Is it better to have stronger but fewer or weaker yet numerous enemies? This question is one that manifests itself often into political will. Political parties constantly struggle over the correct way of approaching this problem.
From my experience helping left-wing and right-wing causes, involving youth activism seems to different strategies. The left has a more r strategy for selection while the right has more of a K selection strategy when it comes to youth activism. There are a lot more left-wing youth activists, with much fewer right-wing youth activists. Why is this the case, and what might this mean?
r/K selection
In ecology, r/K selection theory looks at the selection of the combinations of traits that provide a trade off between quantity and quality of offspring. Animals that have lots of children tend to invest significantly less in each of their children whereas animals that have few children tend to invest more.
Turtles and mice are two examples of the former strategy. The strategy which focuses on having more kids, but investing less is called r-selection. R-selected species have high growth rates, and exploit less-crowded ecological niches. Most of the offspring do not reach maturity, but they grow fast when they don’t face carry-capacity or other forms of pressure. (I’m paraphrasing from wikipedia)
K-selected strategies are more concentrated around an increased investment in each child, with less corresponding children. K-selected species live close to carry-capacity, and face strong competitors. Resultingly, K selection emphasizes characteristics like long life expectancy, large body size, and require extensive parental care. A few examples of K-selected organisms are whales and elephants.
The Left Wing’s r-strategy
As a general rule, Left-wingers focus on the popular will, as seen in attitudes towards voting, ‘social safety nets’, and economic redistribution. These attitudes make their way into how they organize. There are legions of willing lefties willing to sacrifice time and money into elections to help their desired candidates win. Oftentimes, campaigns rely on an influx of volunteer support in order to succeed. Volunteers often cost nothing and choose to knock-on-doors for hours. These volunteers often aren’t consistent, which discourages campaigns from hiring and training people to become professionals. In some sense, left-wing organizing is somewhat amateur. If there are more left-wing people who are willing to volunteer, the incentive to work together over a long period is diminished. There’s little relational capital built up over time, because typically those who volunteer don’t stick around for multiple cycles. Since volunteers from the left are often motivated by ideology, left wing campaigns de-emphasize local interests in favor of broader societal issues. One paper I read, thinks this is because of the principal-agent problem. The more people you see, and the less time you have with each individual volunteer, the harder it is to monitor to make sure that campaigners are on the same wavelength as voters.
One way to think about it. Progressive candidates tend to get a lot of energy from volunteers (this populism is on the right as well, but arguably to a lesser extent) compared to more moderate people. This is a cherished asset, especially when trying to unseat an incumbent. However, volunteer support is double-edged. In order to keep volunteer numbers high, one needs to appeal to their goals and interests, which often lie in ideology that voters tend not to care very much about. Having a large base of volunteers may decrease the quality of the average volunteer, or experience. In primaries this can be especially tough, and can lead to more fringe ideas becoming mainstream as a result.
The Right’s K-strategy
Conservatives have a slightly different problem when it comes to youth activism. It’s generally hard to get riled up about the status quo. If everything is good, there is no need to sign petitions, to knock on countless doors, and to talk about political issues with people. Most people generally know what they sign up for, and this emphasis is mostly local. Also, conservatives are generally more quiet about their beliefs because they are seen as less viable, popular, etc. in polite company. This means that in order to attract talent or volunteers, there’s a stronger need to entice. This enticement comes in the form of greater resources for the average young conservative. Benefits like individual attention from high-profile people, well-funded organizations and conferences, paid internships, and other strings are essential to maintaining a continuous group of activists. In short, since there are considerably less people willing to volunteer, there’s more investment in each person. Typically this investment means that there’s a lot of familiar faces, and more reputational capital in conservative-sh circles. Reputation tends to follow you more, for better or worse. This leads to more concentrated benefits when working together, but comes with decreased outsider trust. The problem for conservatives is that it takes a lot of time to build effective activists, and they do not have the luxury of making many mistakes when choosing people to groom for future power.
