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 years 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

Business

OP-ED: Proposition 44 Would Put a Price on Trust

The danger in Proposition 44 is not only its 90 percent figure. It is that the meaning of “qualifying” spending will be worked out later. A clinic preparing a budget today may not know whether a navigator, health educator, transportation program, outreach worker, technology upgrade, or other patient-support service will be counted the way it expects. Yet the financial consequence of getting it wrong could be immediate.

Published

1 day ago

October 6, 2026

Post News Group

Oakland’s public conversation about health care must begin with a simple truth: a doctor’s appointment is not the same thing as access to care.

For a mother juggling work and child care, access may mean a text-message reminder, a bus pass, an evening appointment, or someone who can explain what Medi-Cal covers. For an older patient managing diabetes, it may mean help scheduling a specialist visit and understanding new medications. For a family that has been dismissed or misunderstood in medical settings, access may begin with meeting a community health worker who knows the neighborhood, speaks their language, and treats their concerns with respect.

Community health clinics make that kind of care possible. They are part medical provider, part navigator, part educator, and part trusted local institution. Proposition 44 threatens to narrow the definition of what counts as patient care in a way that could undermine the very supports that allow patients to receive it.

The statewide measure would require covered nonprofit community clinics to spend at least 90 percent of their annual revenue on health care or qualifying program services. The ballot measure directs the Attorney General to establish more detailed guidance on what expenses qualify. Clinics that do not meet the threshold could face penalties for the difference. The Legislative Analyst’s Office reports that affected clinics currently spend an average of about 80 percent of revenue on health care services.

A percentage may look like a clean measure of accountability. But health care is not cleanly divided between what happens inside an examination room and everything that enables a patient to enter one.

Consider the work that happens before and after a visit. Clinic staff maintain confidential patient records. They follow up after missed appointments. They keep information systems secure. They recruit and train employees in an expensive and competitive health care labor market. They coordinate referrals, process claims, purchase supplies, maintain buildings, and make certain that patients are not lost somewhere between diagnosis and treatment.

Oakland families should not be asked to accept the fiction that these functions are unrelated to care.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office says clinics falling short of the requirement could be required to pay the shortfall amount to the state and could seek to recover the money only if they show compliance within five years. The same analysis estimates state enforcement costs in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, supported by fees.

That is a troubling arrangement for organizations that are expected to provide care to people with the fewest alternatives.

Oakland has learned that trust is not built through slogans. It is built when a patient is listened to, when a parent can secure an appointment for a child, when a clinic returns a call, and when a person receives help without being shamed for their income, insurance, language, immigration history, or prior experience with the system.

For Black residents in particular, trustworthy care is not an abstract goal. Persistent inequities in health outcomes and patient treatment are real. Community-centered clinics can help bridge the gap with culturally responsive staff, patient navigators, behavioral-health programs, and partnerships that understand the conditions shaping health outside the clinic door.

Proposition 44 could pressure providers to treat those supports as expendable because they do not fit neatly into a state-enforced formula. That would be a mistake.

Accountability is necessary. Clinics that receive public resources should be transparent, well governed, and focused on their mission. But good oversight asks whether patients are being served well, whether money is managed responsibly, and whether communities can obtain needed care. It should not rely on a rigid ratio that may punish clinics for doing the hard work of reaching people who need more than a brief medical encounter.

A broad coalition of providers and community organizations opposes Proposition 44, including the California Primary Care Association, the California Medical Association, the California Hospital Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and the California Teachers Association.

Oakland needs health policy that expands the circle of care. Proposition 44 risks drawing that circle smaller.

The Oakland Post editorial board urges a No vote on Proposition 44.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Black History

Listening as a Lifeline: A Doula’s Witness to Black Maternal Health

OAKLAND POST — Maternal mortality and pregnancy-related mortality use different time frames and methods and are not interchangeable. Finalized 2024 CDC data recorded 649 maternal deaths nationally. The overall rate was 17.9 deaths per 100,000 live births, but for non-Hispanic Black women it was 44.8, compared with 14.2 for White women and 12.1 for Hispanic women.

