The latest Zogby approval numbers for Obama are out and show Obama’s overall job approval rating at 49%, a number unchanged from the last time we asked about Obama’s job approval three weeks ago on October 19. While ratings of Obama among core supporters such as First Globals™, Democrats, and Liberals remain high, ratings among independents have dipped slightly, from 47% approval on September 28, to 43% on October 19, to 40% on our most recent survey. Pollster John Zogby notes that “inside this poll are warning signs for the President…given his drop among independents, who our polling finds include many conservatives, the President has little slack to give from his base.”

The complete press release can be read here. What are your feelings on these numbers? Should Obama be worried about the decline in approval among independents if his overall approval remains steady?

Katy first globals first globals, John Zogby, Obama, politics, polls, war, zogby

by Rebecca Wittman

Well, not quite, but they appear to more concerned with humane issues than their elders. In two areas Zogby has polled – circuses and farm animals – New Globals appear ready to consider animals as beings worthy of empathy and consideration.

On Using Animals in Circuses

A majority of New Globals are opposed to using exotic animals like elephants, tigers, and bears in circuses, in fact, they are nearly one and a half times as likely as any other age group to feel that way – 51% under 30 opposed vs. an average of 38% over 30 who are opposed. And it isn’t just exotic animals they object to, they are also more likely than those over 30 to object to using domesticated animals like horses, cats, and dogs as circus acts (49% New Globals object vs. an average of 27% over 30 who object).

And when weighing two arguments about the treatment of animals used in circus acts, one postulating humane treatment (care by trained professionals who understand the animals’ needs and reinforcing natural behaviors as acts) and one postulating inhumane treatment (cramped cages, chaining, forced to perform unnatural behaviors), agreement with the notion that animals in circuses are treated inhumanely decreases with age, with New Globals (56%) most likely to agree that animals are treated inhumanely, while those over 65 are  the least likely to agree (36%).

On Treatment of Farm Animals

In a 2005 PETA poll, Zogby spoke with 300 15 to 23 year olds and discovered that humane issues were as likely or more likely to generate a move to vegetarianism than were personal or health issues.

So, New Globals may be the turning point in realizing better treatment for animals and an understanding that they deserve respect as individuals with intrinsic value outside their usefulness to humans. Here’s hoping so!

ZogbyFeaturedContributor consumption, culture, first globals, future animals, health, video, work, zogby

For the generation born from 1945-1964, the Vietnam War was the tumultuous event which divided this group more than any other.  And while many were appalled before, and especially after the results of Woodstock, the three-day music festival was the one event during this era which best captured the zeitgeist of this time- rebellion- and whether boomers agreed with the war or not, many could relate to that on some level.  However, the aftermath of the festival still revealed a stark divide amongst this age cohort.

Naturally I ponder similar questions for my generation born from 1979-1990; what is our definitive era, what is the big day that had a profound impact, and did it divide us or unite us?
For First Globals™, our era is no doubt defined by the telecommunications revolution that started in the 1980s and advanced into the 1990s so that a near majority of homes had cell phones, internet, or both. 

But unlike the Vietnam War for our parents generation, the T.C. revolution brought us closer to each other both within our regions and to some degree around our country (think chat rooms for special interests, instant messaging- thus the greater possibility to network outside of our high schools and cities).  And it was this era of networking and keeping in touch which many of us spent much of our teenage years engaging in, that prepared us for the day that shook us just like our parents had been shaken by various shocking events of the 1960s and early 1970s- that day for us was 9/11.

In fact 9/11 was an existential moment for many of us.  Some of us started attending church services and looking inward, while many did the exact opposite and found meaning by looking outward- hence the explosion in college students majoring in International Studies, East Asian Studies, Middle Eastern studies, and traveling abroad.

In short, 9/11 was the event in our short-lived history that ultimately defined us as a Global Generation because it allowed us to apply our networking and ultra-inclusive communicative skills learned through texting, instant messaging, and chat rooms, and apply them on an internationally practical level.  This is why we see countless members of the First Global™ generation who have made friends abroad and maintained through various social networking sites. 

