PoliticalEngagement of the Younger Generations
Inthe book, "Keeping the Republic," Christine Barbour andGerald Wright portray a case that describes an American as anindividual who is committed to developing and protecting the countrybecause it provides a home for him or her. In this context, Americancitizens include people who are born in the country as well asimmigrants who come in search of better employment, education, andbusiness opportunities among others. Therefore, the level of anindividual`s citizenship in American society can be said to rely onthe quality of their membership in the community. Membershipencompasses civic, economic, political, and social duty. Forinstance, an individual`s level of citizenship is elevated when he orshe consistently participates in the process of electing leaders. Indoing so, the person is committed to making America a better livingplace by ensuring that only people with excellent leadership skillsto manage the country.
Accordingto Barbour and Wright (336), people tend to form political ideologiesand inclination through political socialization processes. Thecontext of citizenship and political socialization described in thepreceding paragraph provides a basis for imagining that not only doesan individual need to be born in America to become a citizen of thecountry, but could also express the desire and actions which aim atimproving the status of the country. Younger people are an importantpart of the political development process of the country. Forinstance, younger people facilitate change by presenting new ideaswithin the American political culture. They also promote theenhancement of democracy because they are less restricted bydiversity issues such as race and culture which affected communityunification process in the past. However, and unfortunately so, onlya few of them are either interested or participate in the politics ofthe country. In the process of examining the political engagement ofthe younger generation, this paper seeks to determine what the UnitedStates need to do to get more people to be interested and activelyparticipate in politics.
TheImportance of Getting Young People to be Interested and ActivelyParticipate in Politics
Predominantly,young people’s active participation in politics can boost democracyin the United States. The declining status of democracy in Britainprovides a classic example for understanding and authenticating theabove assertion. Britain’s democracy has been declining because ofthe one-sided nature of the related political processes or politicalopportunity as sometimes called. According to Mycock and Tonge (3),the one-sided nature of the country`s political processes can beexplained within the context of the theory of supply and demand. Thecountry is in need of a large number of politicians to balance everydecision that is made, yet only a few people are either interested oractively participate in politics (Mycock & Tonge 3). Youngpeople, in particular, are relatively less interested in politicscompared to other people. As a result, a group of people affiliatedto a particular political ideology often win debates and dictatevarious decision making processes in different political platforms.
Therefore,if America can get young people to be interested and activelyparticipate in politics, then it would ensure an endless supply ofpoliticians who would make see to it that all factors are keenlyanalyzed, debated, and voted before making final decisions. Thisapproach would strip every decision of any component that wouldcompromise the country`s democratic processes and internationalrelations. On the other hand, if only a few young people participatein politics, then the country may be run by one political ideology.It means that a given politician can one day decide to propose tolimit the citizenship of immigrants. The proposal would be passed byan act if the politician came from a political side with majoritymembers. Correspondingly, it also implies that war decisions would bemade by one political side. Additionally, Affordable Health Carewould also be scrapped off the country’s constitution because theperson who differed with it happened to belong to a dominantpolitical wing.
Thesecond importance of young people`s involvement in the politics ofthe country is that they facilitate the development of new ideologiesand ways of doing things. They oppose corrupt leadership andpolitical processes. They also resist opinions which only facilitatethe country’s backwardness. For instance, America’s young peopledominated the political movements which sought to end the country’sparticipation in the Vietnam War in the 1970s. They revolutionizedthe country’s leadership process by regularly standing againsttheir leaders. They used music, poetry, and other forms of creativewriting to express their dissatisfaction with the way things weredone in the country. For instance, the young generation resistedassassination attempts on the key political figures and demandedaccountability in all governance processes. The beginning of 1970marked an era of real change as a result of their involvement inpolitical, social, and economic processes. For instance, Americaended its participation in the Vietnam war. Correspondingly, thehuman rights movement achieved most of their objectives in the 1970sand 80s.
Additionally,the country was also beginning to acknowledge women as importantpolitical, social and economic players. They were allowed to study,have jobs, own properties, and engage in the reform processes. On thesame note, blacks were also increasingly gaining acceptance among thewhite people, and discrimination was slowly ending. Therefore, youngpeople orchestrated and sustained political change between 1970 andlate 1980. A country’s ability to mature politically primarilydepends on young people`s active engagement in political processes.According to Acerbi et al. (1), old people tend to maintain thestatus quo because they are either tired or afraid of change.Sometimes they are afraid of being swept off leadership positions.However, they must be replaced because most political ideologieswhich were used in the past have become oppressive and non-responsivein the modern era. At the same time, the older generation of people,especially those in power, tends to be hardliners of particularsystems when it comes to dealing with highly volatile situations inthe country. The bureaucracy has no place in the modern world wherecritical thinking facilitates the attainment of objectives comparedto other processes. Things have changed, and as such require newapproaches to achieve the related goals. From this assessment, it isapparent that if meaningful change is to be realized in the UnitedStates, then youths should be encouraged to participate actively inpolitics.
