I really don't want to be ageist but these days I'm increasingly feeling like the world's steering wheels are in the hands of idiot children. I don't know what to do with that. I'm in my 40s and...
I really don't want to be ageist but these days I'm increasingly feeling like the world's steering wheels are in the hands of idiot children. I don't know what to do with that. I'm in my 40s and I'm still constantly learning how to be a more decent human being. The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. Half my lifetime ago I was a smirking fresh-faced college grad who thought he knew a lot and wanted to mold the world into whatever my particular brand of utopia was at the time. We'd all have been screwed decades ago if I had ever been given a real platform or any levers of power.
I dunno. I dislike seeing this kind of student activism because students objectively have a lot more growing to do. Maturity, experience, cognitive development. But age alone isn't a guarantee of anything. There's a 79yo manbaby in the Oval Office right now. I think this is just me grappling with what everybody does at midlife, when they find themselves muttering about kids these days. Yup, guilty. This is bog-standard ageism I'm spouting, nothing new to see here.
Maybe what's really happening is my head is that I'm jealous to see people younger than myself finding influence and personal success in the world, when I'm still waiting for my ship to come in. I think it's more than that though. I'm angry at these students for actively, vehemently promoting rhetoric and policies designed to harm people. I'm angry at their apparent lack of introspection or compassion for the dignity of others who aren't like them, and the way they seek to limit the possibilities of what life can offer people who don't see the world the way they do. I'm angry at how they feel the need to shackle everyone else in small-mindedness. And I'm angry because in their effusive naivete they're acting as the puppets of older, more sinister masterminds like Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. The students probably don't see the big picture but the ones driving the actual agenda... they absolutely do. That's the despicable thing. The students are pawns, and they should be pitied for that.
Sorry for the stream of thought. Truth be told I did some right-wing activism in college myself, in the years following 9/11. I'm not the same person I was then, and I have regrets I'm projecting onto the current generation. Feels like the stakes are different this time, though.
The Cultural Revolution in China is one good example from history of how youth movements can do a lot of harm. I don't think you're wrong to be nervous/worried/concerned, but I don't think the...
The Cultural Revolution in China is one good example from history of how youth movements can do a lot of harm.
I don't think you're wrong to be nervous/worried/concerned, but I don't think the situation is hopeless either.
I hadn’t even considered where this road could lead, beyond regular activism. We’ve already seen Trump seeking ways to bring [para]military violence into American cities, first with the national...
I hadn’t even considered where this road could lead, beyond regular activism. We’ve already seen Trump seeking ways to bring [para]military violence into American cities, first with the national guard, now with ICE. And we’ve witnessed him incite a crowd of rioters to storm the U.S. capitol. You think he might try to weaponize TPUSA like his own personal Red Guards? That’s a scary thought.
I mean it sounds ridiculous but nothing’s off the table with this guy.
The slightly optimistic part of this piece is how TPUSA without Kirk has a power vacuum, and it's causing sentiments that Kirk would previously "keep in line" to really come out. In ways both to...
You think he might try to weaponize TPUSA like his own personal Red Guards? That’s a scary thought.
The slightly optimistic part of this piece is how TPUSA without Kirk has a power vacuum, and it's causing sentiments that Kirk would previously "keep in line" to really come out. In ways both to the right and left of trump. I think without filling that vacuum that TPUSA is going to be a piece in splintering the Right for a while to come. Between issues of being anti-establishment while seeing how Trump is blatantly establishment, to people who want to go even harder on anti-immigration efforts.
It's not good at all. But if they can't unite, they lose voting power. Guess we gotta take what we can get.
Not all children are like those you're describing. There's always going to be right-wing agitators, fascists, racists, neo-Nazis, etc. among the younger set. There's also always going to be forces...
Not all children are like those you're describing. There's always going to be right-wing agitators, fascists, racists, neo-Nazis, etc. among the younger set. There's also always going to be forces pushing back against them, from within that generation and from without.
The problem, imo, isn't that the "steering wheel is in the hands of idiot children". The problem is that the steering wheel is in the hands of white supremacists. And The United States' white population does not seem to be equipped, at all, to deal with it. In fact, a significant portion of the white population agrees with the white supremacists in power, or at the very least has no problem with the arrangement.
