Community

Young Voters Have Growing Power, But Broken Politics Leave Them ‘Fatalistic,’ Studies Find

Young voters from the millennial generation and Gen Z are emerging as the demographic center of power in American politics, but new studies by UC Berkeley researchers find they are fatalistic about critical problems such as economic inequality, climate change and the future of democracy.

Published

2 months ago

July 8, 2024

Oakland Post

Millennial and Gen Z voters are more diverse and more liberal, and they’ve been critical in driving the influence of social movements such as Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. UC Berkeley photo

By Edward Lempinen

UC Berkeley News

Younger voters had a broad, decisive impact on the 2020 presidential election and congressional elections in 2018 and 2022, according to research released today by the Berkeley Institute for Young Americans (BIFYA). Now, with the 2024 presidential election just months away, the institute’s analysis raises concerns about possibly low turnout among young voters in November.

Two new studies offer a deeply detailed look at the social values and political behaviors of voters aged 18-43 — and jarring insights into their generational zeitgeist. Some findings diverge sharply from prevailing stereotypes about the political behavior of young voters.

Surprisingly, the institute reports, the values of Gen Z and millennial voters across the political spectrum are converging toward agreement on key issues. But the researchers found a substantial generation gap in American politics: Both young liberals and young conservatives want effective government action to solve challenges, while their parents and grandparents have been in conflict for a half-century over the role of government.

At the same time, however, many young voters appear to share a belief that fractured, dysfunctional government systems are incapable of addressing critical challenges that fall heavily on their generations. A sense of fatalism extends across the right, center and left, according to the researchers.

“Millennials and Gen Zers are generations unlike any other because of the risks they face,” said Erin Heys, the institute’s policy director and senior researcher. “From the housing crisis to the threat of climate change and AI, young people are feeling hopeless about the challenges in front of them and are disillusioned with a political system that is unresponsive to their needs.”

“In this pivotal election year, whether or not young people decide to vote could very well decide the outcome of the election,” said Sarah Swanbeck, BIFYA’s executive director. “These new papers give us an important first glimpse into one factor that could affect whether or not young people turn up at the polls: their increasing feeling of fatalism and a sense that the American Dream is farther and farther out of reach.”

The Berkeley institute, founded in 2015, undertakes pathbreaking research to better understand the unique challenges that younger generations are facing and to develop the public policy interventions needed to solve them. The institute is affiliated with Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy.

A historic passing of power from old to young

The institute’s new research comes at a generational inflection point in U.S. politics.

Incumbent President Joe Biden is 81 years old, and his challenger, former President Donald Trump, is 78. It’s almost certain that the 2024 election will represent the end of an era in which politicians from the World War II and post-war generations dominated U.S. political leadership.

By some measures, millennials and Gen Z voters by 2028 will account for half of the electorate. And millions of young Gen Zers will be eligible to vote for the first time this year.

As a group, those tens of millions of young Americans face risks that older generations could scarcely imagine: extreme economic inequality, climate change and warp-speed technological change that is shaking political and economic stability in the U.S. and much of the world.

The Berkeley research finds that they’re disillusioned because older generations have failed to address those and other problems and seem to be simply handing them off to their children.

How will younger voters respond?

While they have the numbers to determine the outcome of elections, the new BIFYA study points to other research showing that young conservatives are defecting from the Republican Party, just as millions of young liberals and progressives are disconnecting from the Democratic Party.

Many are so disillusioned that they could opt out of political engagement altogether, the research finds. That concern is underscored in a new poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS), which finds that many voters — and especially young voters — may stay home on Election Day because they don’t like the choices.

But, the institute’s research concludes, the change of generations also may create conditions for younger elected leaders to put aside political warfare and seek instead new ideas to solve problems.

Walk away from politics? Or rise up and change the world?

The Berkeley institute’s new research comes in two working papers that explore the complex factors that shape political attitudes and behavior, and additional papers are planned for release in the coming months.

In the study “Generational Values and Political Participation in Recent U.S. Elections,” Heys describes millennials and Gen Zers as a contingent that is “fundamentally different” from earlier generations.

They have endured the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the Great Recession in 2008. They have witnessed the election of Barack Obama, the nation’s first Black president, and the election of Donald Trump, whose MAGA allies attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election by force.

These voters are more diverse and more tech-savvy, and they have contributed forcefully to movements such as Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter. The COVID-19 pandemic, too, made a lasting cultural imprint on the generation.

They have emerged from those crucible experiences as decisively more liberal than earlier generations, Heys writes. Their values are more egalitarian. They have a more critical view of the flaws in American democracy and the unequal distribution of wealth and power.

Indeed, she found that values among young conservatives and liberals are more “homogenous” than for older generations.