Conservatives of both parties tend to get a lot of their resources from the already established who hope to maintain their benefits. Whether the beneficiaries are single-family zoning laws or suburban schools, it’s a little harder to tell where a given conservative falls on an issue. This produces a challenge where the emphasis is largely on local, as opposed to ideological politics. Furthermore, there’s more of a split in ideology within the conservative movement where populists, religious Christians, and business-people align to achieve goals. There’s less of a sense in which there’s a single dominating interest. Many successful conservatives have to compromise among various groups, and this tempers their lenses, as volunteers have to make more trade-offs to get closer to their desired policies and outcomes.
Environmental Pressure
While there are surely hybrid strategies, such as with the more elite within Democratic and more populist within Republican; I think the trend leans more towards left-r, right-K. I want to examine 4 trends that might affect the likelihood and strength of youth activists. Education, Money, Peer-Approval, and Media/Job Landscape
K-12 Education
Left-Wing ideas seem to some degree be inculcated by our K-12 schooling system.
K-12 education falls victim to a couple different trends. One of which is the overwhelming representation of left-wing people. Among English teachers, there are 97 Democrats for every 3 Republicans. Among health teachers, 99 Democrats for every one Republican. Among math and science teachers, 87 Democrats for every 13 Republicans.
Another issue that pushes teachers left-wing is openly ideological teacher colleges. The textbook, Pedagogy of the Oppressed is the most commonly assigned text in philosophy of education. I wouldn’t be surprised if these factors pruned right-wingers. Furthermore, women are disproportionately represented in education, and they happen to be more left-wing.
Also, team Blue is more likely to support teachers unions, organizations that most teachers belong to. Part of tribal identity may play a role in teacher’s opinions about topics like capitalism, equity, etc. The idea that primary education is funded by the government further provides reason to think that teachers would be optimistic about more government, after all, they were hired.
Another reason that education is left-wing thought emphasizes the community more. Since education is seen as something communal, it may draw people who share a more communal perspective towards it. Left-wingers are more likely to care about politics whereas right-wingers tend to value other things, like money more. Since teachers don’t get amazing pay compared to other professions, the level of compensation may pay a role.
Finally, school by design is a somewhat coercive and egalitarian part of the community. One is required to go to school, and associate with people, regardless of one’s personal opinions. Between things like regular bell schedules, mandatory attendance, monitoring, and grading; it wouldn’t surprise me if the environment of a school is more “communal-ist-ish” than other parts of society. People who may work there may like the location more, whereas this may inculcate in students an abiding respect for the authority of the state.
Overall, it appears that schooling is a major strength of left-wing youth activists. Activists are taught many ideals, that once applied to politics often correspond with left-wing thought, gradings on behalf of a central authority, and other things.
Money and Socioeconomic Status
Money and socioeconomic status seem to have a less clear effect on someone’s wealth, but seem to push people slightly towards the right towards the middle of the distribution, but towards the left on both of the extremes.
Starting with the poor. As kids, people feel envy. Why does someone else have what I don’t? This instinct is especially prominent among activists from low socioeconomic status. This is for a couple reasons. First, there’s constant comparison of status amongst people. Concerns about relative status are inflamed when we watch people driving yachts while we can’t go out to eat more than once a month. No one likes to feel as though others have a lot more than them, and people often would prefer a more-equal, less efficient system than one where everyone may be absolutely better off.
Another aspect of poor left-wing activism is the lack of commitment to a system. If I have little invested in the well-being of a system, I’m more willing to take risks. A big part of most revolutions involve low-status young men, with little sympathy for the status quo. Although voting is certainly not revolutionary, those without are more likely to be willing to take risks with changing up a system.
Middle of the road, and mildly upper-class people are pushed to the right as a result of their status. Middle class, and petite-bourgeois people are not hungering for change in the same way as the lower class. Instead, they mostly have it good, probably have some degree of private property and stability, and are not likely to be willing to take risks. Understanding that it isn’t possible to buy everything implicitly suggests a trade-off between what people want, and encourages contentment with the status quo. As a result, middle class families in America are not particularly progressive. Similarly, rich families are often pleased by their status. If I can own a pool, that’s great! There’s little need to complain when you’re the guy driving a BMW to school. It feels good to be relatively upper class. As a result, people are mostly happy about their station.