How do we fix that? We could say the same thing that we always have - increased education, sensitivity training, and the like. But that doesn't necessarily get at the rot of white American culture. I wish I knew what would; but the bigger issue is, are white Americans willing to adopt changes to "their culture" to accommodate people with less pale complexion?
I don't want to say kids are getting dumber per se. I'm a young millenial so I'm still closer to them than I am to you in age. But there's definiely an element of superficiality when I dig into...
I don't want to say kids are getting dumber per se. I'm a young millenial so I'm still closer to them than I am to you in age.
But there's definiely an element of superficiality when I dig into the interview that I never felt in my generation's politics (but it was likely there), likely shaped by how they engage with social media. Particularly the chapter president of one college at the end:
“Everybody I know watches Nick. He’s funny,” she told me by phone a couple of days before our lunch. Lachman tried to explain that he serves a different purpose than Kirk did. “Charlie, I take notes and apply to my life.” Fuentes “is a character; he likes to humor people.”
...When I asked if watching Kirk’s enemy is an act of disloyalty, Lachman acknowledged that her generation was struggling to fill the void he left behind. She wasn’t always sure where to turn herself. “Sometimes when I’m sad and in bed and want to watch Charlie,” she said, “I just watch Nick instead.”
Which says 2 sad things here
there really isn't much conviction in their principles here. All these politics are ultimately a game for them in multiple ways. a form of entertainment, and a form of advancement in their careers. When this career is determining policy of real lives, that can feel frustrating.
While "lost" without Charile, they will fall back on pretty much anything that scratches a similar itch. Even if that itch is spouting (by the words of pretty much all the inerviewees in this piece) anti-semitism rhetoric. As long as its "funny", they will passively listen to someone who wants to enact the 4th Reich in real time.
Those “two sad things” are exactly what we already see with Trump and MAGA. There’s no real ideological spine; politics functions as entertainment first, with policy and consequences as an...
Those “two sad things” are exactly what we already see with Trump and MAGA. There’s no real ideological spine; politics functions as entertainment first, with policy and consequences as an afterthought. Loyalty is to the persona, not the principles. When the main figure disappears people don’t reassess their beliefs, they just grab the next thing that scratches the same emotional itch.
That’s why the idea that Charlie Kirk was meaningfully “above” someone like Fuentes was always a thin veneer. The feud was reputational, not substantive. Beneath it, there is plenty of shared ground for Fuentes to exploit.
Well, I guess this truly is Horshoe Theory in action. Liberals want to end genocide, conservatives want "America First" to the point of severing Israel ties. Progress? But it speaks to the larger...
Hollyhand was held to account for having declared the U.S.-Israel relationship sacred. This audience was “America First” in all ways, and that extended to its desire to sever the U.S. alliance with the Jewish state.
The hostility on the tour baffled Hollyhand, as if the whole world had shifted underneath his feet in the few weeks since Kirk’s death. “I didn’t think this was controversial until this month,” Hollyhand told me, referring to his worldview.
Well, I guess this truly is Horshoe Theory in action. Liberals want to end genocide, conservatives want "America First" to the point of severing Israel ties. Progress?
But it speaks to the larger point of this experience. It's a microcosm of what's probably going to happen when Trump dies or otherwise falls out of power. People are trying to find the next unifying point among so many mixed ideologies who otherwise fell in line with one personality. And the results are messy.
Reading about people on the right critical of trump for not doing enough on deportations is concerning, to say the least:
These young Republicans share a hardcore vision of populist nationalism that puts them to the right of not just Kirk and Hollyhand but Trump, whose second term some of them are already deeming a disappointment. “The numbers are massively, massively insufficient,” Lyle said about the deportation of undocumented immigrants. Kihne thinks the expulsions are “smoke and mirrors” goosed by self-deportations and sensational images of ICE raids. Trump has imposed a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas. He has also defended their necessity to corporate America, which has incensed many on the young right.
well, horshoe theory once again? Young conservatives also hate billionaires!
