Growing up or Growing Apart?

by Meg Storm

In 2008, Barack Obama commanded two thirds of the youth vote. He beat Republican challenger John McCain by a whopping 34-point margin, 66 percent to 32 percent, in the 18 to 29-year-old demographic. There is no other way to slice it: it was a complete butt kicking by the calm and cool guy, who campaigned on euphemisms like hope and change and knew how to use Twitter. Wearing an Obama-Biden button on your backpack, permanently scarring your car with a bumper sticker, or volunteering for his campaign on the weekends seemed trendy, savvy, and popular.

It would be easy to look at the polls today, which show President Obama with a very solid lead (recent polls have it at 55-36) among young voters and say that not much has changed. After all, in but three week’s time the President will undoubtedly capture the demographic by double digits. But when you look past the numbers, things start to get more complicated.

President Obama’s lead among young voters is substantial, but his failure to maintain the epic levels of the 2008 election, in part reflects the failures of his policies. Youth unemployment in this country is approximately double the national average, and from April to July the number of people ages 16 to 24 who are unemployed, rose by 2.1 million to 19.5 million people.

These numbers don’t lie, and to the extent that the polling data shows President Obama slipping in the polls when it comes to young voters, one must question: are these voters simply growing up or are they growing apart from the Democratic party and its fearless leader?

The second presidential debate began with a question from coed Jeremy Epstien. Epstien voiced the concerns of so many college students and recent grads when he asked the candidates if they could reassure him and his parents that he will be able to “sufficiently support” himself after graduation. What was President Obama’s response: a three part answer that touched on the value of higher education (something Epstein probably knows seeing as he introduced himself as a COLLEGE STUDENT), the need to be energy independent, and, finally, the importance of creating new manufacturing jobs. Something tells me that is not the kind of “sufficient support” Epstein, and countless others (myself included), were looking for.

We are now talking about a coalition of voters, who are more tentative to accept empty promises that contain words like hope and change from a man who now looks worn and weathered, not shiny and new. Over the past four years these ‘kids’ (some of whom were not eligible to vote in last election) ‘grew up’ as they watched their parents struggle to make ends meet or faced their own uncertainty as the cost of living continued to increase and their job prospects faltered. And what about the actual kids – 12, 13, 14, 15-year-olds – who are very well aware of the fact that mom and dad can’t afford to buy those new Nike sneakers or North Face jacket. What will happen when they are eligible to vote in a few years? Will they favor the out-of-control tax and spending methods of progressives, liberals, and Democrats, or will they favor the smaller and more fiscally responsible government championed by conservatives and Republicans?

As a senior at New York University, I attend a liberal college, in a very liberal city, and an even more liberal state. I have heard countless stories about the good ol’ days of 2008 when the thought process was simply: You’re not voting for Obama? Oh, then you must be voting for Hillary. But the atmosphere around campus today is quite different. My politics classes are filled with policy discussions that frequently result in critiques of the administration’s handling of issues ranging from foreign policy to tax code. Peers in my journalism classes no longer laugh off assertions of media bias, instead, we dissect the worst offenders and look for solutions.

I don’t see these changes as merely ‘growing up’, I see these changes (many which have I have observed particularly over the last year or two) as a sign that the notion of a big government that favors redistribution and overpopulates the discourse with trivial social issues is no longer as attractive as it once seemed. If the jewel of the Democratic Party – President Obama – is having trouble selling these policies to the allegedly lockstep voters of the youth demographic, who can they possibly sell them to?

What I am describing is not a particularly overt change in behavior or one that will have much of an effect on the polls this November, but there is a palpable sense the young people are frustrated, and their saviors at the DNC are no longer providing plausible solutions to very real problems. If this trend continues, which I believe it will, regardless of who wins the election, Democrats may find themselves with a large problem on their hands: the youth vote hasn’t just grown up, they have grown disenfranchised and, dare I say, more conservative.

Most self-proclaimed Marxists know very little about Marxism. Some of them have all the buzzwords memorized. They talk about the exploits of labor. They talk about the slavery of capitalist society and the alienation caused by capital. They talk about the evils of power and domination.

But they don't actually believe what they say. Or else they wouldn't be such violent hypocrites. And we're not being dramatic when we say "violent."

For them, Marxism is a political tool that they use to degrade and annoy their political enemies.

They don't actually care about the working class.

Another important thing to remember about Marxists is that they talk about how they want to defend the working class, but they don't actually understand the working class. They definitely don't realize that the working class is composed mostly of so many of the people they hate. Because, here's the thing, they don't actually care about the working class. Or the middle class. They wouldn't have the slightest clue how to actually work, not the way we do. For them, work involves ranting about how work and labor are evil.

Ironically, if their communist utopia actually arrived, they would be the first ones against the wall. Because they have nothing to offer except dissent. They have no practical use and no real connection to reality.

Again ironically, they are the ultimate proof of the success of capitalism. The fact that they can freely call for its demise, in tweets that they send from their capitalistic iPhones, is proof that capitalism affords them tremendous luxuries.

Their specialty is complaining. They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They sneer at Christianity for promising Heaven in exchange for good deeds on earth — which is a terrible description of Christianity, but it's what they actually believe — and at the same time they criticize Christianity for promising a utopia, they give their unconditional devotion to a religion that promises a utopia.

They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They think capitalism has turned us into machines. Which is a bad interpretation of Marx's concept of the General Intellect, the idea that humans are the ones who create machines, so humans, not God, are the creators.

They think that the only way to achieve the perfect society is by radically changing and even destroying the current society. It's what they mean when they say things about the "status quo" and "hegemony" and the "established order." They believe that the system is broken and the way to fix it is to destroy, destroy, destroy.

Critical race theory actually takes it a step farther. It tells us that the racist system can never be changed. That racism is the original sin that white people can never overcome. Of course, critical race theorists suggest "alternative institutions," but these "alternative institutions" are basically the same as the ones we have now, only less effective and actually racist.

Marx's violent revolution never happened. Or at least it never succeeded. Marx's followers have had to take a different approach. And now, we are living through the Revolution of Constant Whining.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.