26

Measure 8 exit poll

I stole this from Daily Kos, which took it from CNN.

Not surprisingly, it looks like age meant everything when it comes to gay marriage

Vote by Age
            Yes    No
18-29 (20%)  39    61
30-44 (28%)  55    45
45-64 (36%)  54    46
65+   (15%)  61    39

Matt Artz

  • Marty

    I suspect the Kos kids’ take was that bigotry is a tradition that wanes with time. But, I really think this one came out to the word, not the rights.

  • Jon Simon

    I noticed the exact same poll. The numbers are even stronger for younger people when they break the 18-29 into younger and older groupings.

  • http://www.charles4council.com charles

    It also shows two things:

    1. Conservatives can win on social issues, sic. “family values”, even in CA.

    2. But, conservatives have largely turned their back on the institutions and are now paying a dear price. We have lost the culture wars, and it’s just a matter of time.

    That being said, these are only kids. Kids get more conservative with time. While our culture is very liberal, due to the specialists who “organize” culture, many immigrants (legal, please) who come here bring with them very conservative family values.

    I do agree with the Lesbian and Gay legal groups that represented the “no” side– they will win in the long haul.

    BTW. Not a ‘white flag of surrender’… but a realistic assesment. There are certain territories that might be better to temporarily write off as a loss until we can regroup. Conservatives will be in a quagmire for some time, at least the next year or two. We are consumed with fighting eachother.

  • Marty

    “There are certain territories that might be better to temporarily write off as a loss *until we can regroup*.”

    Charles, you are already planning the Republican demise of 2012.

  • http://www.charles4council.com charles

    No. I think Republicans will come back, but it won’t be until the Democrats burn out the electorate. I think that will take two presidential cycles, or 2016.

    Meanwhile, the Republicans are going to repackage themsleves. This will basically result in a party that is the ‘cost-efficient’ version of the Democrats.

    In the end culture wins. No matter how ‘conservative’ your party is, it will follow culture, especially with the guidance of pollsters. The “NO on Prop 8″ people have it right. They are the real winners. Our win was really pyhrric.

    However, this is not surrender, it’s realism. We need to regroup and prepare for a political ‘alamo’. That’s the short term plan.

    This political alamo will mark the last breath of an aggressive conservatism in CA. Thereafter, it will not be a force to reckon with. The “alamo” will not especially hurt the GOP. What slight pain it causes will allow the GOP to finally go in the direction it has been prepared to do so for some time. It is in their interests to promote it, but they will resist it, predictably, instead. The last gasp is designed to insulate and protect, not reform or revolt. It’s a different kind of strategy, suited for our circumstances, numbers, and technology.

    This sounds apocolyptic, and I think it is, but remember, I am speaking politically and talking in terms of political struggle.

    Ultimately, I see Republicans and conservatives parting ways. The GOP will continue to work with Dems on expanding globalist economics and worldview. Neocons will retain the reigns of power using a combination of subterfuge, disinformation, and real politik to cement control. Others in the GOP will pursue genuine stupidity.

    Long-term–
    where will conservatives end up? I think more as a subcultural movement. Probably occasionaly as independents or third parties. They will become less and less influential in the mainstream and more and more subcultural and invisible. This insularism will both “protect” conservatism but simultaneously render it “irrelevant”.

    Only crisis will reawaken conservatism. But in a well-regulated society like ours, where outcomes are known before the dilemmas, I doubt this crisis will ever hit breaking point, i.e., catalyst. Instead, fear and insecurity of the proletarianized mass will be easily rechanneled into larger political and economic units and relationships.

    In the end, true conservatives will probably seek “the peace”, cut losses, and go our own way. This is said NOT because of the Democrat victory (which is really epipherial to the argument), but because realities in the GOP are intractable. We are destined for divorce. But the neocons are right: When they shake us, and that won’t be hard, they will escape the marginalization of ‘red state’ politics.

    Meanwhile, conservatism will likely drop from the radar, and what visibly will remain will be merchandise and curio collectables. True conservatism will work to insulate and remove itself.

    A false conservatism will seal its victory over its increasinly proletarianized and confused “base”, dominating the horizon for the foreseeable future.

    True conservatives will be pockets and hold-outs in areas neither dems or republicans particularly want. Yet I am convinced we will surivive the coming ice age, reserved for a good purpose. But this is another project, not really political or consensus driven at all.

