When Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, he did so with huge support of young people. Obama excited them with a vague promise of hope and change. They grew up in a post-civil rights era with fewer prejudices and a higher degree of tolerance. Democrats have tried to keep them in the fold by focusing on social issues like marriage equality, access to contraception and immigration reform.
While social issues might be important to them, these millennials also grew up with a different relationship to technology. They are constantly plugged in and, to them, traditional views of privacy seem almost quaint. They open their homes to strangers and provide rides to people they meet on the internet. In an effort to survive in an economy that has not been kind to them, they’ve added to their income by sharing the the few assets that they have–namely their cars and their homes.
And they are causing an uproar in doing it. The traditional service providers are screaming. Taxi companies accuse the newcomers, Uber and Lyft, of stealing their business. Bed-and-breakfasts that have operated under the watch of municipal regulators complain that they can’t compete. They want the newcomers like Airbnb to receive the same scrutiny for providing similar services.
The young people who are using and providing the services see it differently. To them, they’re just asking people they meet on the internet (where they meet most people anyway) for a little help. For less money and less formality, they get where they want to go and stay where they want to stay. They see it as a win-win and aren’t interested in government intervention.
There’s a strong libertarian streak among young people who have been hurt by big business and not sufficiently helped by big government. They don’t care whether you’re gay or straight. They don’t care if you smoke pot. They want to control when and if they have children. But they don’t want the government telling them how they can spend their money or who they give it to.
Neither party has really addressed the so-called sharing economy and both have an opportunity to attract the young people who dominate it. Democrats have traditionally been the party of regulation and oversight while Republicans have been the party of the free-market. However, there are powerful establishment forces that see the newcomers as unwanted and unfair competition that could turn traditional alliances on their head.
If Democrats want to hold on to the millennials who are such a crucial part of their coalition, they’ll need to embrace the so-called “sharing economy.” Rand Paul, with his libertarian bent, is a natural beacon for young people who don’t want the government in their personal lives or their wallets. His shift to the right in a presidential primary might change that, but embracing the sharing economy might bring some of the younger voters to the Republican Party that Democrats need to win. Millennials, like most voters, will eventually vote their pocketbooks. If they believe one party or the other is costing them money, that party will lose their support.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
One of the dangers of government, especially BIG government is that the rich and connected leverage government power to their own ends… by hook or crook. Big business along with the rich and powerful have no interest whatsoever in competition. In their perfect world IBM would be shielded from “encroachment” by those pesky innovative types like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Liberals think they can regulate away this problem, but they can’t. In fact they ARE the problem.
The ONLY protection we have, and by we I mean the middle-class, is freedom. Free and open markets with everyone playing by the same rules. No corporate welfare, no special access, no NOTHING!
At this point in time, as someone once said (guess who?) “there ain’t a dimes worth of difference” between the elites of either party.
I think Mills is absolutely onto something. I do not believe all the prognostications about changing demographics being good for Democrats. I teach and most college students, even in more liberal disciplines, view themselves as live and let live libertarians. They are highly skeptical of government. IF conservatives can hush up the social conservatives and coded racist rhetoric, they can rule for a generation or more. Will they do that? We will have to see. Many, many GOP in this state are Dixiecrats who can’t help but stick their foots in their mouths.
Rand, like his father Ron Paul have been preaching the values of the libertarian for years. However, none of these values survive on a national level. They are for the most part half baked concepts of Ayn Rand. Why anybody would consider Rand Paul a serious contender for the top spot amazes me.
Lily, nothing of what you said addresses the actual points about the sharing economy that Thomas raised. You just engaged in ad hominem attacks.
If Paul wants to allow people to share their assets with whom they choose, why should those people not support him, especially if his competition wants to make it illegal for voters to do so?
If you can’t answer that, or won’t even try, you don’t have a valid argument to make.
So if someone makes a comment you don’t like, you go ad hominem? Thinks highly of hisself, yessir. Everyone else is a fool. Or perhaps he is not smart enough to recognize a valid argument when and if it appears. Narcissism?