Old Pol, Please Learn New Tricks
The following post was written by Jane Fleming Kleeb.
We have all heard it before—young people don’t vote, they are apathetic.
David Broder’s latest article “Breaking Through to Voters” starts with this false claim and old political thinking. Seven years ago it would have been right. Then we were in the middle of a period when young people did not connect politics and their everyday lives, and consequently, didn’t vote.
Thankfully, he counters his own argument by describing young people’s increasingly active role in local Montana government. But I have to ask, why does Broder have to rely first on old stereotypes about young people nationally so as to then act shocked that young people in Montana care about politics?
Young people broke voting records for their age group in the last two elections, in 2004 and 2006, even though the media largely ignored the voting surge and even falsely reported that we didn’t come out in large numbers for Kerry in 2004. In fact, Rock the Vote’s latest polling report shows young people are paying attention to and engaged in politics at record levels, that they are optimistic, enthusiastic about civics and service, and increasingly self-identifying as Democrats.
But why should this surprise any of us, David Broder included? Especially when we realize that young people care about the same issues that any of us do—we want access to quality healthcare, we don’t want to go bankrupt in order to go to college or improve ourselves, we want good neighborhood schools for our children, and we think our nation’s security depends as much on supporting our troops at Walter Reed as it does supporting our children with SCHIP.
Most critically we worry, like Hawaii state representative Marcus Oshiro whom Broder quotes in his article, that some of our peers may be losing trust in our government. Amazingly enough though, young people continue to have faith that government can do good in our everyday lives and that, more than any other factor, continues to motivate and inspire us to stay involved – or at least keep voting.
In the end, Broder gets it absolutely right when he says “young people respond when they are treated seriously — and when their involvement in politics produces results that are real.” That is what we in the youth voting community have been arguing, and saying, and advocating for years against the dominate media message of “young people are apathetic.”
My contention with Broder comes not in his ultimate analysis that, contrary to what we the readers might think, young people do care but rather in his willingness to repeat the tired and old theme at the outset that young people do not. The bottom line is this: talk to us and we will vote; ignore us and don’t be surprised if we ignore you too.
Not surprising, this is true of all age groups, not just young people. And not surprising, this is true of all campaigns from logging in Montana to President of the United States because each of us believes, older and younger, that we still have it within us to help change the world.
Jane Fleming Kleeb is the Executive Director of the Young Voter Pac which helps Democratic candidates and State Parties win with the 18-35 year old vote through endorsements, on-the-ground support, training, strategy and money. She is a regular on Fox and MSNBC. In her spare time, Jane is working on a cookbook for people recovering from eating disorders at http://www.eatingpolitics.com.
We have all heard it before—young people don’t vote, they are apathetic.
David Broder’s latest article “Breaking Through to Voters” starts with this false claim and old political thinking. Seven years ago it would have been right. Then we were in the middle of a period when young people did not connect politics and their everyday lives, and consequently, didn’t vote.
Thankfully, he counters his own argument by describing young people’s increasingly active role in local Montana government. But I have to ask, why does Broder have to rely first on old stereotypes about young people nationally so as to then act shocked that young people in Montana care about politics?
Young people broke voting records for their age group in the last two elections, in 2004 and 2006, even though the media largely ignored the voting surge and even falsely reported that we didn’t come out in large numbers for Kerry in 2004. In fact, Rock the Vote’s latest polling report shows young people are paying attention to and engaged in politics at record levels, that they are optimistic, enthusiastic about civics and service, and increasingly self-identifying as Democrats.
But why should this surprise any of us, David Broder included? Especially when we realize that young people care about the same issues that any of us do—we want access to quality healthcare, we don’t want to go bankrupt in order to go to college or improve ourselves, we want good neighborhood schools for our children, and we think our nation’s security depends as much on supporting our troops at Walter Reed as it does supporting our children with SCHIP.
Most critically we worry, like Hawaii state representative Marcus Oshiro whom Broder quotes in his article, that some of our peers may be losing trust in our government. Amazingly enough though, young people continue to have faith that government can do good in our everyday lives and that, more than any other factor, continues to motivate and inspire us to stay involved – or at least keep voting.
In the end, Broder gets it absolutely right when he says “young people respond when they are treated seriously — and when their involvement in politics produces results that are real.” That is what we in the youth voting community have been arguing, and saying, and advocating for years against the dominate media message of “young people are apathetic.”
My contention with Broder comes not in his ultimate analysis that, contrary to what we the readers might think, young people do care but rather in his willingness to repeat the tired and old theme at the outset that young people do not. The bottom line is this: talk to us and we will vote; ignore us and don’t be surprised if we ignore you too.
Not surprising, this is true of all age groups, not just young people. And not surprising, this is true of all campaigns from logging in Montana to President of the United States because each of us believes, older and younger, that we still have it within us to help change the world.
Jane Fleming Kleeb is the Executive Director of the Young Voter Pac which helps Democratic candidates and State Parties win with the 18-35 year old vote through endorsements, on-the-ground support, training, strategy and money. She is a regular on Fox and MSNBC. In her spare time, Jane is working on a cookbook for people recovering from eating disorders at http://www.eatingpolitics.com.
Labels: young voters
posted by Lindsey B. at 1:53 PM
1 Comments:
To respond to the (not-quite-rhetorical) question that Jane Fleming Kleeb asked in response to the piece by Broder, the stereotype about young US voters is incredibly powerful. An article, such as Broder's, beginning with the premise that "young people don't vote" is less the argument of the piece that he later contradicts, but instead a statement of the stereotype which has little to do with the content of his argument or article.
The stereotype presupposes that young people and voting are only compatible if the (um...non-young-people?) voters over a certain age can view their younger counterparts as absurd, nonsensical, apathetic, and irrelevant to politics. Because the statement that "young people don't vote" can be disproven quite easily with the numbers from prior elections, the question is not why is Broder supposedly contradicting his own argument, but instead why is his argument so powerful that he (among many others) can make the statement at all?
"Young people don't vote" is an encoded message that asserts a set of vicious (and erroneous) beliefs about "young people." The absurd statement is predicated on a characterization of "young people" that would, if the beliefs were overtly stated, basically state: young people are threatening; therefore, we (the not-young people) refuse to acknowledge their existence in the political process, and although we (the older people again) would not like to be defined by our age, we can marginalize an entire group of voters who are in many ways threatening to us (the older voters).
The existence of shared beliefs and desires that span generations is hardly surprising (like I want a nuclear war any more than my 50-something year old neighbor). Therefore, the stereotype is evidence that the same divisive political tactics (used to support racism and segregation, misogyny, homophobia, among numerous other "difference-based" fear tactics) are still alive and well, being used in the same way that they've always been a part of the 'sacred' US democratic process.
It matters less that I define myself based on my age (I'm 27- if it matters) because that issue has been decided for me. Only the dominant group has the power to "name" (young voters) and then marginalize this group in a way that's palpable to the current socio-political climate, so that the group is silenced.
However, we need not be silenced by virtue of our age group. We could start by eliminating a need to rebut Broder-like arguments and instead verbalize and mobilize around the areas that are important to us. If we keep defending our age in relation to politics, then yes, we will have wasted time and energy attempting to 'prove' relevance to an audience that doesn't want to perceive or portray young people as politically relevant actors. Then, we can pat ourselves on our collective (young) backs because we will have been complicit in our own silencing and irrelevance.
Post a Comment
<< Home