Published

3 days ago

October 4, 2026

Post News Group

By Antoinette Stewart-Eneh, Special to California Black Media Partners

Word Count: 1058

Note: Client A, B & C, names are withheld for privacy; these accounts reflect my recollections as their Doula.

Client A rocked her hips on a birthing ball, surrounded by pale wood and warm textiles in a softly lit Scandinavian-style office. I was her doula through a Southern California maternal health company combining nurse-led care, technology, and wraparound support.

She was a healthy Black woman in her thirties. Her baby girl was doing well; her partner took notes as we discussed labor and advocacy.

Then we turned to their chosen hospital. I knew it well—and remembered a phrase from another client’s experience: “Policy of Sovereignty.”

Client B had been told she needed a repeat cesarean as a precaution, though the reasoning was unclear. Her obstetrician, who performed her first cesarean two years earlier, had assured her throughout pregnancy that she was healthy, healed, and ready for a vaginal birth. We asked staff to review her chart, consult her obstetrician, and reconsider immediate surgery. Instead, they invoked the “Policy of Sovereignty.”

The physician on duty, we were told, had final authority, regardless of her established care plan. I asked whether an ultrasound or reassessing the baby’s position could offer clarity. Cesareans can be lifesaving. But were Client B’s history, informed consent, and circumstances guiding this decision—or was routine overriding individualized care? We kept asking for her obstetrician. Beneath every request was a deeper question: Was she being heard?

The Numbers Behind the Stories

Statistics arrive in clean columns. The experiences behind them do not.

Maternal mortality and pregnancy-related mortality use different time frames and methods and are not interchangeable. Finalized 2024 CDC data recorded 649 maternal deaths nationally. The overall rate was 17.9 deaths per 100,000 live births, but for non-Hispanic Black women it was 44.8, compared with 14.2 for White women and 12.1 for Hispanic women.

In California, Black birthing people experienced 56.5 pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births during 2020–2022—3.8 times the White rate and four times the Asian rate.

As a doula serving Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, I see faces behind those numbers. I remember concerns raised softly, then firmly, then desperately. I am tired of watching Black families enter spaces meant to protect them, only to discover they must defend themselves while laboring, bleeding, trembling, or recovering.

Returning to Client A

Client A’s labor stretched nearly 48 hours. As her condition worsened, she, her partner, and I asked whether a cesarean should happen sooner. A provider questioned my place as a doula, then said she was next.

Six more hours passed.

She entered surgery visibly ill with a serious uterine infection, her baby malpositioned and stuck. Her partner later recalled the provider saying, “This baby would never have made it through the birth canal.”

Those words landed like a blow. Our urgency had been treated as ignorance. With Client B, we questioned why surgery was inevitable. With Client A, why it was delayed. Doula advocacy is not about one kind of birth. It is about informed consent, individualized care, and timely action. Hospital routine should never outweigh the person carrying the risk.

Survival Cannot Be the Standard

The Black maternal health crisis includes unequal care, untreated conditions, racial bias, delayed referrals, poor communication, and inadequate postpartum support. It is about birth plans respected only until a hospital becomes less busy and postpartum care that asks whether a mother survived, not whether she has what she needs to recover.

Survival cannot be the standard. Technology can support care, but it cannot replace human connection. An algorithm cannot detect fear in a patient’s eyes, and a mission statement alone cannot ensure adequate staffing or culturally responsive care.

The Story of Client C

Before I arrived, I heard the chaos through Client C’s phone. Staff struggled to locate her baby’s heartbeat on an external monitor as her fear and blood pressure rose. I pleaded for an internal electrode before surgery.

“There’s not enough time,” a nurse said.

“I would like to wait for my doula,” Client C called out.

But she was medicated, hurried through consent, and wheeled away while I listened.

In the operating room, after a shift change, another nurse placed an internal electrode and said, “The previous monitor wasn’t working.”

No one responded.

According to her father, the obstetrician avoided eye contact: “We need to move forward.”

Surgery may still have been necessary; that was not mine to determine. But if faulty equipment helped create the emergency, the family deserved acknowledgment and explanation—not silence. No family should have to wonder whether major surgery followed an unavoidable crisis or a machine failure no one recognized in time.