She is wary of turning off new recruits with too hard-core a message, even on Kirkian issues like abortion. “I would never bring up abortion, ever. Because that’s ‘Republican,’ not ‘conservative,’” Lachman said. “Gen Z is scared of the word Republican.” Instead, students “want to hear about free speech. Second Amendment rights is a big one. They love MAHA; they eat up the seed-oil stuff. Anytime we do DOGE things, they’re like, Hell yeah. The finance bros eat that up.”
This is so bizarre. "republican" is bad but "conservative" is good? But meanwhile one of the biggest sticking points in modern R's isn't that popular? But they also also are pro-health without understanding why America isn't healthy?
There's so many contradictory points, probably driven by a lack of education on the wider world structure. Or maybe it's just a cult; a way to hear "good words" but fall into actions that go against the meaning of said words.
When I asked who “they” were, she breezily suggested I do my own research. “We know who’s running the game,” she went on, glancing at her phone. I couldn’t tell how serious she was being. “You know, it’s a bigger picture. 9/11. MLK. JFK. Charlie Kirk.”
I don't even know how to begin to break this down. This just starts to sound like a Metal Gear Solid plot point (if you played MGS2 or 3, you know).
It's worth thinking about the demographics here - there were plenty of young people who moved to the U.S. South and West in the 90's and 00's because that's where the jobs were. Many of their kids...
It's worth thinking about the demographics here - there were plenty of young people who moved to the U.S. South and West in the 90's and 00's because that's where the jobs were. Many of their kids have now grown up with right-wing news sources, non-existent labor protections or solidarity, and local cultures that quietly foster feudal attitudes. Further, the religious bias towards having kids in the first place means a growing population of those exposed to "conservative family values".
There are numerous fash-friendly North and East youths, thanks to the dire job prospects in Rust Belt states and the horrible work of neo-liberal policies fostering deindustrialization. It's easy to blame immigrants for taking what few jobs remain, under conditions no native would stand for, when there's basically been little or no Federal enforcement of labor standards by either Democratic or Republican administrations. There's too much opportunity for young people to form reactions against their liberal-leaning parents who just don't get that things have changed.
Without a coherent, engaging countervailing narrative from the Left, delivered by charismatic people who can leverage social media without covert backing by the ultrawealthy, I think the next generation of young leaders will be mainly Charlie Kirks at best.
Young people are supposed to be idealistic, seeing past the bullshit and expecting the world to be better. It's just depressing to see them grubbing for power, embracing racism, and idolizing...
Young people are supposed to be idealistic, seeing past the bullshit and expecting the world to be better.
It's just depressing to see them grubbing for power, embracing racism, and idolizing terrible people.
Not really? Young people, historically, are very impressionable and easy to manipulate. Maybe that could be a jaded view of idealistic, but "seeing past the bullshit" is something young people are...
Young people are supposed to be idealistic, seeing past the bullshit and expecting the world to be better.
Not really? Young people, historically, are very impressionable and easy to manipulate. Maybe that could be a jaded view of idealistic, but "seeing past the bullshit" is something young people are pretty notorious for being bad at. Today's assholes probably started as young people who didn't.
The modern economy is somewhat based on the fact that with mass media and restricted laws (as we used to police what young people were exposed to slightly better...or differently badly?) you have TONS of money flowing in from young people getting scammed and grifted.
Economies like Twitch streaming, where people make multi millions based on the donations of mostly teenage to low 20s people giving away their money, couldn't have existed on this level. Musk also rode the hell out of that ignorance as people swore we were going to Mars and building the hyperloop because...well because for all they might have respected the idea of science, they didn't respect the reality of it.
These kids probably think they are being/thinking that way, it just doesn't align with what you expect. I am not defending or supporting their point of view at all, but at the end of the day there...
Young people are supposed to be idealistic, seeing past the bullshit and expecting the world to be better.
These kids probably think they are being/thinking that way, it just doesn't align with what you expect.
I am not defending or supporting their point of view at all, but at the end of the day there are reasons driving young people to the right. I tend to think it all boils down to economics, and that people that are comfortable in their lives tend to not to have to perform "othering" to get ahead, but as it is, in this country and maybe across the "developed" world, middle class people are losing out economically. There are examples of this far right attitude taking hold in a lot of places.