“The values of young conservatives, in particular, are changing, with young conservatives more egalitarian and fatalistic in comparison to older age cohorts of conservatives,” Heys writes. “This changing value structure may play out in the attitudes of young conservatives, who have been found to hold more liberal views on issues like racial equality, climate change, universal health care and abortion.”

Heys cites other research showing that fewer than half of young people who grew up in conservative households now consider themselves Republicans. But, she adds, the trend is similar for the Democratic Party.

Indeed, dissatisfaction with the political status quo seems widespread — and that translates into a sense of fatalism.

“Young people think that much in their lives is outside of their control,” she writes. They “are pessimistic about their own futures and the fate of the country, and are feeling pessimistic about the American Dream, believing that while it was once true, it is no longer within reach for younger generations.”

Clear and troubling implications for future elections

The institute expands on these themes in “Cultural Evolution: Measuring Differences in Generational Values.”

Evidence has been accumulating for years “that young people across the ideological spectrum are more tolerant and open-minded toward people from all backgrounds, and are more likely to support progressive policy issues,” Heys writes.

A key finding is that young people across political boundaries are more likely to believe “that government should do more to solve society’s problems, even if it means higher taxes for all,” the study says. But the failure of government to address issues that directly affect the lives of young people — such as climate, and the costs of education, housing, and health care — fuels pervasive fatalism.

Yet the trends are not uniform.

Heys finds young men skew more toward individualism, and that young women lean more toward egalitarian values. And among young people of color, there is a trend toward more individualism and a less egalitarian, collective orientation.

What’s the political impact of these values? In a series of interviews with young voters, BIFYA found that “young people who chose not to vote in the 2020 election were disillusioned with the political system and thought it had been taken over by special interests. They … did not think that the political system represented their interests or responded to the economic, social, and environmental risks they faced in their everyday lives.”

Those findings have clear — and troubling — implications for November’s election and future elections.

Still, the institute’s leaders see a path toward political hope and healing as the younger Americans rise into power.

“We are encouraged that young people from across the ideological spectrum are more aligned in their value structure than their elders,” Heys said. “This means that as younger generations become the dominant electoral force in the years ahead, they’ll be more likely to coalesce around new policy ideas to solve today’s pressing problems.“

But for that to happen, Swanbeck added, “candidates looking to engage with and inspire this group of young voters will need to provide an antidote to this sense of dread by offering real solutions to the existential threats with which younger generations are grappling.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Asm. Corey Jackson Calls Asm. Bill Essayli a “Bully” After Assembly Floor Spat

Don't Miss

California Needs Big, Bold Affordable Housing Investments Now

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Bay Area

Libby Schaaf, Associates Stiff Penalties for ‘Serious’ Campaign Violations in 2018, 2020 City Elections

According to the proposed settlement agreements, which are on the agenda for the Monday, Sept. 16 Public Ethics Commission (PEC), Schaaf and many of those with whom she was working, have cooperated with the investigation and have accepted the commission’s findings and penalties. “Respondents knowingly and voluntarily waive all procedural rights under the Oakland City Charter, Oakland Municipal Code, the Public Ethics Commission Complaint Procedures, and all other sources of (applicable) procedural rights,” the settlement agreement said.

Published

2 days ago

September 13, 2024

Oakland Post

Libby Schaaf served as Oakland’s mayor from 2012 to 2020. Courtesy Photo.

Ex-Mayor, Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce Are Not Disputing Findings of Violations

By Ken Epstein

Former Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, currently a candidate for state treasurer, faces thousands of dollars in penalties from the City of Oakland Public Ethics Commission for a “pattern” of serious campaign violations in 2018 and 2020 city elections

“Respondents knowingly and voluntarily waive all procedural rights under the Oakland City Charter, Oakland Municipal Code, the Public Ethics Commission Complaint Procedures, and all other sources of (applicable) procedural rights,” the settlement agreement said.

“If respondents fail to comply with the terms of this stipulation, then the commission may reopen this matter and prosecute respondents to the full extent permitted by law,” according to the agreement.

Schaff and co-respondents were involved in three related cases investigated by the PEC:

In the first case, Schaaf in 2018, without publicly revealing her involvement as required by law, working with the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and others, created, lead, and raised funds for a campaign committee called “Oaklanders for Responsible Leadership, Opposing Desley Brooks for Oakland City Council.”

The “respondents,” who were responsible for the violations in this case were: the campaign committee called Oaklanders for Responsible Leadership; Mayor Schaaf; the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce; OAKPAC; which is the chamber’s political action committee; Barbara Leslie and Robert Zachary Wasserman, both leaders of the Oakland chamber; and Doug Linney, a campaign consultant who was brought on by Schaaf to organize and lead the campaign to defeat Desley Brooks in her 2018 campaign for reelection.