From Prevention to Accountability

After supporting nearly 100 families, I have learned that danger often begins before admission. I have urged clients to seek care—and heard why they feared returning: dismissed pain, harsh words, shame for asking questions.

Care cannot be holistic where Black families do not feel safe enough to speak or return. Representation matters, but providers of color cannot repair inequity alone. They need adequate staffing, mentorship, culturally responsive training, reliable equipment, and colleagues that are reflective of all the aforementioned. It’s not the Black providers job to care for just the Black patients, everyone should have the same goal.

The Momnibus Act, California’s Medi-Cal doula benefit, the Transforming Maternal Health Model and the Perinatal Equity Initiative require more than promises; they need sustained funding, reliable reimbursement and accountable implementation.

Birth should be sacred. Yet too many Black birthing people arrive carrying the burden of proving their pain is real. A doula can listen, educate, comfort, and advocate—but cannot repair a system that refuses to listen. The true measure of progress is what happens when a Black birthing person says, “Something is wrong.”

Are they believed? When equipment fails, is that failure acknowledged? Do families leave not merely alive, but safe, respected, supported, and whole?

Until those answers are consistently yes, California’s maternal health success story remains unfinished.

About the Author

Antoinette Stewart-Eneh is a mother of two, holistic maternal wellness advocate, and birth and postpartum doula who has supported families since 2019. She serves as program operations coordinator for Frontline Doulas, a volunteer client coordinator with the Joy in Birthing Foundation and a childbirth educator in South Los Angeles. She is studying to become a midwife and lactation educator.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Commentary

‘We Don’t Talk Trash — We Pick Up Trash!’

OAKLAND POST — Following the cleanup, Jones talked with Richard Johnson, CEO of Formerly Incarcerated Giving Back (FIGB). Johnson said he wanted to bring formerly incarcerated nonprofits together not only to help clean up the city, but also to bring youth with them to mentor the next generation.

Published

3 days ago

October 4, 2026

Post News Group

High Street Coalition volunteers pick up trash on Sept. 26. Left to right are: Jo Ann, Ruben, JoJo, Jess, Jonathan ‘Fitness’ Jones and Linda in front. Photo courtesy of Linda.

By Dr. Maritony Jones, Special to The Post

When community activist Jonathan “Fitness” Jones heard concerns from senior residents in East Oakland about illegal dumping, recurring trash issues and the health hazards they created, he decided that watching the problem was not enough.

Jones, a member of the African American Sports and Entertainment Group (AASEG) and an Oakland Private Industry Council board member, learned that seniors were frustrated by the recurrence of illegal dumping even when trash has been cleared. Recurring trash can contribute to unsanitary conditions, attract rodents and leave residents feeling that their neighborhoods are being overlooked.

On Saturday, Sept. 26, Mr. Jones joined High Street Coalition volunteers at Dick’s Donuts near High Street and Quigley Street, spending the morning picking up trash and helping beautify the surrounding neighborhood.

High Street Coalition volunteers organize community cleanups on the second and fourth Saturdays of each month.

Following the cleanup, Jones talked with Richard Johnson, CEO of Formerly Incarcerated Giving Back (FIGB). Johnson said he wanted to bring formerly incarcerated nonprofits together not only to help clean up the city, but also to bring youth with them to mentor the next generation.

Jones and Johnson discussed developing a community model that brings formerly incarcerated individuals, Oakland youth and nonprofit organizations together to clean and beautify the city.

The vision is to create opportunities for formerly incarcerated adults to take leadership roles while mentoring young people through hands-on community service. The program could also provide youth with opportunities to develop leadership skills, learn teamwork and responsibility, and potentially gain employment experience.

The goal is bigger than removing trash from the streets. It is about restoring neighborhoods while building relationships between generations and creating opportunities for people with lived experience to give back to their communities.

Jones believes the message is simple:

“We don’t talk trash, we pick up trash.”

The proposed collaboration seeks to bring Oakland nonprofits, formerly incarcerated leaders, youth, residents, businesses and community organizations together around a shared purpose — cleaning the town, beautifying Oakland and building a stronger community together.