The ultra-rich are a different case. First, those who’ve earned their plutocrat status themselves through most of their adult lives are not willing to give much of it away. This is because they recognize the costs associated with earning this. Other than Bill Gates, it isn’t surprising that many self-made billionaires like the system. Large charitable institutions often come later as people realize there isn’t much else to buy. Prominent examples of pro-capitalist billionaires are the Koch brothers, the Walton Family, the Bradley Family, and Soros. Many of these families are quite involved in donating money, and may feel skepticism about giving the government their money. Oftentimes these foundations fund a lot of right-wing activists if the wealthy are themselves not activist.
However, this isn’t uniform. Other rich people, especially kids may feel guilt that what they have, others may not. In some ways, this can push activists towards a left-wing mindset. Many leaders of the Left-wing come from money, and feel to some degree ashamed of their personal situation, and are hoping to seek absolution. Some rich people may be jealous of other rich people, and see sticking it to the top .000001% is a good way of showcasing virtue. Another aspect that gives rise to this is the lack of having to understand tradeoffs. If somebody can afford ANYTHING they want, without giving anything up, there’s little reason to think that this mindset would stick only with the individual. This may explain why some want to significantly increase the amount of government spending to reduce poverty. Furthermore, rich private schools tend to be left-wing, perhaps mirroring other parts of elite status-obsessed academia. Finally, if someone does not have real problems, they may look for them in politics, which may explain a desire to become an activist themselves.
Socioeconomic situation seems to unite the poor and ultra-rich in opposition to the status quo, but for drastically different reasons. The relatively well-off and middle class are mostly satisfied, and see little reason for change.
Peer Approval/College
In most youth circles, right wing thought is implicitly, if not explicitly punished. There’s a lot of reasons for this. Some of this is coordination. Since most young people are left-wing, there’s a lot of social pressure to be left-wing. Everyone wants to be popular, and a simple number’s game may explain why people prefer left-wing ideas, especially considering the large cultural effects of the previous two sections.
Another reason this might be the case is because left-wing people care more. Left-wingers are more likely to stop being friends with people over politics. Right-wingers are less likely to do so, so appearing to be one may be less enticing, because of the limited benefits. This creates a situation where left-wingers hold a more dominant position as a result of their efforts.
College, one of the areas where youth activists meet and organize, is seen as overwhelmingly left-wing. The conditions that make colleges so left-wing may not hold outside academia, which significantly limits left-wing activism.
I don’t think this is good for left-wing activism. This is for four reasons. First, this encourages conservatives to be better at code-switching. Second, this undercuts the next generation of left-wing thought. Third, this encourages right-wingers to become better and refine their arguments more. Finally, this has the habit of discrediting institutions that left-wingers would otherwise gain from.
Code-switching favors right-wing activism. Many right-wing students feel punished on campus. This causes many to shut up. Almost a quarter of conservative students reported being more than slightly concerned that peers would file a complaint against them for speech related to class. When one realizes that they are unable to be open, they often adapt. Conservative students are often more able to identify left-wing arguments, because they are hegemonic on campus, and necessity may make it the case that they are required to learn to speak to a left-wing audience. This also makes it the case that’s it hard to tell who has what beliefs. Without knowing the opposition exists, it’s hard to reach consensus on progressive issues. This causes surprises like silent majorities.
