Here's a bit of good news that should interest YWC readers: Young Americans (18 to 29 year olds) are souring on Barack Obama.

Progressives have long smugly believed the transformation of America is inevitable. Sure, the Greatest Generation and Baby Boomers are joining the Tea Party, but Generation X and Generation Y will pull through for us in the long term. Obama won the youth vote 66 percent to 32 percent over McCain.

How often have you heard that argument?

The 2008 presidential election was widely interpreted as a sign that Democrats had a lock on the youth vote. In hindsight, it looks more like a sign of the Bush fatigue and dissatisfaction with a weak Republican candidate that swept the wider electorate.

Since Obama has taken office, his promises of "hope" and "change" have materialized into little more than snake oil, and a terrible job market has dampened identification among the young with the Democratic Party. This has worked to the advantage of the GOP.

Youth for Western Civilization is focused on rolling back the progressive agenda (amnesty for illegal aliens, multiculturalism, political correctness, affirmative action, leftwing indoctrination) in America's universities. Two years after Barack Obama's election, the campus environment is slightly more favorable for conservatives.

Let's hope the political wind continues to blow in our direction. In order for that to happen, the next Congress must seize this historic opportunity. Restoring America is a long term project that will require the hard work of several generations.

Whether this task succeeds or fails will rest on the political convictions of Americans who are now in their twenties and thirties. The lesson for Republicans is not to raise expectations only to fail to deliver.

Nothing fails like being made to feel like a sucker.

This week on Western Resistance Radio, Kevin DeAnna discusses Campus Progress in the context of Angelo Codevilla's article, "America's Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution."  This article is getting a great deal of coverage among the right, analzyed on the Rush Limbaugh Program among other places. 

The tone was set for America's Future Foundation's “Conservatism vs. Libertarianism” debate in the strangest of places.  Standing in the men’s bathroom, I overheard a young man (probably a Libertarian), say to his friend, “Hey, you wanna go smoke after this?”  His buddy’s reply that he could not, as he had to drive back home, gave me a clue as to the substance being discussed.  A main theme of the night’s featured debate turned out to be the huge ideological difference between the two sides on the matter of illicit drugs.  Other recurring topics included the role played by America’s Founding Fathers, and Man’s inherent proclivities.  Words such as “liberty”, “virtue”, “prudence”, “anarchy”, and of course, “marijuana” were heard repeatedly throughout the night.

Cato Vice President and debate Moderator Gene Healy kicked things off by chastising the Millenial Generation: “Today’s kids (present company excluded) are a bunch of Commies.”  He pointed out that over two-thirds of Americans born since 1979 had voted for an Obama Nation, and that overwhelming majorities from this age range also support additional education spending and universal healthcare.  Healy, a self-proclaimed Libertarian, likened the marriage between Conservatives and Libertarians, to “that of Ike and Tina Turner”, as opposed to the harmonious union enjoyed by “Ward and June Cleaver.”

Conservative panel-member Daniel Anderson wasted no time hammering home the ideals of “safety and happiness.”  He stressed the need for society to “create and support institutions.”  Invoking the names of legendary thinkers Aristotle and Thomas Jefferson, the Heritage intern explained how virtue, learned over time, begets happiness.  He claimed that it is important for a government to “fight the influence of drugs”, a statement that elicited loud boos from a section of the audience.  Anderson closed out with a famous quote by James Madison: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

U.K. native Sara Scarlett began by highlighting the main Libertarian premise that, “Individuals own themselves.”  She argued that the State should play only three roles: prevent coercion, ensure property rights, and allow the free market to prosper.  After pointing out the hypocrisy of a system that is pro-capitalism but anti-globalization, Scarlett slammed Conservatives for being “intellectually bankrupt.”  She took issue with Conservatives who call for heavy defense spending while they push for tax cuts.  In continuing with the hypocrisy theme, she wondered out loud how Conservatives could love guns, which allow humans to inflict harm on another person’s body, while punishing drug use, which involves inflicting harm on oneself.

Up next for the Conservatives, Shannon Hale proved to be less effective than her partner.  She spent considerable time telling us that human beings are inherently flawed, and stated that some liberty ultimately leads to greater liberty.  Her most emphatic comments were about the drug issue, which she called, “a slippery slope” and worried about a society in which people would sit around and, “smoke pot all day.”  As Hale thanked the audience at the end of her speech, she seemed to be on the verge of nervous tears.

Liya Palagashvili then took the stage for the Libertarians, and her speech was almost entirely about drugs.  She cited two or three studies, which concluded that societies with more stringent drug laws have more crime, gangs, and drug abuse.  Liya claimed that fears of drug tourism in places like Portugal and the Netherlands have proven unfounded, and then laid out some more facts: The United States, with the highest rates of cannabis and cocaine use in the World, subjects its citizens to some 40,000 “senseless” drug raids per year.

The subsequent question and answer section provided some memorable moments.  Chief among them was Anderson’s defense of booze, in which he told a crowd that had spent the 30 minutes prior to the debate sipping on wine and beer, that it is “strongly invested in the American tradition to consume alcohol.”  The session was largely disjointed, however, as the discussion bounced around from gay marriage, to tax credits, to immigration, and then back to drug use.

In summation, the debate, while stimulating, didn’t really go anywhere.   The stubborn insistence of both sides to engage in nothing but “point-making” impeded the path to any semblance of mutual understanding.  Personally, I find it difficult to take a definitive stance, because I understand where both sides are coming from.  What struck me the most was the feeling that all of these otherwise-heady Right-wingers spent almost an hour arguing over issues that, in the long run, will not matter all that much.  Mass immigration, multiculturalism, and the death of the west are rendering all these debates meaningless.  Neither side had any real answers to the most important questions or even seemed aware of their existence. In an age where we are subjected to Leftist assaults on a daily basis, it would be painful to see the Right lose momentum over issues like whether people should have the right to get stoned after a debate.