Linney reported in his interview with the PEC that Schaaf had approached him and said, “Let’s do an Independent Expenditure (IE) campaign against Desley and let me see if I can get some other folks involved to make it happen.”

Linney developed a plan, which hired staff to organize field canvassing and phone banking. He said Schaaf told him the budget should be more than $200,000 because “I think raising $200K shouldn’t be hard and could shoot for more.”

None of the original group, which met weekly, included anyone who lived in District 6, the section of the city that Brooks represented. They waited to start the committee until they could find a District 6 resident willing to be the face of their campaign.

During her tenure, Brooks was instrumental in establishing the city’s Department of Race and Equity.

Among the violations reported by the PEC:

Respondents reported contributions as being received from the chamber’s political action committee, OAKPAC, “rather than the true source of the contributions,” in order to hide the identities of contributors.
Failure to disclose “controlling candidate,” Libby Schaaf, on a mass mailer.
Failing to disclose the controlling candidate, Libby Schaaf, on official campaign filings.
Receiving contributions in amounts over the legal limit. For example, the State Building and Construction Trade Council of California PAC donated $10,000, which is $8,400 over the limit; and Libby Schaaf donated $999, which is $199 over the limit.

Total contributions were $108,435, of which $82,035 was over the limit.

“In this case, Mayor Schaaf and her associates’ action were negligent. All of them were fully aware that Mayor Schaaf and significant participation in the IE campaign against Brooks, including its creation, strategy, and budgeting decisions, and selection of personnel.”

Further, the PEC said, “The respondents’ violations in this case are serious. The strict rules applying to candidate-controlled committees go directly to the very purpose of campaign finance law.”

In her interview with the PEC, Schaaf, who is an attorney, had received incorrect legal advice from Linney, her campaign consultant, that her activities were legally permissible, because she was not the “final decision-maker.”

Total recommended penalties for all those involved in this case were $148,523.

The PEC also found violations and is recommending penalties in two other cases.

The second case involves the Oakland Fund for Measure AA in 2018, which established a parcel tax to fund early childhood initiatives in Oakland. Looking into this case, PEC investigators found that Schaaf used her position as mayor to benefit the campaign, though without revealing her involvement.

A contractor who made a large contribution was Julian Orton of Orton Development, which was in negotiations with the city to redevelop the Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center. Orton donated $100,000

Schaaf, for failing to disclose that the campaign committee was “candidate controlled,” may face a $4,500 penalty. For violating the rule against contractor contributions, the campaign committee and Schaaf face a possible $5,000 penalty.

Orton has agreed to pay a $5,000 penalty.

The third case involved a campaign in 2020, the Committee for an Affordable East Bay, which raised thousands of dollars to support Derrick Johnson’s campaign for Councilmember-at-Large position and to attack the incumbent, Councilmember-at-Large Rebecca Kaplan.

Investigators found that Schaaf was extensively and secretly involved in the work of this committee.

She received a $100,000 donation from Lyft, which had a contract with the city at the time and was therefore legally prohibited. Lyft recently agreed to pay a $50,000 fine.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: Why the N-Word Should Be Eliminated from Schools: A Call to Educators, Parents and Students

The N-word’s use in schools, intentionally or otherwise, preserves a cycle of racial abuse, degradation, and discrimination which are violations to the dignity of African American students. Its usage perpetuates a legacy of hate and is a dignity violation that makes it a pressing issue for educators to address. Not addressing use of the N word in school contradicts the principles of equity and inclusion that educational institutions strive to uphold.

Published

2 days ago

September 13, 2024

Oakland Post

Zetha Nobles. Courtesy photo.

By Zetha A. Nobles,

The presence and rampant use of the N-word in educational settings poses significant challenges to the social-emotional learning (SEL) and psychological well-being of students and teachers.

The historical and contemporary usage of the N-word carries deep-seated racial connotations and trauma, making it imperative to address its impact in the school environment.

Here’s why the N-word should be eradicated from schools and its detrimental effects on SEL and psychological health.

Historical Context and Significance

The use of the N-word is considered a severe violation of dignity due to its deeply hurtful and dehumanizing nature. The N-word is historically rooted in a long and sordid history of racism, oppression and dehumanization.

It was and is used to dehumanize, degrade, demean and denigrate African American people. Its historical presence is marked by extreme violence and pernicious systemic oppression.

Despite the evolving societal appropriation and the exploitation of the word in hip hop music and other media forms, its controversial use has morphed or mutated into a word now used to signify friendship or endearment.

In schools its use is complex, representing camaraderie, being cool and defiant while consciously and unconsciously dehumanizing African American students and staff.

