Immigration Reformers Don't Live Where Young People Live

Ideological gap or Generation Gap?

I recently received an email from an American conservative action group that caught my attention. It made a point that is similar to the one that I have been trying to make for some time now. That is, our inability to harness effective support for immigration reform is more reflective of a generation gap than an ideological one.

The "under 35s" live in a different world that we do. "We" meaning the largely computer-illiterate boomers. In fact, today's generation "gap" is arguably much wider now that it was in the fabled 60s. What accounts for this division? There are two variables at play, I think.

The One-Party Classroom

One is that colleges and universities have become what David Horowitz describes as the "One Party Classroom". Cultural relativism and historical revisionism form the undercurrent of almost every subject taught today, at least in the liberal arts. Two generations of students have been taught to believe that all cultures are created equal, that we do not have a legitimate made-in-Canada or made-in-America cultural identity deserving of protection, that ours is a nation of immigrants with no right to restrict the volume of newcomers, that our democratic heritage of free expression must be restricted to protect immigrants and minorities from 'hate speech', that affirmative discrimination (aka preferential hiring) is justified as a measure to fast-track such groups to coveted positions and that immigration driven-population growth has nothing to do with environmental degradation---we can have 'green growth'. This orthodoxy apparently cannot be challenged. Whereas once universities represented an oasis of free debate in a sea of societal repression, they now represent a training ground for the One Party State, a state that conceals its determination to grow our population and remake our culture in the corporate image by showcasing a fake pluralism of Tweedlee and Tweedle-dummer.

A generation that speaks a foreign language in a foreign medium

The second variable that accounts for this generation gap is digital technology. I believe it to be an even more decisive factor in creating the two solitudes than the classroom indoctrination I referred to. Younger people are speaking a language we don't understand and in a medium that we don't participate in---- or even comprehend. They speak MSN text language. Their messages are terse and rife with acronyms, and written with such impatience that no care is given to spelling or diction. It is as if they are all speaking on walkie-talkies---Roger,over and out. And the technology they use to say it is something out of Dick Tracy or Star Trek. No sooner are we introduced to it when it is superseded by another upgrade. Cell phones to smart phones. Emails to twitters. Our heads are spinning while the young take it in stride, and actually, even embrace it. What seems remarkable to us is that they seem to have an obsessive need to report every move and every thought at every moment. They don't seem to be able to tolerate silence or down time. I am certain that interaction with this technology has quite literally 're-wired' or re-structured their brains. The increasing need to interact with smart phones and computers is a chemical addiction. The human brain seeks balance, and has a mechanism to achieve it. Pleasure-enhancing dopamine receptors respond to an overload of pleasurable electronic stimulation by shutting down, forcing the tech-user to compensate by flooding his brain with even more stimulation. This accounts for the increased impatience which marks this digital generation. They are hooked to stimulation and more and more of is required to get the same fix. This is classic "down-regulation" at work.

We can't close the generation gap if WE don't change

The forgoing is not meant to be a condemnation of the younger generation---simply an explanation of what I believe to be an observable fact. So how does that affect us----the over-50s and 60s who want to impart what we think is important information that affects their future? We have two liabilities. Firstly, our message is not congruent with the world-view that they were taught in school. They have been taught to believe in "one world", a world without borders, and a Canada that is "Home to the World"---the slogan that was voted most appropriate and descriptive of our national mission by National Post readers. The idea that this country has a right to preserve both its cultural and natural heritage from the incursions of mass numbers of migrants is not only incomprehensible to them but outrageous. Secondly, even if we broke their programming and packaged our message in a way that would resonate with them, we would have to do it where they live----in the social media. But we are old dogs who don't want to learn any new tricks. We are not apparently interested in making you-tubes, holding demonstrations outside CBC headquarters, going to Occupy protests to hear what youth are saying or performing any creative stunts that would attract media attention. Instead, we want to plod along writing books, research papers and issuing staid press releases. We are like silent film stars who refuse to understand that with the advent of 'talkies', our talents are less and less marketable as time wears on.

Our ideas and our methods of conveying them are an anachronism. I wished it wasn't so, but there it is. Adapt or perish. The choice is ours.

Tim Murray
October 26, 2011

PS I am neither pro or anti Obama. Democrats and Republicans are merely two sides of the corporate coin, and it is a matter of complete indifference to me which growthist party takes office. If I had my druthers they would all be on the bread line. I use the following example just to illustrate how access to the social media can define political loyalties among the younger generation.

Here was the email I referred to:

Dear ______,

Of all the news you and I have shared together, this could be the most worrisome I've ever sent you: Barack Obama is still the hero of voters 18-34, who swept him into office overwhelmingly in 2008 — and are poised to do the same in 2012.

You know I don't scare easily. But if we don't act together now, Obama will win in 2012 — by reaching younger voters where they live — online, with email, on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and cell phones. And that scares me.

We can't afford a blowout like 2008 again. But it's in the cards... because we're still miles behind the Obama machine when it comes to reaching younger voters.

Internet Tactic: 2008 Presidential Race

Facebook friends on Election Day Obama 2,397,253 McCain 622,860
Unique visitors to the campaign website for the week ending November 1 Obama 4,851,069 McCain 1,464,544
MONEY RAISED ONLINE Obama $750 million McCain $370 million

That's why Human Events, the national conservative newsweekly, has launched Click to Victory 2012, an urgent campaign to create a dominant new conservative web site targeting voters 18-34 — and to use all the Obamacrat tools and tactics to convince them they must overthrow Obama in 2012.