Youth Vote

Scary idea of the day:

A London-based think tank argues that young people should be forced to vote, or fined if they don’t. The idea aims to create a lifelong habit, the Institute for Public Policy Research stated.

This trial balloon, by the way, is floated in the name of tackling “political inequality” and “empowering young voters.”

The think tank report recommends compelling first-time voters to turn out to vote, that is those who recently became old enough to vote.

“Young voters would be required go to the polling station to vote and fined if they didn’t,” the think tank states. “But they would be given a ‘none of the above’ option so they were not forced to vote for a party.”

Oh, well, in that case … NOT!

The think tank, which describes itself as aiming to “assist all those who want to create a society where every citizen lives a decent and fulfilled life, in reciprocal relationships with the people they care about,” (insert violins playing in the background here) is quite insistent this strategy is a winner.

“Unequal turnout matters because it gives well-off and older voters disproportionate influence at the ballot box and reduces the incentives for governments to respond to the interests of non-voting groups,” bemoaned Guy Lodge, the group’s associate director.

“There are many other things that young people are required to do, not the least of which is go to school. Adding just one more small task to this list would not represent an undue burden, and it could well help to reinvigorate democracy. It would make politicians target first-time voters like never before and give young voters the potential for far greater political power.”

There are so many problems with this argument.

For one, nothing is stopping these little buggers from voting once they are of legal age. If they are so worried about political inequity, let them do something about it themselves, let’s not hand-walk them to the ballot box. But if we do, maybe we can spoon-feed them some applesauce while we’re at it.

Besides, do we really want politicians pandering to 18-year-olds? Oh wait, scratch that – the November 2012 presidential election proved that out to be quite effective.

But the notion that forcing students to do something will empower them actually contradicts itself.

Nevertheless, this idea could pick up steam on our side of the pond considering that young people can take a heap of credit for electing President Barack Obama last November. We can see that whole “we force them to go to school, why not force them to vote” mentality fitting in quite well among the segment of the population here who also believe that the government should pretty much do everything for Americans (legal or not), God forbid they actually are in want of anything.

Let’s hope this idea dies a quick and silent death. Things are bad enough for thinking people at the ballot box right now as it is.

CLICK HERE to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

IMAGE: Brother O’Mara/Flickr

{ 0 comments }

Victor Davis Hanson writes for National Review Online:

It is popular wisdom that President Obama’s progressive social agenda is predicated on widespread support from the younger, hip generation. Certainly, concerns like gay marriage, marijuana legalization, abortion, the DREAM Act, gun control, women in combat, and blocking gas and oil exploration and pipeline transportation all get a lot of play on campuses and in popular culture. And these wedge issues supposedly represent the future direction of the country — a wise agenda for liberals eager to cement a majority constituency for decades to come.

But aside from the common-sense recognition that people become more conservative as they age and mature — and start paying taxes, and become financially responsible for their own children’s future — there is just as much likelihood that Barack Obama may inadvertently be building a conservative youth movement. Indeed, the new liberalism in all its economic manifestations is reactionary and anti-youth to the core. The administration seems aware of the potential paradoxes in this reverse “What’s the matter with Kansas?” syndrome of young people voting against their economic interests. Thus follows the constant courting of the hip and cool Beyoncé, Jay-Z, Lena Dunham, Occupy Wall Streeters, and others who blend pop culture, sex, youth, energy, and fad — almost anything to avoid the truth that today’s teenagers are starting out each owing a lifetime share of the national debt amounting to more than three-quarters of a million dollars. Those who ran up the debt enjoyed the borrowing, but won’t be around to pay back their proverbial fair share.

Read the full article here.

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook.  /  Twitter: @CollegeFix

{ 0 comments }

Sen. John McCain recently took to the Senate floor and lambasted Sen. Rand Paul for his political “stunt” of a filibuster.

McCain also read extensively from a Wall Street Journal editorial, which opined, “If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in college dorms.”

But Mr. McCain misses the point—the libertarian kids are impressionable, and Rand Paul knows that. If those dorm-dwellers are impressed enough, they’ll vote for him in 2016.

Paul will almost assuredly run for president in 2016; it seems almost inevitable now. To win, he’ll have to unite a fractured Republican base for both a dog-eat-dog primary and a face-off with whoever happens to be the Left’s favorite hero at the time.