TheCurrent Situation in the Country’s Political Culture
The America`s political culture was founded on ideals and values suchas liberty, economic freedom, political liberty, equality, equalopportunities, and good governance among others. These ideas wereinstituted at the time of the country`s independence to ensure thatall leaders, regardless of their ideological and politicalaffiliations, would act positively towards achieving democracy,progress, and enhancing the American Dream. According to one of theFrench political scientists, Alexis de Tocqueville, Americans hadalways remained skeptical about the governance process in theircountry despite the fact that the country`s political culture wasdesigned to represent the desires of the people. They still mistrustthe government and only choose to believe in individual reformers andparticular groups or movements. They also prefer to keep thegovernment in check rather than bestowing so much power on leaders.This level of skepticism is what has steered and propelled thecountry on the path to democracy and greatness. Whereas America hasits shortcomings, it is still regarded as arguably the mostdemocratic and prosperous state in the world. This skepticism can beused to analyze the current situations in the country`s politicalculture.
Forinstance, people tend to become less skeptical if the process ofgovernance aligns with the values and ideals of the country`spolitical culture. Conversely, people increasingly become suspiciouswhen they sense that the process of governance is not adequatelyreflecting their interests. Currently, scholars in the politicalscience have established that the political processes adopted by someleaders have focused relatively more on ensuring that they getmajority votes rather than spearheading operations which wouldreflect the will and desire of Americans (Pildes 811). Leaders havealso become more concerned with exploiting the weaker sections of thelaw to justify their actions rather than defending their actionswithin the concept of what is right or wrong to the society. An actcan be justified by law, but it does not mean that it is useful forthe development of the community. At the same time, an act can bewrong according to the law, but it does not mean that it is wrong forthe progress of the society.
Americans have always wanted leaders who understand that noteverything can be justified by law. Such leaders should also have theinterests of all the people at heart. Therefore, what makes a persona great leader in the country is not only his or her ability torespect the rule of law, but also protect the best interests of thepeople in every process. Of late, America has lacked such leaders. Asa result, Americans have increasingly become skeptical of theirgovernment. Arguably, the current state of the country`s politicalculture can be blamed on the fact that young people are either lessinterested or inadequately participate in political processes. Ifleaders are getting away with practices which undermine the country`sprogress, then it means that there is an inadequate supply ofpoliticians. The study conducted by Quintelier (165) affirmed thatyoung people had abandoned their civic duty. The analysis of thevoter turnout in the preceding elections indicates that few youngpeople vote. They are also less interested in vying for politicaloffices and ascending to leadership positions. Apparently, theyoccupy the largest demographic space in the country`s population.
Therefore, the impact of less engagement is the country`s politicalprocess so great that it has affected the political culture of thecountry. For instance, the nature of the America`s political hasbecome one-sided and inclined towards old and retrogressive ideas.The concerns expressed by Quintelier (164) tend to align with theviews of Barbour and Wright regarding American citizenship. One ofthe factors facilitating young people`s participation in politics isa lack of information. The modern young person needs to be adequatelyempowered and motivated to engage actively in political processes.
HaveYoung People Been Actively Involved in Politics Before?
Throughoutthe history of the country, 1972 marks one of the periods when alarge number of youths turned up during a voting exercise.Specifically, more than 50% of people aged between 18 and 24 yearsvoted in that year`s general election. After that, the number ofyoung voters started to decline steadily. The other times when manyyouths voted were in 1992 and 2004 when approximately 48% and 49% ofthem voted respectively. In general, the number of young voters hasnever passed the 50% mark in America since 1972. However, youthparticipation in leadership processes has been significantly lower.Most political parties have been and are still dominated by the oldergeneration of people. Correspondingly, very few youths have beenelected to the country`s political positions. These trends highlightthe fact that either youth has been less interested in politics orhave been marginalized by the older people.
Thefirst election of President Barrack Obama is also an importantlandmark in the history of young voter turnout. Approximately 54% ofAmericans Aged between 18 and 29 years participated in the exercisein 2008 (Rosentiel n/p). It represented a dramatic surge in youngpeople’s participation given that less than 47% partook in thepreceding elections. The most notable trend in that election was thatapproximately 64% of all the young people voted for Barrack Obama.Additionally, the Democratic Party had a fair representation of allracial and tribal groups compared to the Republicans Party. For thefirst time in the history of America’s politics, there was a widerpoint gap between the number of young people affiliated with theDemocratic and Republican Parties. Specifically, the former had 45%of the young voters while the latter had only 26% (Rosentiel n/p).These statistical facts pointed to a shift in political allegianceamong young people.