Furthermore, 9/11 was the event that ultimately put the final nail in our parochial coffin and helped usher many of us to be more active in something more powerful than we had previously ever known- the global exchange of ideas.

While many Baby Boomers get much slack for continuing their indulgent behavior into their mature adult years; what are the behavioral tendencies of the Global Generation and are they likely to tarnish their image down the line, or have they already?

Jeremy first globals communication, evolution, first globals, history, international, internet, middle east, music, travel, war, work

In his book “The Blank Slate”, psychologist Steven Pinker has, among other things, criticized the “noble savage” view of human nature. According to this view, people are by nature generous and non-aggressive, however, as they grow up they get corrupted by the existing culture. Consequently, vast majority of social problems can be solved by changing culture and returning to the age of innocence. Pinker, on the other hand, used psychological, historical and archaeological evidence to argue that such times never existed.

Our data show that a vast majority of people appear to be endorsing the noble savage view of human nature. Overall, 55% percent of Americans agree with the view, “generally speaking, people are born nice and generous, but the existing culture gradually corrupts them”. Perhaps surprisingly, there are no generational differences and ideological differences are almost negligible.

What is your view of the “noble savage” hypothesis?

Zeljka culture, first globals, future, ideology, psychology culture

If you’ve been reading our blog regularly, you’ll know that we frequently write about First Globals. We’ve discovered through our surveys and research that this generation of people between the ages of 18 and 30 are the most likely to have traveled or lived abroad, the most likely to keep in contact with friends and family living abroad, and hold political opinions that differ significantly from older Americans.

A new blog post in the Chronicle of Higher Education reports on a speech John Zogby gave at that organization’s Leadership Forum. Discussing First Globals, Zogby says that today’s college students are “the most diverse, multicultural generation yet produced” and that they are ” as likely to say they are citizens of the planet Earth as they are to say they are citizens of the United States.” Furthermore, these First Globals are more likely to seek a spiritually fulfilling life than a materialistic and status-driven life.

How do you think the global orientation of this younger generation will affect politics and life in this country in the future? If you are a First Global, does this description accurately represent you?

Katy John Zogby, first globals, global issues education, first globals, future, John Zogby, politics, polls, travel, war, zogby

John Zogby, in his book The Way We’ll Be , divides up Americans into four distinct generations. We refer to these generations frequently when discussing data on this blog, so here is a brief primer for those of you unfamiliar with these names.

The Private Generation is composed of those born between 1926 and 1945. Writes John Zogby, “The Private Generation grew to adulthood mostly without questioning received American values.” They came of age during WWII and the early years of the Cold War and statistically are most likely to oppose equal rights for gays and women, to favor closed borders and a unilateral foreign policy.

The Woodstock Generation is composed of those born between 1946 and 1964. Woodstockers’ coming of age was marked by – among other things – fights over civil rights and racial equality, the war in Vietnam, feminism, premarital sex, and the environment. Yet “Woodstockers have mellowed with time and drifted to the right politically. By their thirties, Woodstockers were solidly in the Reagan camp; in their fourties, they barely gave Bill Clinton the nod.”

The Nike Generation is composed of those born between 1965 and 1978. With their early years marked by political assassinations, presidential scandals, oil embargoes, military losses, high divorce rates, and the beginnings of the AIDS crisis, this generation learned that “no institution is permanent, that all relationships are fleeting, and that some are very dangerous”. Statistically, this is the most libertarian generation in America, the least likely to believe in government as a problem solver, and the least loyal overall to most religious, civil, and political institutions.

The First Global Generation is composed of those born between 1979 and 1990. First Globals “have two distinct souls – one highly materialistic and self absorbed, and the other caring, tolerant, and possessed of a wisdom well beyond its years.” Statistically, First Globals are the most cosmopolitan age group in America, the most international, and the one most concerned about the environment and human rights.