That’s the thing about the Left—they vote for heroes. Barack Obama had no political clout and no experience whatsoever when he emerged victorious in 2008. What he did have was a heavy dose of charm and a whole lot of impressionable kids in college dorms. Some of them were even libertarians who rejected the Bush-era Republican rhetoric of perpetual war and complete disregard for civil liberties.

Obama turned out to be as bad as or worse than Bush in every way, including on war and civil liberties. That’s what Paul’s filibuster was all about—not a mere “stunt” to prevent an Obama nominee from getting confirmed, but a sincere plea for an honest, non-partisan discussion about battle technology, due process, and the rule of law.

It caught the attention and earned the respect of Republicans of all kinds, from Ted Cruz to Marco Rubio to Rush Limbaugh. It was truly a unifying moment.

It caught the attention of the entire world. #StandWithRand was trending on Twitter for hours upon hours.

And of course, it caught the attention of “impressionable libertarian kids in college dorms.” The youth—perhaps even more so than the Left—embraces a romantic hero come election time. Writing at Mediaite, Noah Rothman proclaimed that Rand Paul shattered the “Democratic monopoly on romance” and captured “the hearts of the young voter.”

Rothman added, “The young conservative, instinctively attracted to the struggle against perceived injustice, must always wrestle with and overcome their heart first in order to join the conservative movement. This is a fundamental impediment to the [R]ight’s ability to speak to the young voter.”

True enough. Conservatism ostensibly tries to be the political ideology of reason and pragmatism, often seeking to divorce emotion from policy. While conservatives often fail miserably at achieving this noble objective, the perception remains. Young people simply aren’t attracted to stuffy curmudgeon-esque conservatism.

Everyone knows the Republican Party needs to draw the youth vote to win an election. To do so, they’ll need a charismatic hero who can harmoniously incorporate the young with the traditional.

“Impressionable libertarian kids in college dorms” certainly aren’t going to vote for anyone like John McCain. But they just might vote for Rand Paul.

Fix contributor Joseph Diedrich is a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is also Director of Operations of Young Americans for Liberty at UW, and a columnist for Washington Times Communities.

CLICK HERE to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

IMAGE: Lolly Knit/Flickr

{ 1 comment }

Today in the Wall Street Journal, George Washington University freshman Sarah Westwood explains how the Democrats have done a better job reaching students than Republicans have.

The left proudly shouts “stick it to the rich,” which naturally draws the rambunctious college crowd into its fold. But Democrats fail to mention how broadly they define the rich—or that in reality, they want to dip into everyone’s wallets, not just Bill Gates’s.

Shame on Republicans for not seizing the opportunity this time around. They could so easily define their brand as the true advocate of rebellion; a “stick it to the government” movement in the spirit of the 1960s hippie wave.

It wouldn’t be a smoke-and-mirrors, bait-and-switch trick either, like what goes on across the aisle. Republicans truly are the party of a less intrusive ruling class. Frame the Republican fundamentals—tax less, spend less—as a fresh populist approach instead of Grandpa’s adage, and the party is back in business.

Westwood goes on to argue that Republicans should abandon social conservatism, and should stop trying to protect the right to life of the unborn.

Read the full article here.

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

{ 1 comment }

If conservative lawmakers want to win elections, they better pay attention to and address youth voters currently swayed by leftist professors who indoctrinate them for Democrats with cherry-picked lesson plans and biased lectures, several prominent educators told The College Fix.

“If those who value America’s deeper traditions hope to win future elections, they had better get serious about higher education,” said Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars. “Ceding the colleges and universities to cultural and political progressives has led to generations of graduates who have scant knowledge of our nation’s founding principles, a distorted understanding of its ideals, and settled patterns of disdain for genuine intellectual diversity.”

And that’s affecting how they vote, bigtime.

President Barack Obama won re-election with the help of 18- to 29-year-olds. Sixty percent of voters that age broke for Obama, compared with the 37 percent in that category who supported Republican contender Mitt Romney, exit polls showed. Those figures were especially hard felt in key swing states Romney needed to win the election, as young voters came through for Obama in Ohio, Florida and Virginia, where he led by margins of about 20 to 30 percentage points against Romney among 18- to 29-year-olds.