Second, colleges tend to shortchange lefties. As Michael Munger puts it when describing an environment that lacks the tools to of challenge left wing thought. “It’s as if we asked students to play chess, but only taught them one-move openings. They think that pawn to king four is a better move than pawn to king’s rook four, but that’s simply a matter of faith.” This leaves left-wing activists with little beyond the artful Women’s Studies Nod, when someone makes a ridiculously extreme, empirically unfounded but ideologically correct argument, everyone else must nod vigorously. This creates bad intellectual and practical habits. Vox describes how liberal professors may be scared to teach for fear of the left. Describing it as “a discourse that “is more focused on taxonomy than politics (which emphasizes the names by which we should call some strain of inequality (…) over specifying the mechanisms that produce them, or the steps that can be taken to combat them.” Under such a conception, people become more concerned with signaling goodness, than actually working to effect change.”
Third, colleges tend to train better conservative activists. Munger again points out the chair of one of those grievance departments say things like, “I find that I don’t really need to spend much time with the liberal students, because they already have it right. I spend most of my time arguing with the conservative students. That’s how I spend my time in class.” This gives right-wing activists the tools to argue and think strongly. “Conservative students by contrast, actually learn to play chess. They study the whole game, not just the first move. They learn countermoves, they consider the advantages of different approaches. They search out empirical arguments and they read articles and white papers.”
Finally, colleges, by virtue of appearing stifling de-legitimize themselves because of a lack of dissent. Cass Sunstein found in his research that when all liberal or all conservative judges were on a three-judge panel, typically judges swung in whatever direction they agree upon already. The best judicial decisions arose from divided panels. Academia has become more echo-chamber-sh since the mid-1990s. As Nicholas Kristof points out in the NY Times, We’re at a point where half of academics in some fields said in a survey that they would discriminate in hiring decisions against an evangelical.
It’s not a stretch to conclude the growing conservative animus towards higher education, partially because of a lack of representation undermines the societal and economic power of the university.
The upshot of these four reasons speak to how sometimes being the king-of-the-hill isn’t always good. While social pressure may work in the short-term for low commitment goals, it may end up kneecapping the long-term efforts of left-wing activism. This current strategy has the potential to backfire as flagship institutions of left-wing activism are treated a lot less seriously.
Things like PragerU, Reddit, and 4-chan seem to work in the opposite direction, and they do not have much of the baggage that universities have currently. I think the low overhead costs and soundbite shortcuts will continue to be refined on the right, although it’ll be a while before a right-wing ecosystem can compete.
Media/Job Landscape
To some extent, the media and job landscape affect the extent of conservative versus liberal youth activism. The job landscape normally serves as an effective way to limit conservative impact. Big businesses try to appeal to everyone, and since conservatives are less likely to boycott, their interests are considered less. However, the extent of this has its limits. The median organization is moderately left-wing, but as more explicitly right-wing industries pop up, conservatives move to them, decreasing the desire of business to cater to them. This has created a weird situation where everyone becomes more extreme.
This seems to initially be bad for conservative activism. Most people don’t want to be pigeon-holed to a specific industry, such as explicit political activism. However, as progressive demands seem to have gotten too overbearing, this creation of parallel institutions may undermine a large progressive strength, being the main shop in town.
The current situation has created very effective conservative activists who are well-known because a greater share of the right’s energy has been put into activism. However, there is such a thing as being victims of one’s own success. The cultural ennui seems to very much limit the employment capabilities of conservatives, and limits their overall effectiveness.
I don’t see conservative activists being able to win against the 800 pound gorilla anytime soon. I consider the strength of major institutions like the media being able to absolutely clobber conservative will for quite some time.
Overall, in the short-term, it’s obvious that conservative activists have to recuperate and up their game. Institutions aren’t built or lost in a day, and without the establishment of centers-of-power, they will consistently be left playing catch-up.
Conservative activist strength may lie in the long-term though. Trust in institutions is asymmetric and going down. However, as long as current institutions are the only game in town, there’s little reason to think they’ll ever stop losing. Some developments that may help youth conservative activism in the future are highly effective media communication skills, growth mindsets, and space to grow. Currently, there seems to be a calcification of left-wing activist institutions. There’s little reason to think this trend will reverse. Better to tend to one’s own garden than to tilt against windmills.
Isadore Johnson's Website 