How well do you fit your generation? What additional differences do you see in your own experience between the generations above?

Katy John Zogby, culture, first globals, lifestyles environment, first globals, Generations, international, John Zogby, military, war, zogby

In his book “Capitalism and Freedom”, Milton Friedman argues that economic freedom is not just important in itself, but is also the foundation of all other freedoms.  According to our survey data, 47% of Americans agree.

There also exist substantial generational differences regarding this issue. First Globals™ are the less likely than other  generations to agree that “economic freedom is the foundation of all other freedoms” and most likely to agree that “cultural and social freedom is more important than economic freedom.” In a November 2008 Zogby survey, 34% of First Globals™ agreed with the former, and 52% agreed with the latter. The next oldest generation – those between ages of 30 and 40 – endorsed the former by 48% and the latter by 38%.

Do First Globals™ put more weight on social and cultural freedom because of their stronger connection to to global culture? Or are they relatively less interested in economic freedom because they earn less money? How important is economic freedom to you?

Zeljka economics, first globals capitalism, culture, first globals, Generations, zogby

What gives one country right to intervene in other country’s internal affairs? Is it a pursuit of self-interest or protection of the indigenous population? Zogby data show that Americans of different ages significantly disagree in this respect.

For example, First Globals™ are much more likely than other age groups to say that “protection of human rights” gives America a right to intervene in other countries’ foreign affairs, with 48% of First Globals™ choosing that as a legitimate reason to intervene compared to only 23% of Americans over 65. They are also the generation least likely to say that “protection of America’s own interests” gives the U.S. a right to intervene in other countries’ affairs, with only 28% of them recognizing such right compared to 44% of Americans over 65.

It appears that First Globals have less respect for country’s boundaries – feeling, to a lesser extent than other generations, that countries are not allowed to act in their own self-interest or ignore what is happening in other places. If First Globals™ keep these views as they grow older, once agreed-upon principle of sovereignty appears to be destined for oblivion. Do you believe that that will, in fact, happen? And, in your view, is that going to make the world more or less peaceful?

Zeljka first globals, future, global issues, international, peace, politics, war first globals, Generations, peace, zogby

Why do wars happen?  Power, land, money, oil, the girl, or is it simply that bad guys attack the good guys?  Those over 65 are particularly likely to agree with the latter. According to Zogby data, 31% of 18- to 29-year-olds agree with the statement “more often than not, wars are a conflict between good and evil” compared to 51% of people 65 years or older.  The other age groups fall somewhere in between.

This suggests that First Globals™ might be less likely to perceive international conflicts in black and white.  Interestingly, Zogby data on humanitarian interventions suggest that when First Globals™ do perceive a conflict as a conflict between good and evil, they are more likely to demand military action to rectify it.

Does this propensity of First Globals™ to act for humanitarian reasons make them easier to be manipulated to serve causes they don’t fully understand? Or are they protected from it by their tendency to see the world in shades of gray? What is your view?

Zeljka first globals, future, global issues, international, military, peace, war first globals, international, military, war, zogby

First Globals are the most optimistic of all generations regarding the economic future of the U.S. When asked which scenario is more likely, the country having continuous good times during the next five years or the country having periods of widespread unemployment or depression, 26.9% of First Globals believed “good times” was the most likely scenario. In contrast, only 17.6% of those 30-49, 13.4% of those 50-64, and 11.9% of those over 65 felt the same way. However, First Globals (along with other generations) were still more likely to believe that unemployment and depression were more likely than good times, with 34.9% of First Globals saying that “bad times” were the most likely situation for the next five years.

Do you think it is significant that First Globals are more optimistic than other generations, even if more of them are pessimistic than optimistic? Are First Globals naïve in their optimism, or do they see themselves as helping propel the country forward? Do you think it is more likely that we see continuous good times or unemployment and depression in the next five years?

Katy economics, first globals, future employment, first globals, future, Generations, war