BOOKS Young Americans rewriting the way America does
politics A
NEW KIND OF PARTY ANIMAL: HOW THE YOUNG ARE TEARING UP THE AMERICAN POLITICAL
LANDSCAPE By Michele Mitchell Simon & Schuster, 224 pages,
Hardcover, $23 Orders: 1-800-223-2336
By MATT KANTZ
Liberal, conservative,
Republican and Democrat are the familiar political
distinctions in this country. But those terms dont apply to the new
generation coming on the scene, according to Michele Mitchell, whose book sheds
invaluable light on a mysterious and often misunderstood cohort of voters and
politicians.
The current voting block ages 18 to 35 shuns the terms
Republican and Democrat, forcing politicians to recognize that
this is a group that cant be hypnotized by meaningless party rhetoric.
Perhaps the greatest case in point so far is the election of former
professional wrestler Jesse The Body Ventura as governor of
Minnesota. Venturas unforeseen victory was fueled by a surge of young
voters alienated by conventional politics and looking to shake up the system.
If Mitchell is right, its a pattern that will repeat itself in the year
2000 when 80 million persons ages 18 to 35 will be eligible to vote.
Through analyzing voting patterns and voting data, as well as
interviews with under-40 politicians and activists, Mitchell gives some
indication of how the new generation of voters is likely to reshape politics in
America. Mitchell, 28, is a former communications director on Capitol Hill and
claims to be the youngest person to have written for The New York Times
editorial page.
The new generation are community-oriented yet fiercely independent
latchkey kids, skeptical and computer-savvy. But dont call them
apathetic, cynical or slackers, and steer clear of the label X.
They are likely to support candidates who are outside the
conventional mold, who are pragmatic rather than visionary, and who emphasize
small ideas that work rather than grand platforms that smack of
make-believe.
In characterizing the political instincts of Americans born
between 1961 and 1980, Mitchell emphasizes their preference for grassroots
solutions. There is no widespread national movement for reform -- no marches on
Washington, no campus protests, no media frenzy.
Rather, the new generation is fighting the small political battles
at local levels, where their voice is more likely to be heard and where the
effect is more likely be felt. Call it selfish, but Generation
X-ers seem to care only about the issues that relate directly to them.
Cleaning up their neighborhoods, volunteering to help the underprivileged and
overthrowing the old guard in local districts are the kinds of hands-on causes
that attract them.
Mitchell tells the story of 30-year-old Jerry Morrison in suburban
Chicago, who in 1996 tried to shake up the stagnant Democratic political
machine in his 32nd Ward by registering new voters. In just two months of
campaigning, Morrison took 30 percent of the vote, which in old-school Chicago
made him a political player.
Political professionals see a message in Morrisons success
-- the same message they derived from Venturas stunning victory.
Its a strong, albeit quiet, indictment of the political status quo from a
group whose turnout is taken for granted. Over 50 percent of voters in
Minnesota under the age of 40 chose Ventura. Of those, 12 percent said they
wouldnt have voted at all if Ventura had not been on the ballot.
It hasnt quite sunk in with the Baby Boomers and senior
citizens yet, this message from the youth of America. Its a message being
delivered subtly and discreetly, without filling the streets, but its
there for everyone to see.
A widespread misconception among politicians and the older
generation is that young voters dont vote. In 1996, according to
Mitchell, 21 percent of those in the 18 to 35 age group turned out, while the
much-targeted senior citizen group checked in at under 23 percent. In 1992, 42
percent of the 18 to 35 age group showed up, the highest number since
18-year-olds were given the right to vote in 1972.
These numbers have politicians running scared. The conventional
wisdom is that Social Security and health care will be financed largely by 18-
to 35-year-olds, so most politicians are understandably reluctant to see the
younger generation at the voting booths. Although these issues pit the young
generation against the old, the likelihood of a generational war is
slim, according to Mitchell.
The generations each can be (and are) guilty of
thoughtlessness, greed and arrogance, she writes. But warfare
implies an unprecedented level of callousness and viciousness between child,
parent and grandparent. And, quite frankly, that type of ruthlessness simply
does not exist.
The post-Baby Boom generation was born into political scandal, so
its little wonder theyre disheartened with government. Richard
Tricky Dick Nixon was a bad man, our parents used to say. If
you cant trust the president, whom can you trust? concerned mothers
asked.
The leaders who followed all seemed compromised in some way.
Whether it was Jimmy Carters failure to free the hostages in Iran or
Ronald Reagans claim of ignorance in the Iran-contra affair, these
presidents seemed not to be the heroes of past generations. No Trumans or
Kennedys in this lot.
Though younger voters generally like him, Bill Clinton now feeds
their skepticism as yet another example of the broken promises the 18 to 35s
have experienced throughout their lives. Mitchell points out that while in 1992
Clinton boasted the young generation had won him the election, in reality the
numbers prove that the tide is shifting away from established political parties
altogether.
Ross Perot won 22 percent of the 18 to 35 vote in 1992, his
strongest showing. Then, in 1993 and 1994, the Libertarian Party increased by
20 percent. In 1995, less than one-fourth of those 18 to 35 who voted voted
straight party lines.
Mitchell also writes that before the 1996 election, nearly 70
percent of 18 to 35s said they would like to vote for a third-party candidate
for president. The reason: New voters dont want promises, they want
results. They want the bridge to the 21st century completed on time and on
budget.
Another intriguing wrench in the political system is the Internet.
Its an untapped political watchdog that appeals especially to younger
voters raised on modems and Web sites.
Politicians have fought hard trying to censure the Internet
because of its power to inform. What would happen if typing in your zip code
gave you access to a candidates voting record, where he or she can be
reached and what special interest groups endorse or oppose the candidate?
I think wed vote, says Kim Alexander, who in
California started one of the first on-line political voting guides and in 1997
hired an army of interns to help post campaign contributions during the final
two weeks of elections.
With their voting tendencies revealed, candidates would be forced
to put up or shut up when more people called them on their lies and misleading
statements. Although this information is already available (in the dusty back
rooms of local libraries), empowering people at their home computers will allow
this generation to be the most informed voters ever.
What does it all add up to? An unpredictable force in politics
capable of shaking up America in fundamental ways. When Mitchell was asked in
an interview what do you get when persons 18 to 35 turn out to vote, her
response was simple:
Jesse Ventura.
Matt Kantz is NCRs assistant layout editor and
staff writer. He lives in Independence, Mo.
National Catholic Reporter, January 29,
1999
|