These are also kids that had economic and environmental collapse put in front of them since they were young. They've seen nothing change from the top down for their entire lives. Now they think "Ok, clearly the democratic/liberal world order cannot fix this" and then turn to strongmen and racists to give them order and someone or thing to blame.
On top of all of that, I think "social media" has taught them to react with their gut or first impressions and not to look too deeply past that. Charlie Kirk was a master at this... "I'm just asking questions bro" - without people realizing that the questions themselves are not in good faith and framed in such a way as to not allow the other person to "win." Charlie never went into those things to change his own mind, he went into them to clown the other side and make them look stupid. Then young people ate it up and they thought that was what winning looked like. Instead of trying to bring people to your side, you instead galvanize the people already inclined to agree with you by making fools of the opposition.
I think overall, young people are always the same. They think they know best but their life experience isn't developed enough to understand the true outcomes they push for. Older generations have been harnessing this naivety probably since the beginning of time. I think about the studies that show most people age out of crime, they age out of bullying, they age out of a lot of negative mindsets as they gain more experience. A lot of these kids will regret their stances as they get older as I'm sure a lot of us do too (I was once a pretty big supporter of libertarianism... ew). Of course, there are always people that lack introspection or empathy and will stick to their guns until their dying breath, but I think those types are generally outliers. Unfortunately, I also think those types are the most vocal (because they have to be to defend their own thoughts and behaviors) so the rest of us think that is the majority.
I don't buy the economic incentive, primarily because from what I've read, younger people going to the right are predominantly men, not women, and if it were primarily economic reasons then I...
I am not defending or supporting their point of view at all, but at the end of the day there are reasons driving young people to the right. I tend to think it all boils down to economics, and that people that are comfortable in their lives tend to not to have to perform "othering" to get ahead, but as it is, in this country and maybe across the "developed" world, middle class people are losing out economically. There are examples of this far right attitude taking hold in a lot of places.
I don't buy the economic incentive, primarily because from what I've read, younger people going to the right are predominantly men, not women, and if it were primarily economic reasons then I don't see why the divide among sex/gender would be as great as it is. The right hasn't shown they have any ability to produce economic success, and while evidence means very little anymore and it's more so about what lies you can convince people are true, I still don't believe that anyone who seriously is motivated by economic reasons can look to the right wing and think they have an answer if they are at all listening to these morons talk.
The rhetoric of the right speaks loudly, but much of it has little to do with economics, this tells me that it's culture that is primarily driving some of those people to the right. The most Trump has to say about economics is to tell people things are cheaper while not actually substantiating it in any way. Hell even at times he's said that things will get more expensive before they get cheaper, that other countries will pay for the tariffs, that companies will eat the cost, he never forms any coherent spine to these statements. It's just an amorphous blob of catchphrases that sound good to someone who is barely listening. Many of these statements are in conflict with the others and they can't all be true.
There's this quote in the linked article from Charlie Kirk
“Trump voters, young men, they want family, children, and legacy,” he said on Fox News two days before his death. “Young women who voted for Kamala Harris, they want careerism, consumerism, and loneliness.”
This is the type of messaging they're using frequently, with Kirk being the arm of the right that was perhaps more so targeting younger people than the more news dominating right wing politicians and such were. It makes far more sense to me that there's a divide in support in younger people along sex/gender lines if you think the messaging above is actually what is driving it.
This is where I'm rather curious what people who support the right think the path is to that ideal world they are promoting. How do they think men are going to get their family, children and legacy back? What do they think that entails to achieve that? Clearly, banning abortion and restricting contraception etc. seems to be part of the ploy if you can baby trap women into relationships I guess, but beyond that, I think it becomes a thing where people want it, but the reality is that there's no simple solution to achieving it so it's more of a rallying cry than a solidified plan. I don't think most men, at least younger ones, would realistically be happy with rolling back independence for women if they really thought about it and how it impacts women they personally know, but I do think they could allow cognitive dissonance to thrive in their minds if it gives them some kind of hope for children and family.