The N-word has a long history of being used as a tool of oppression and degradation against Black people. It was employed during periods of slavery, segregation, and ongoing racial discrimination to strip individuals of their humanity and reinforce systemic racism.

Its use is a painful reminder of this history and the ongoing struggle against racism. Its impact:

Dehumanization: When the N-word is used, it reduces Black individuals to a derogatory stereotype, stripping away their identity and worth as human beings. It perpetuates the idea that certain groups are inferior and unworthy of respect and dignity.
Impact on Self-Worth: Hearing or being called the N-word can have profound psychological and emotional impacts, leading to feelings of shame, anger, and diminished self-worth. It communicates to individuals that they are lesser or undeserving solely because of their race.
Interpersonal Harm: The use of the N-word in interpersonal interactions conveys disrespect, hostility, and a lack of regard for the feelings and dignity of others. It undermines efforts to build inclusive and respectful relationships.
Symbol of Structural Injustice: The N-word symbolizes larger societal injustices and inequalities. Its continued use reflects ongoing racial prejudice and discrimination, perpetuating harmful attitudes and behaviors.

Given these reasons, using the N-word is not just a matter of inappropriate language; it represents a significant violation of human dignity and reinforces harmful racial stereotypes and hierarchies. It is crucial to reject and actively challenge the use of this word to promote equality, respect, and dignity for all individuals.

In schools, the word retains its harmful and damaging impact and remains a powerful symbol of racial animosity. The N-word’s use in schools, intentionally or otherwise, preserves a cycle of racial abuse, degradation, and discrimination which are violations to the dignity of African American students. Its usage perpetuates a legacy of hate and is a dignity violation that makes it a pressing issue for educators to address. Not addressing use of the N word in school contradicts the principles of equity and inclusion that educational institutions strive to uphold.

Impact on Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)

Social-emotional learning is crucial for students’ development as it encompasses the skills needed to manage emotions, establish positive relationships, and make responsible decisions. The use of the N-word in schools disrupts this process in several key and critical ways:

Emotional Trauma: The N-word is a trigger for emotional pain, particularly for African American students and teachers. It can evoke feelings of anger, sadness, shame and humiliation, which hinder the ability to engage fully in the learning process.
Hostile Learning Environment: A safe and supportive learning environment is essential for effective SEL. The use of the N-word creates a hostile and unsafe atmosphere, leading to increased anxiety, disrespect, and stress among students and teachers.
Relationship Building: One of the goals of SEL is to foster positive relationships. The use of derogatory language such as the N-word fosters division and mistrust among students and staff.

Psychological Impact on Students and Teachers

The psychological effects of the N-word on students and teachers are profound and far-reaching. For students, especially those of African American descent, the word can lead to feelings of inferiority and exclusion. This not only affects their academic performance but also their self-esteem and mental health. Studies have shown that exposure to racial slurs can increase levels of depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues.

For teachers, addressing the use of the N-word in the classroom is a significant challenge. It places an emotional burden on them, particularly for teachers of color who may feel personally targeted. The stress of managing such situations can lead to burnout and affect their ability to provide a supportive learning environment.

Strategies for Eliminating the N-Word from Schools

To effectively eliminate the N-word from schools, a comprehensive approach is necessary. Here are some strategies:

Clear Policies and Consequences: Schools must implement and enforce policies that explicitly prohibit the use of the N-word and other derogatory language. Clear consequences for violations should be established and communicated to all members of the school community.
Cultural Competency Training: Providing cultural competency and anti-racism training for teachers, staff, and students can foster a more inclusive and respectful environment. This training should include the historical context of the N-word and its impact on individuals and communities as well as alternative language.
Support Systems: Schools should offer culturally congruent support systems, such as counseling and peer support groups, for students and teachers affected by the use of the N-word. These resources can help individuals process their experiences, mitigate psychological harm and co-create a culture of dignity.
Community Engagement: Engaging the broader school community, including parents and local organizations, in dialogue about the impact of the N-word can reinforce the school’s commitment to creating a respectful and inclusive environment.

In addition to the moral and ethical arguments against the use of the N-word, there are also legal and policy considerations that support its prohibition in schools. Many school districts have anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies that explicitly prohibit the use of derogatory language, including racial slurs. The use of the N-word in schools can lead to disciplinary actions and legal consequences for both students and staff who violate these policies.

Furthermore, federal laws such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Schools that fail to address the use of the N-word and other forms of racial harassment may be in violation of these laws, potentially resulting in investigations and penalties from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

Addressing the N-word in educational settings is not just about prohibiting a word; it is about dismantling a symbol of hate and fostering an environment where all students and teachers can thrive.