A study conducted by Boussios (233) sought to determine why PresidentObama performed so well among the young people of all racial andethnic groups. The methodology of the research included the analysisof the 2008 pool exit data of the United States general election. Thestudy determined that young people were impressed by PresidentObama’s personality (Boussios 233). Secondly, the president’sliberal approach to political and social issues also attracted peoplewithin 18-29 years age group. Thirdly, they were also attracted bythe party’s anti-Afghanistan war campaigns (Boussios 233). In thatyear, the Democratic Party also outperformed its counterparts when itcame to inviting, engaging, and addressing the issues affecting allthe people in the country. These findings prove that the DemocraticParty gave young people a reason to participate in the election.
Whatdoes the United States need to do to get More People to Vote?
AnthonyDown’s conceptualization of voting asserts that it is a rationalprocess. Many people tend to vote when they feel that the benefits ofthe exercise outweigh the related costs. The 1972 election provides acontext for testing this concept and ultimately applying it toquestion at hand. Firstly, the election happened at the time when theUnited States government had ratified the 26thamendment, thus lowering the official voting age from 21 to 18 years(Sherrod 392). At the same time, plenty of young people weredispleased with the country`s involvement in the Vietnam. Themajority of these young people were just coming from universities andcolleges, thus buzzing with knowledge and new ideas on how to dothings. They were against the war because it denied them theopportunity to establish a stable and a new future. Therefore, theywanted a leader who would assertively address their interests andassure them of a peaceful future.
Theanalysis shows that young people had all the reason to be interestedand actively participate in politics (Sherrod 392). In the precedingelection periods, leaders neglected the youth and failed to talkabout the issues affecting them. As a result, they did not feel theneed to participate actively in politics. Therefore, one way whichthe United States can use to convince young people is by giving thema valid reason. The government should begin to make the issues ofyouth genuinely a priority. The analysis of the 1991 general electionreveals that the government extensively facilitated civic education.Therefore, a large number of youths voted because they understood theimplication of such a process. The majority of them constitute theolder generation of America voters currently.
Again,the government gave the young people the reason to participate in thevoting process. Therefore, the government should commit to providingcivic education to young people to make them realize that election isa process which is essential because it determines how they would begoverned in the next years to come. It can be deduced that they willactively participate in most political processes if they understandthat their future is dependent upon the result. In 2004, many youngpeople voted because the country had just emerged from a traumatizingterrorist attack. Most of them wanted to see a better and ableleadership process in place. They wanted to be assured that they weresafe through the capture and punishment of the perpetrators of thecrime against them.
Thispaper has determined that young people`s participation in politics isessential for facilitating democracy in the country. It also helps inbalancing the executive decisions that are made in politicalplatforms and forums. Young people also facilitate change by bringingnew ideas regarding how the country should be governed to achieve itsgoals and objectives. It has also established that the situation ofthe political culture of the country has attracted skepticism from alarge section of the population. Many people are dissatisfied withthe current governance process. Currently, very young people haveactively participated in politics. As a result, the public has lostsome of its leverage over leaders. The paper has also discussed thatinstances such as 1972, 1991, 2004, and 2008 elections marked thehighest political participation amongst young people.
Acerbi,Alberto, Stefano Ghirlanda, and Magnus Enquist. "Old and youngindividuals` role in cultural change." Journalof Artificial Societies and Social Simulation15.4 (2012): 1.
Barbour,Christine, and Gerald C. Wright. Keepingthe Republic: Power and Citizenship in American Politics, theEssentials.Thousand Oaks: CQ Press, 2014. Print.
Boussios,Emanuel Gregory. "The “Resurgent” Youth Voter in the UnitedStates." AthensJournal of Social Sciences (2014):233-245
Mycock,Andrew, and Jonathan Tonge, eds. Beyondthe youth citizenship commission: young people and politics.Political Studies Association, 2014.
Pildes,Richard H. "Romanticizing Democracy, Political Fragmentation,and the Decline of American Government." YaleLaw Journal124.3 (2014): 15-02.
Quintelier,Ellen. "Differences in political participation between young andold people." Contemporarypolitics13.2 (2007): 165-180.
Rosentiel,Tom. "Young Voters in the 2008 Election." PewResearch Center RSS.N.p., 2008. Web. 16 July 2016.http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/11/13/young-voters-in-the-2008-election/
Sherrod,Lonnie R. YouthActivism: An International Encyclopedia.Westport, Conn. [u.a.: Greenwood Press, 2006. Print.