I do believe there is a problem culturally with respect to relationships people are forming or not forming, both platonic and romantic relationships, but the solution isn't as simple as pretending that our history has the solution for it when we can look back at our history and see how fucked up it was in some cases, and in other cases, the technology of today that plays a part in those cultural problems didn't exist back then.
I really don't want to be ageist but these days I'm increasingly feeling like the world's steering wheels are in the hands of idiot children. I don't know what to do with that. I'm in my 40s and I'm still constantly learning how to be a more decent human being. The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. Half my lifetime ago I was a smirking fresh-faced college grad who thought he knew a lot and wanted to mold the world into whatever my particular brand of utopia was at the time. We'd all have been screwed decades ago if I had ever been given a real platform or any levers of power.
I dunno. I dislike seeing this kind of student activism because students objectively have a lot more growing to do. Maturity, experience, cognitive development. But age alone isn't a guarantee of anything. There's a 79yo manbaby in the Oval Office right now. I think this is just me grappling with what everybody does at midlife, when they find themselves muttering about kids these days. Yup, guilty. This is bog-standard ageism I'm spouting, nothing new to see here.
Maybe what's really happening is my head is that I'm jealous to see people younger than myself finding influence and personal success in the world, when I'm still waiting for my ship to come in. I think it's more than that though. I'm angry at these students for actively, vehemently promoting rhetoric and policies designed to harm people. I'm angry at their apparent lack of introspection or compassion for the dignity of others who aren't like them, and the way they seek to limit the possibilities of what life can offer people who don't see the world the way they do. I'm angry at how they feel the need to shackle everyone else in small-mindedness. And I'm angry because in their effusive naivete they're acting as the puppets of older, more sinister masterminds like Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. The students probably don't see the big picture but the ones driving the actual agenda... they absolutely do. That's the despicable thing. The students are pawns, and they should be pitied for that.
Sorry for the stream of thought. Truth be told I did some right-wing activism in college myself, in the years following 9/11. I'm not the same person I was then, and I have regrets I'm projecting onto the current generation. Feels like the stakes are different this time, though.
The Cultural Revolution in China is one good example from history of how youth movements can do a lot of harm.
I don't think you're wrong to be nervous/worried/concerned, but I don't think the situation is hopeless either.
I hadn’t even considered where this road could lead, beyond regular activism. We’ve already seen Trump seeking ways to bring [para]military violence into American cities, first with the national guard, now with ICE. And we’ve witnessed him incite a crowd of rioters to storm the U.S. capitol. You think he might try to weaponize TPUSA like his own personal Red Guards? That’s a scary thought.
I mean it sounds ridiculous but nothing’s off the table with this guy.
He's moving the military to respond to things in Minnesota.
Nothing is off the table.
The slightly optimistic part of this piece is how TPUSA without Kirk has a power vacuum, and it's causing sentiments that Kirk would previously "keep in line" to really come out. In ways both to the right and left of trump. I think without filling that vacuum that TPUSA is going to be a piece in splintering the Right for a while to come. Between issues of being anti-establishment while seeing how Trump is blatantly establishment, to people who want to go even harder on anti-immigration efforts.
It's not good at all. But if they can't unite, they lose voting power. Guess we gotta take what we can get.
Not all children are like those you're describing. There's always going to be right-wing agitators, fascists, racists, neo-Nazis, etc. among the younger set. There's also always going to be forces pushing back against them, from within that generation and from without.
The problem, imo, isn't that the "steering wheel is in the hands of idiot children". The problem is that the steering wheel is in the hands of white supremacists. And The United States' white population does not seem to be equipped, at all, to deal with it. In fact, a significant portion of the white population agrees with the white supremacists in power, or at the very least has no problem with the arrangement.
How do we fix that? We could say the same thing that we always have - increased education, sensitivity training, and the like. But that doesn't necessarily get at the rot of white American culture. I wish I knew what would; but the bigger issue is, are white Americans willing to adopt changes to "their culture" to accommodate people with less pale complexion?
I don't want to say kids are getting dumber per se. I'm a young millenial so I'm still closer to them than I am to you in age.
