case from Demo­crats. Both the IC2 and Harstad sur­veys, for in­stance, in­dic­ate sig­ni­fic­ant mil­len­ni­al re­ceptiv­ity to Demo­crat­ic ar­gu­ments about in­equal­ity; fully two-thirds in the IC2 poll agreed that it is dif­fi­cult for av­er­age people to get ahead today.

Demo­crats also en­joy a con­sist­ent ad­vant­age with mil­len­ni­als on most cul­tur­al is­sues, as an ABC/Wash­ing­ton Post sur­vey last week re­minded. No Re­pub­lic­an 2016 con­tender is likely to fully sup­port gay mar­riage, but in the poll a head-turn­ing 77 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans un­der 30 said they backed it. And even as Re­pub­lic­ans erup­ted in op­pos­i­tion last week to Obama’s pro­pos­al to lim­it car­bon emis­sions from power plants, three-fourths of mil­len­ni­als in the same poll said they con­sidered cli­mate change a ser­i­ous prob­lem.

The most con­tested gen­er­a­tion­al ground may be the role of gov­ern­ment. Some sur­veys, like Harstad’s, show mil­len­ni­als more open than their eld­ers to gov­ern­ment act­iv­ism; but oth­er polls show them un­der­stand­ably un­con­vinced that any big in­sti­tu­tions — in­clud­ing gov­ern­ment and busi­ness — have worked very well for them. Kristen Solt­is An­der­son, a young GOP poll­ster who has ex­tens­ively stud­ied mil­len­ni­als, says the real duel un­der­way is between Demo­crats of­fer­ing pro­grams such as stu­dent-debt re­lief or a high­er min­im­um wage that ad­dress “the acute, im­me­di­ate pain” mil­len­ni­als face, and Re­pub­lic­ans try­ing in­stead to con­vince them “we’ve got to start over and re­think our ap­proach to these big sys­tems, wheth­er it’s high­er edu­ca­tion or health care.”

That de­bate isn’t settled, but An­der­son ac­know­ledges that Re­pub­lic­ans face a tough bur­den of proof “with a gen­er­a­tion that has nev­er really had a reas­on to trust [us]” after com­ing of age polit­ic­ally dur­ing George W. Bush’s con­ten­tious pres­id­ency. The Re­pub­lic­an hedge­hogs are dig­ging away, but must still bur­row past a thick tangle of ex­per­i­ences and at­ti­tudes be­fore reach­ing a mil­len­ni­al break­through.

What We're Following See More »
PENCE BREAKS THE TIE
Senate Will Debate House Bill
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

By the narrowest of margins, the Senate voted 51-50 this afternoon to begin debate on the House's legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare. Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins defected from the GOP, but Vice President Pence broke a tie. Sen. John McCain returned from brain surgery to cast his vote.

Source:
WON’T SAY IF HE’LL FIRE HIM
Trump “Disappointed” in Sessions
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

“'It’s not like a great loyal thing about the endorsement,'” Mr. Trump said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. 'I’m very disappointed in Jeff Sessions.'”

Source:
MURKOWSKI, COLLINS VOTE NAY
Republicans Reach 50 Votes to Proceed on Health Bill
1 hours ago
THE LATEST
INTERVIEWED KUSHNER FOR OVER THREE HOURS
House Russia Probe: Kushner “Satisfied” Questions
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Republicans who interviewed Jared Kushner for more than three hours in the House’s Russia probe on Tuesday said the president’s son-in-law and adviser came across as candid and cooperative. 'His answers were forthcoming and complete. He satisfied all my questions,' said Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who’s leading the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, including possible collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign."

Source:
VICTORY FOR GUN RIGHTS ADVOCATES
Appeals Court Block D.C. Gun Control Law
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday blocked a gun regulation in Washington, D.C., that limited the right to carry a handgun in public to those with a special need for self-defense, handing a victory to gun rights advocates. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's 2-1 ruling struck down the local government's third major attempt in 40 years to limit handgun rights, citing what it said was scant but clear guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court on the right to bear arms."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login