    I’m sure many will disagree.

  • marty

    Charles, a solution may be elevating Ron Paul to Chuck Norris status with a thread of flattering statements. I’ll start:

    If Ron Paul takes a crap in the middle of his living room, the free market cleans it up.

    Ron Paul grinds his coffee with his teeth then boils the water with the rage he has for mandates not directed by the Constitution.

    Jesus wears a wrist band that says “What Would Ron Paul Do?

    In Braveheart, Mel Gibson was supposed to scream “RON PAUL!” however, it was changed to just “Freedom!” for legal reasons.

  • http://www.charles4council.com charles

    No. Ron Paul isn’t the ‘answer’. I think my problem is I’m expecting to much ‘change’ and need to stick to single issues. Otherwise, it’s just taking on too much.

    Marty, you sink to gutter humor. Where do you keep your head? The associations you make are kind of disgusting.

  • http://www.constitutionalrepublicans.org Walter GOP Livermore City-Chair

    One thing about Ron Paul (Marty) is that he may disagree with what you say… but he would still fight for your right to say it!

    I can’t say the same for any of the other Republicans or Democrats that ran for President! When do they ever refer to the document that they’ve sworn to protect and defend? Most of them probably haven’t even read it! That goes for the unconstitutional, neo-con, RINO, fake conservative that you voted for too!

  • Diamond

    I think this shows how discrimination will not be able to endure for long in California. There has been a change in the way people feel about this issue: we’ve come a long way since prop 22.

    I never cared much about social issues– I only care about good governance. I suspect that other folks in the younger generation feel the same.

  • Jon Simon

    Charles,
    People do tend to get more conservative as they age, but not more bigoted or more anti-gay. If anything, the opposite occurs.

    Walter,
    The Constitution is an imperfect piece of paper with an agreement written upon it. Our laws rely on it, but in an ever changing world, reinterpretation is the only thing keeping it relevant and alive. Otherwise, we’d have abandoned it many years ago.

  • http://www.charles4council.com charles

    Dear Diamond,

    Social issues and sound government are surely connected. When the moral order break down, government gets bigger. The problem here is our government not only wastes the money (or redistributes it to cronies), but it positively attacks and erodes the moral order.

    Dear Jon,

    As you a teacher, you surely know government pays you to break down basic family morality. Furthermore, the constitution binds men not because it’s ‘divine’ but because office holders pledge an oath under the name of God. That in itself is binding. What has happened over the years is we’ve broken from our previous interpretive method, isolating tiny clauses in the constitution to force wiggle room and creatively expand their meaning. A good example is the commerce clause which today somehow applies to K-12 education and health care. Virtually everything is now considered “commerce”, and this allows our wicked leaders to pretty much behave as tyrants. More and more so, the only limit upon them is not ‘rule of law’ but the sentiment of the populace.

    I would remind your the suspicion our founding fathers had with ‘democracy’ which often generates into ‘mob rule’. YOu need the supremecy of some kind of law to restrain both poor and rich. Today we have pretty much neither.

    Another point–
    In order to claim there has been a breakdown in morality over the last 50 years, you have to believe there is such thing as a ‘moral order’. I can at least claim I believe in a moral order and am bound by absolute rules not situational circumstances. I would like to know what is your moral order? Do you make it up as you go along? Can you define your own terminology and be consistent with it?

  • Diamond

    This “moral order” you speak of doesn’t exist. There are moral and immoral people on all sides of the political spectrum.

    Okay, so I’d like to get this straightened out: small goverment should equal less government intrusion, so why do the folks who want less government intrustion feel perfectly comfortable dictating who people should be able to sleep with?

  • Jon Simon

    Charles,
    Public schools try desperately hard to build family, character, and community. Please stop trying to shove your angry morality down everyone’s throats.

    Studying philosophy at Cal revealed gaping holes in every moral and ethical system, so I follow reason and my gut. It works well.

  • Glenn

    Intelligent people aren’t afraid to assess a situation as it happens. The rest pre-judge for their own safety.

  • Fremont taxpayer

    Glenn -

    Your comment assigns intellect to those who possess the confidence to move with a situation “as it happens”.

    “The rest…” – you presumably associate with those who would lack intelligence ?