But there's definiely an element of superficiality when I dig into the interview that I never felt in my generation's politics (but it was likely there), likely shaped by how they engage with social media. Particularly the chapter president of one college at the end:
Which says 2 sad things here
there really isn't much conviction in their principles here. All these politics are ultimately a game for them in multiple ways. a form of entertainment, and a form of advancement in their careers. When this career is determining policy of real lives, that can feel frustrating.
While "lost" without Charile, they will fall back on pretty much anything that scratches a similar itch. Even if that itch is spouting (by the words of pretty much all the inerviewees in this piece) anti-semitism rhetoric. As long as its "funny", they will passively listen to someone who wants to enact the 4th Reich in real time.
Those “two sad things” are exactly what we already see with Trump and MAGA. There’s no real ideological spine; politics functions as entertainment first, with policy and consequences as an afterthought. Loyalty is to the persona, not the principles. When the main figure disappears people don’t reassess their beliefs, they just grab the next thing that scratches the same emotional itch.
That’s why the idea that Charlie Kirk was meaningfully “above” someone like Fuentes was always a thin veneer. The feud was reputational, not substantive. Beneath it, there is plenty of shared ground for Fuentes to exploit.
Well, I guess this truly is Horshoe Theory in action. Liberals want to end genocide, conservatives want "America First" to the point of severing Israel ties. Progress?
But it speaks to the larger point of this experience. It's a microcosm of what's probably going to happen when Trump dies or otherwise falls out of power. People are trying to find the next unifying point among so many mixed ideologies who otherwise fell in line with one personality. And the results are messy.
Reading about people on the right critical of trump for not doing enough on deportations is concerning, to say the least:
well, horshoe theory once again? Young conservatives also hate billionaires!
This is so bizarre. "republican" is bad but "conservative" is good? But meanwhile one of the biggest sticking points in modern R's isn't that popular? But they also also are pro-health without understanding why America isn't healthy?
There's so many contradictory points, probably driven by a lack of education on the wider world structure. Or maybe it's just a cult; a way to hear "good words" but fall into actions that go against the meaning of said words.
I don't even know how to begin to break this down. This just starts to sound like a Metal Gear Solid plot point (if you played MGS2 or 3, you know).
It's worth thinking about the demographics here - there were plenty of young people who moved to the U.S. South and West in the 90's and 00's because that's where the jobs were. Many of their kids have now grown up with right-wing news sources, non-existent labor protections or solidarity, and local cultures that quietly foster feudal attitudes. Further, the religious bias towards having kids in the first place means a growing population of those exposed to "conservative family values".
There are numerous fash-friendly North and East youths, thanks to the dire job prospects in Rust Belt states and the horrible work of neo-liberal policies fostering deindustrialization. It's easy to blame immigrants for taking what few jobs remain, under conditions no native would stand for, when there's basically been little or no Federal enforcement of labor standards by either Democratic or Republican administrations. There's too much opportunity for young people to form reactions against their liberal-leaning parents who just don't get that things have changed.
Without a coherent, engaging countervailing narrative from the Left, delivered by charismatic people who can leverage social media without covert backing by the ultrawealthy, I think the next generation of young leaders will be mainly Charlie Kirks at best.
Young people are supposed to be idealistic, seeing past the bullshit and expecting the world to be better.
It's just depressing to see them grubbing for power, embracing racism, and idolizing terrible people.
Not really? Young people, historically, are very impressionable and easy to manipulate. Maybe that could be a jaded view of idealistic, but "seeing past the bullshit" is something young people are pretty notorious for being bad at. Today's assholes probably started as young people who didn't.
The modern economy is somewhat based on the fact that with mass media and restricted laws (as we used to police what young people were exposed to slightly better...or differently badly?) you have TONS of money flowing in from young people getting scammed and grifted.
Economies like Twitch streaming, where people make multi millions based on the donations of mostly teenage to low 20s people giving away their money, couldn't have existed on this level. Musk also rode the hell out of that ignorance as people swore we were going to Mars and building the hyperloop because...well because for all they might have respected the idea of science, they didn't respect the reality of it.
