[bryanlarsen]

You're a 26 year old in 1926. You're part of what history would later call the Greatest Generation. You will suffer through both the Great Depression and World War II. Perhaps due to those experiences, you will be the only generation that votes more left as you age.

[dctoedt]

If you were born in 1900 you probably are at the tail end of the Lost Generation — the Greatest Generation is considered to be those born between 1901 and 1927.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Generation

[bryanlarsen]

Lost Generation describes those who experienced WW1. Given that he turned 18 in 1918 it's certainly possible he enlisted or was drafted. The article implies he didn't join WW1. It's that experience rather than his exact birthday that would categorize him into Lost vs Greatest IMO.

[mylifeandtimes]

In the US, something like 98% of eligible men enlisted in WWI. There was no draft.

So yes, VERY high probability of service.

[bryanlarsen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act_of_1917

[fc417fc802]

Wild to think there were people who as adults lived through all of the railroad buildout, WWI, the 20s, the depression, and then WWII. Complaining about AI buildouts causing electronics prices to regress by a decade or so begins to seem rather trite in comparison.

[Izkata]

They started the report in 1929 and completed it in 1933. Easy enough to just tweak the year slightly to fit the stated generation.

[only-one1701]

Well, then and the millennials

[WalterBright]

> Perhaps due to those experiences, you will be the only generation that votes more left as you age.

I doubt it. My dad lived through the Great Depression, and fought desperate battles in WW2 and Korea.

As a young man, he was a socialist. His experience in fighting for American freedoms changed all that. Before he passed, he told me he regretted leaving me in a country that was significantly less free than when he was young.

I don't believe you'll find many communists in the greatest generation, especially among the war veterans.

[bryanlarsen]

In 1994, the Greatest Generation voted D+7, higher than any other generational cohort.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/30/a-different-...

[EPWN3D]

Democrats in 1994 were a very different proposition when compared to today. They had the union vote locked up, and the greatest generation benefited greatly from unions.

[WalterBright]

Your link doesn't seem to cover the Greatest Generation.

Also, the Democrat party has steadily moved leftwards over time.

I don't have statistics, but combat veterans voice very negative opinions on Jane Fonda and her support for N Vietnam.

[bryanlarsen]

Look at the 1994 graph. They're n/a in the 2014 for obvious reasons.

[idiotsecant]

Lol Democrats have moved left over time ok. Yeah, maybe since antebellum but the democratic party has been on a rightward march for a long time.

[DaSHacka]

Would you say the same of the Democratic Socialists that have been elected as of late?

[idiotsecant]

The democratic socialist races that have recently concluded do not represent any kind of powerbase in the party. They are in the news cycle now but as soon as they aren't the party will begin the process of co-opting, corrupting, or ultimately crushing these upstart elements. The party is kid gloves when it comes to fighting fascists but when it comes to suppressing internal dissent you see the gloves come off. Every time.

[jshier]

> Also, the Democrat party has steadily moved leftwards over time.

What an absurd statement. During the Great Depression FDR was considering a worker's bill of rights that would guarantee employment. In the '60s LBJ used the specter of a dead president to push through the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (which have been considerably undone). In the '90s, Clinton undid the what remained of the Federal welfare state in this country. In the '10s, Obama was barely able to pass legislation that forced people to buy health insurance. In the '20s, Biden's major achievements were largely spending related. So in what universe has the party steadily moved leftward?

[WalterBright]

LBJ's "Great Society" programs still exist and are greatly expanded. The scope of federal entitlements have steadily expanded. And there are strident calls for Medicare for all.

Have you not noticed the recent elections of Democrat Socialists, and the Democrat leaders are endorsing them? This was unthinkable just a few years ago.

The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act are not socialism. I am not sure the VRA has been undone - didn't Los Angeles just enact a law to allow non-citizens to vote?

[jshier]

And none of those things are a move leftward, simply a return to FDR's Democratic Party, where universal healthcare and equal rights first had a chance of passing. That a handful of democratic nominees (most of the Democratic Socialists you allude to simply won their primaries, they aren't in power yet) are on the ballot for the first time demonstrates that the party itself has, in fact, moved rightward, as they wouldn't otherwise need to be described separate from the party itself. And your equation of left and socialism is deeply flawed. Ensuring equal rights with the CRA and VRA wasn't socialism (which is largely an economic framework, not political), but it was certainly a move to left. So much so the country essentially repolarized around those positions. Oh, and you do realize the difference between federal legislation and local laws about who can vote, right?

[weaksauce]

> Also, the Democrat party has steadily moved leftwards over time.

the only way someone thinks this is if they have fox news blaring all day every day. the dems keep moving rightward step by step to appeal to "moderates" while the right wing keep moving the overton window even further right.

[DaSHacka]

Mamdani and Spanberger are more right-wing than those who came before them?

[weaksauce]

I was speaking in general terms of the trend that spanned a long time and not to the rapid lefward swing in a few recent elections of a few candidates... the general trend of the party went rightward even if there are outliers. those elections were a reaction to how disastrous the republicans have been these past two years.

[scoofy]

“Left” doesn’t mean socialism. In the long run, it comes out of the enlightenment period, quite literally.

Traditionally, the left is associated with small “L” liberalism, and the right is associated with small “C” conservatism.

Generally speaking, it has been a historic debate between whether the “natural” way things are is good and prudent (e.g., monarchs, religion, castes, roles, and norms), or if the way things are should be challenged to try something that seems better (e.g., liberté, égalité, fraternité).

When one of these ideas is successfully, it is often adopted by the right, when one fails, it is often abandoned by the left. Whether or not socialism is part of the left depends on whether folks on the left think it’s an idea worth trying. In America, right now, the vast majority are still quite hesitant to include it in their platform.

[DonaldFisk]

It's confusing because different people mean different things when using political terms. The political compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org) has two axes: left-right and libertarian-authoritarian. On it, socialists are definitely left wing (and communists far left), regardless of what the left/right wing meant at the time of the French Revolution.

[scoofy]

I’m trying to keep things simple in terms of left vs right.

Yes, the reality of politics is that they are highly multipolar. The political compass is useful, but maintaining only two axes is wildly simplistic.

Moral Foundations Theory suggests there are five axes for political views. I think this theory is one of the best for explanatory power, but is still limited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

Suffices to say, if we look at politics through a two party, first past the post framework, I still think small letter conservatism vs liberalism is the best frame, simply because it is vague enough to be used generally.

[cucumber3732842]

> Perhaps due to those experiences, you will be the only generation that votes more left as you age.

They grew up in an era when various flavors of communism were serious considerations and they saw state power "save the world". Of course they couldn't get enough of it after that.

One kind of wonders if that sort of automatic deference to group (government and otherwise) solutions which they very much passed onto their huge numbers of kids is actually what undid the quality of those institutions.

[jandrewrogers]

You are off by a generation. The Greatest Generation was born in the 1920s. This was the generation that produced the Boomers.

I knew my great grandparents. Most were born in the last part of the 1800s and lived through the First World War as young adults. They always seemed significantly less scarred by the Great Depression than their children (the Greatest Generation). There was a communist undercurrent to the Greatest Generation but they didn't get it from their parents.

[bryanlarsen]

Lost Generation: adults during WW1

Greatest Generation: adults during WW2

Silent Generation: children during WW2

People born in the 20's would be split between Greatest & Silent.