    I find this a shockingly obvious bias . . . .

    CONFIDENCE can be based on experience which dictates (or not) CAUTION when entering into any given situation. I would argue that those who jump in to a given situation REGARDLESS of possible outcomes are idiots. . . . and those who choose NOT to follow the rest of the lemmings are the wiser for it.

    I’d be interested in your comments.

  • http://www.charles4council.com charles

    The role of government is not to feed you, shelter you, or educate you. Government exists to punish the wicked. Government wields the sword not hand-outs. The problem is we have no idea what is ‘wicked’. Jon Simmon said it aptly, “I follow reason and my gut”. And, Diamond, even you admitted as much, “This “moral order” you speak of doesn’t exist.”

    You are right, it doesn’t exist.

  • Doug

    So Charles, the U.S. Government helping U.S. citizens with food and shelter in times of natural disasters is not a good and moral thing?

    If we can’t turn to our neighbor for help because they’re in the same situation we’re in what are we supposed to do?

  • http://www.charles4council.com charles

    Dear Doug,

    that’s a logically fallacy. You are saying…
    1. The whole, X, has properties A, B,etc.
    2. Therefore the parts of X have properties A, B,etc.

    Government coming to rescue people from a natural disaster is not the same or even a close justification for a welfare state or federalized education system.

    You also neglect the massive role NGOs and private charity already play with respect disaster relief. The Southern Baptist convention along with Red Cross have more volunteers and provide more relief, especially long term relief, than the federal government.

    take a gander.
    http://www.namb.net/site/c.9qKILUOzEpH/b.224451/\
    \
    What Governement should do in natural disasters is #1 protect the innocent from looters and bandits. #2 get people out of harms way. #3 direct the injured adn hungry to help.

    I think government may cooperate with NGO’s, connecting need with aid, but it is not the role of government to displace what private charity already does (and does better). That would be replacing true community with the state, autonomy with passivity, and disempowerment is ultimately where you are headed with this.

    Here are two arguments to consider. I do not agree with their total politics aside from emphasizing community over statism (counter-community)—

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/116789.html
    and especially this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2QbRvtXjYI

    Enjoy!

  • Fremont taxpayer

    Doug’s on the right path, I think Charles overlooks the provisioning of services and infrastructure that benefit the common good or the larger society.

    For example, the construction and maintenance of roadways and water systems are examples – the list goes on and on.

    Aren’t these examples of contributions that Government should oversee, plan and direct ? These kinds of infrastructure if planned, maintained or funded at an individual of “township” level would be economic and functional disasters.

  • http://www.charles4council.com charles

    What do you mean ‘fremont taxpayer’?

    Our roads are already funded at the “township” level, or at least Newark is… Don’t forget– Newark was that ‘unfortunate’ township that never joined Fremont. How does Newark manage without a larger union??? There are many towns smaller than Fremont, and they manage perfectly fine without larger unions.

    Moreover, public utilities and roads are a relatively recent invention. Before public taxation, infrastructure such as bridges and canals were constructed privately. The builder renummerated their costs by charging tolls for use of the road or canal. After so many stipulated/contractual years, the fareway converted to public property. In the end, the only people who paid, logically, were those who used the road. Why should people who don’t use a service pay for it? I don’t think that’s fair.

    This is just one example, and there are many historical and present-day models of free mutual aid and private business out-performing government. I don’t see the sky falling if government gets smaller or confines itself to a social minimalism– the sword vs. the handout. That’s the ideal we should move toward!

    What will happen if government recedes (either slowly or suddenly) from daily life? Mutual aid and voluntary self-organization will intercede. Community will grow. Private endeavors, both profitable and charitable, will fill the gap. The point is: you will be more free, and I believe better off. But you are scared of the adjustment and would rather stick with the collar.

    The problem is too many people find freedom scary. They have been ‘proletarianized’ or have an ‘employee’ mentality. They think they are safe if a social bureaucracy/technocracy rules them. This is a statist-servile mindset. If a smaller and private social unit can do what government does, I say keep government out of it and let the mutual aid society take over.

    Fremont Taxpayer, you are not considering any other alternative. To you it’s either chaos or government. You won’t even entertain the possibility that a private enterprise or charitable cooperative/venture cannot do the same? Or, even do it better…

    I submit with each example of ‘catastrophe’ that you propose, in your infinite “list” of necessities, a private, non-statist solution can be found.