While popular culture and Obama’s hip image played a role in that outcome, what young people learn from their professors is just as influential, several scholars told The College Fix.

“The character of our universities and the make-up of the faculty certainly has a lot to do with the turn-out of young people for Barack Obama,” said Paul Rahe, a history professor at Hillsdale College. “To a degree that is shocking, the professoriate has become openly, even ostentatiously partisan in recent years. … In the last decade or so … academics of a conservative disposition have almost entirely been shut out.”

Wood notes many students don’t even realize they’re being fed partisan politics from the podium.

“College professors have an out-sized influence on their students, though the students often fail to realize it,” Wood said. “The influence surely has as much to do with the attitudes teachers convey and the ambiance they create on campus as it does the specific substance of what they say. A great deal is conveyed by what professors choose to ignore or to treat dismissively.”

For example, notes Emory University English professor Mark Bauerlein: “If a course in freshman composition examines the Civil Rights movement but includes no readings coming from those at the time who worried about issues of states’ rights and federal intervention (but might otherwise have been entirely free of racism, such as Barry Goldwater), then we have a skew to the left but none of the 18-year-olds notice. Here we can’t really get input from students about the effects because students aren’t even aware of them.”

These influences by omission, as well as outright propagandizing by professors, take their toll on students, Wood said.

“A great deal of contemporary higher education aims at drawing students in the opposite direction—away from personal responsibility and towards images of themselves as members of groups whose only meaningful actions arise from participation in those groups’ struggles,” he said. “The campus is, in this sense, among the least diverse places in American life. A dreary uniformity of opinion pervades it, all the drearier because the campus authorities and increasingly the students proceed under the self-willed illusion that they are robust individualists who just coincidentally all think the same thing by margins of eight or nine to one.”

And while the role of higher education is vital in shaping young people’s minds – and thus the future of America – popular culture and what’s held up as important by secular society also pervades how college students think, the educators said.

“Most adolescents enter college already solidly in the liberal camp, though not in an informed way,” Bauerlein said. “The culture they consume on TV, in youth music, in movies, and on the Web is altogether anti-conservative. Traditional authorities are mocked and rebellious teens are glamorized. … After years of Lady Gaga, Friends, and the rest, conservatism strikes them as authoritarian and backward and irrelevant. With his interviews in Rolling Stone and appearances on The Daily Show, Obama seems a whole lot more hip and timely and multicultural than a white guy in a suit. That influence means a whole lot more than the leftist twerp in Sociology 101.”

Rahe offered similar sentiments.

“There is another reason … why college students may have sided with Barack Obama,” he said. “He presented himself as the great defender of the sexual revolution – which began on American campuses in the late 1960s when I was a student and which has its primary home there today. My generation of students was the first generation that was self-righteous about its vices, and today’s students have inherited our propensity to foolishness. Barack Obama used that foolishness to play on them like a fiddle.”

Bauerlein also didn’t offer a lot of confidence in young people’s discernment either, saying of the youth vote: “Of course, we could also chalk it up to teenage stupidity, the chumps. After all, the climbing debt is THEIR debt more than anyone else’s.”

IMAGE: Bertoz/Flickr

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

{ 13 comments }

The youth vote gave President Barack Obama an edge in his victory Tuesday. A national exit poll found Obama secured 60 percent of the youth vote, compared with Mitt Romney’s 36 percent.

Politico.com notes that’s a smaller percentage than Obama’s youth vote advantage against Sen. John McCain in 2008, but young voters came through for Obama last night in the key swing states of Ohio, Florida and Virginia, where he led by margins of about 20 to 30 percentage points against Romney among 18- to 29-year-olds.

An article on The Huffington Post trumpets another milestone for Obama as well:

“Obama’s 60 percent to 36 percent victory among young people this year is smaller than his 66 percent-31 percent win over John McCain in 2008, but it is still the highest any Democratic presidential candidate scored in 30 years among 18- to 29 year-olds,” the article states. “Voters from ages 18 to 29 represented 19 percent of all those who voted on Tuesday, according to the early National Exit Poll conducted by Edison Research. That’s an increase of one percentage point from 2008.”

IMAGE: U.S.Govt/Flickr

Click here to Like The College Fix on Facebook.

{ 4 comments }