These kids probably think they are being/thinking that way, it just doesn't align with what you expect.
I am not defending or supporting their point of view at all, but at the end of the day there are reasons driving young people to the right. I tend to think it all boils down to economics, and that people that are comfortable in their lives tend to not to have to perform "othering" to get ahead, but as it is, in this country and maybe across the "developed" world, middle class people are losing out economically. There are examples of this far right attitude taking hold in a lot of places.
These are also kids that had economic and environmental collapse put in front of them since they were young. They've seen nothing change from the top down for their entire lives. Now they think "Ok, clearly the democratic/liberal world order cannot fix this" and then turn to strongmen and racists to give them order and someone or thing to blame.
On top of all of that, I think "social media" has taught them to react with their gut or first impressions and not to look too deeply past that. Charlie Kirk was a master at this... "I'm just asking questions bro" - without people realizing that the questions themselves are not in good faith and framed in such a way as to not allow the other person to "win." Charlie never went into those things to change his own mind, he went into them to clown the other side and make them look stupid. Then young people ate it up and they thought that was what winning looked like. Instead of trying to bring people to your side, you instead galvanize the people already inclined to agree with you by making fools of the opposition.
I think overall, young people are always the same. They think they know best but their life experience isn't developed enough to understand the true outcomes they push for. Older generations have been harnessing this naivety probably since the beginning of time. I think about the studies that show most people age out of crime, they age out of bullying, they age out of a lot of negative mindsets as they gain more experience. A lot of these kids will regret their stances as they get older as I'm sure a lot of us do too (I was once a pretty big supporter of libertarianism... ew). Of course, there are always people that lack introspection or empathy and will stick to their guns until their dying breath, but I think those types are generally outliers. Unfortunately, I also think those types are the most vocal (because they have to be to defend their own thoughts and behaviors) so the rest of us think that is the majority.
I don't buy the economic incentive, primarily because from what I've read, younger people going to the right are predominantly men, not women, and if it were primarily economic reasons then I don't see why the divide among sex/gender would be as great as it is. The right hasn't shown they have any ability to produce economic success, and while evidence means very little anymore and it's more so about what lies you can convince people are true, I still don't believe that anyone who seriously is motivated by economic reasons can look to the right wing and think they have an answer if they are at all listening to these morons talk.
The rhetoric of the right speaks loudly, but much of it has little to do with economics, this tells me that it's culture that is primarily driving some of those people to the right. The most Trump has to say about economics is to tell people things are cheaper while not actually substantiating it in any way. Hell even at times he's said that things will get more expensive before they get cheaper, that other countries will pay for the tariffs, that companies will eat the cost, he never forms any coherent spine to these statements. It's just an amorphous blob of catchphrases that sound good to someone who is barely listening. Many of these statements are in conflict with the others and they can't all be true.
There's this quote in the linked article from Charlie Kirk
This is the type of messaging they're using frequently, with Kirk being the arm of the right that was perhaps more so targeting younger people than the more news dominating right wing politicians and such were. It makes far more sense to me that there's a divide in support in younger people along sex/gender lines if you think the messaging above is actually what is driving it.
This is where I'm rather curious what people who support the right think the path is to that ideal world they are promoting. How do they think men are going to get their family, children and legacy back? What do they think that entails to achieve that? Clearly, banning abortion and restricting contraception etc. seems to be part of the ploy if you can baby trap women into relationships I guess, but beyond that, I think it becomes a thing where people want it, but the reality is that there's no simple solution to achieving it so it's more of a rallying cry than a solidified plan. I don't think most men, at least younger ones, would realistically be happy with rolling back independence for women if they really thought about it and how it impacts women they personally know, but I do think they could allow cognitive dissonance to thrive in their minds if it gives them some kind of hope for children and family.
I do believe there is a problem culturally with respect to relationships people are forming or not forming, both platonic and romantic relationships, but the solution isn't as simple as pretending that our history has the solution for it when we can look back at our history and see how fucked up it was in some cases, and in other cases, the technology of today that plays a part in those cultural problems didn't exist back then.
Archive link