    You’re just not trying or looking, and you give up too quick.

  • Fremont taxpayer

    Come on, Charles . . . you’re ignoring the interstates, the hydroelectric dams, the water projects that are all funded at a state or even national level.

    I dont understand why you want to ignore these obvious and compelling considerations. Dont get me wrong, I thing that reducing the level of involvement by government and, more importantly for me, individuals assuming greater responsibility for their own path, is definately a direction this country needs to head. You and I are in agreement that the nation is in the business of saving many individuals from themselves and their own choices . . . and that’s wrong – that said, there’s plenty of room for a government BY THE PEOPLE to provide for infrastructure and causes that transcend societies larger than that of a township or a city or even a county.

    You make some very compelling points – but you are, in my opinion, assuming an extreme position that is flawed – there is a definate need for coordinated activities at a national level – or, at the very least, at a level greater than that of the individual, or the township, or the city, or the county . . . . .

    I would hate to see an air-traffic control system that was NOT directed at a federal level. I would HATE to see what our national defense infrastructure would like like if not coordinated at a NATIONAL level. I would HATE to see the result of many individual cities or townships developing their localized power, water, and transportation infrastructure without any consideration for the needs of a larger institution. I doubt that we would have gone to the moon if individual townships were responsible for developing aerospace technologies, which beget the semconductor technologies which beget . . . . well, never mind – hopefullly, I’ve made my point.

  • Jon Simon

    The Roman roads were a mix of public and toll. That’s not recent. There are plenty of nations around the world where government control has broken down and the majority of people have suffered for it. It’s a nice thought, Charles, but life doesn’t work that way.

  • Fremont taxpayer

    Charles -

    Surface streets may be constructed through local funding. But MOST major highways clearly benefit from planning and funding that occurs at the state and even national level.

    While this approach does have its compromises – like other larger initiatives it, in the end, typically benefits a much larger constituency than are compromised.

    State and National government attempts to deliver projects that satisfy a greater good, sometimes even compromising a small group of constituency . … again, this is (hopefully) different than bailing folks out of their own ineptitude – but, let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater in the name of creating a “lean” government.

  • Gus Morrison

    Local streets are generally put in by developers as property is developed. They build all the internal streets and half the streets on the peripheries of their projects. In general, city streets already in and being widened or completed are funded by gas tax funds subvened from the state, redevelopment funds in redevelopment areas, and other non-general fund monies.

    Regional projects are funded by an amalgam of funding sources, federal and state gas tax primarily, but also including special taxes, like Measure B Sales Tax. All of these regional projects are competitive across the region and across the county, with targets assigned based on sub regional poplulations (Tri Cities gets about 21% of what is allocated to the county.)

    In essence, if you consider the gasoline tax to be a user fee, those who use the roads actually pay for their construction and almost all of their maintenance.

  • http://www.charles4council.com charles

    Dear Fremont Taxpayer.

    I do not agree with you. I believe there is always more than one way to skin a cat. Highways and canals, interstate as well as local, were once done with zero government support. When you speak of energy, it depends on the source. There are many energy sources, some more efficient than others, some more centralized than others, some more costly. Generally, the more costly, less efficient, and more centralized, the more government is needed to subsidize such.

    Moving government toward a limited and small polity is a worthwile project, much better than going the other way. Won’t happen overnight, but presently there is no desire to see it even progress in the direction of decentralization. We have more choices than you would admit.

  • Fremont taxpayer

    Charles -
    Charles -

    We’ll agree to disagree.

    You seem to be fixated on “skinning the cat” – which is to reduce government to a “township” level of governance and which, in my humble opinion, ignores the economies and efficiencies of scale or scope that, if left to individual cities, or counties, would be non-existant OR, worse, would be a hodge-podge of “township” edicts or laws or regulations – all focussed on the needs of the individual city, and none of which are focussed on larger good or need. Examine the migration of the E.U. states as a case study in what I think your suggestion would beget – but rewind those E.U. nations 20 years and scale them down to the equiavalent of cities or counties . . . . . it was a mess then, and I believe your proposal would be a mess now.

    I respect some of your concepts and motives – but to unlaterally declare government at a national or state level as undesireable is (again, in my opinion) ignorant of obvious facts.