We were peppered with volleys of mail from the young, and others,
responding to Thomas Geoghegan's "Dems--Why Not Woo the Young?" [July
21/28]. Letter-writers from 18 to 52 (almost all gave their age) found
the editorial to be everything from "thoughtful" and "heartfelt" to
"outrageous," "condescending," "insulting," "snotty elitist crap,"
"denigrating to community colleges," "relying on stereotypes" of youth,
jumping on the "tiresome sixties nostalgia bus" and "as outmoded as
fainting couches and arranged marriages." Tracy Goode of Tucson is
"offended that Geoghegan thinks my vote can be so easily bought," while
Amalia Anderson of Decorah, Iowa, declares, "I for one will not
be wooed." (Several young letter-writers denied that they are
"slugs.") --The Editors
Los Angeles
As a 24-year-old, I was happy to read Thomas Geoghegan's appeal to
Democrats to pay more attention to the needs of the young, if only for
electoral purposes. Material issues like student loans and college
tuition are clearly very important. However, addressing them will do
little to win back the active involvement of young people. In these
times of authoritarian Terminator-style government, it is too
easy to blame the young for being indifferent (or for not reading The
Nation, for that matter). What we need is inspiration: a leader who
does not follow the Republicans in injecting this country with fear and
polarization, and who shows that politics can change the world in
progressive ways. And who is not too proud to look at Europe for
examples (both the voter turnout and the political awareness of Europe's
young embarrass the United States).
WEI JI MA
Minneapolis
I agree with Thomas Geoghegan's premise that the Democrats should
begin paying more attention to the issues facing American youth.
However, his stated purpose for such attention (more votes for the Dems)
and his suggested target issue (college loans) need to be re-focused.
The young do not need attention for the purpose of winning elections;
they need it because they are an important part of our society (this
includes those under 18 too). Using young people merely as an
electoral tool is a good way to disengage them. And, while college loans
are important, it is safe to bet that a sizable portion of those youth
Geoghegan notices on the El are not as interested in post-high school
financial matters as they are in more immediate concerns (proper food,
shelter, safety, etc.). Perhaps when Democrats begin to see youth for
the achievements and worth they do have, as well as the challenges they
face, the young will start to woo the Dems.
SETH ZLOTOCHA
Seattle
Thomas Geoghegan was technically correct when he said that "at least
one candidate, John Edwards, seems to get it" about wooing the young
vote. Geoghegan unfortunately didn't report that Dennis Kucinich also
"seems to get it." In fact, Kucinich goes much further than Edwards with
his plan to provide college education for the young in this country.
Kucinich would reverse the Bush tax cuts and use that money to fund
college for all. Not just freshman year, not just senior year. All four
years. More information about Kucinich's views is at www.kucinich.us.
WHITNEY NEUFELD-KAISER
Lincoln, Mass.
Has Thomas Geoghegan been in hibernation since the 1960s? Plenty of
youth activism and civic engagement have occurred in the three decades
since, and we were driven by idealism--not the cynical, materialist
issues with which he proposes to "woo" us back to the polls. Apartheid,
sweatshops and global free trade also "did not affect many of us in a
direct or material way," which he claims of Vietnam and civil rights
(rather dubiously), yet they have drawn thousands of us out of our dorms
and into administration buildings--not to mention the streets of
Seattle, New York and Washington--with striking results!
If we learned one thing, it's that direct action works. Voting once
every four years for a President is the most passive, ineffective form
of civic participation one could encourage in anyone, least of all
idealistic youth. It will take a lot more than enticements of free
tuition for us to back the Dems. Yes, college should be publicly
financed, but so should elections! Only then can we win the free
healthcare, universal living wages, decent public transportation,
consumer protections and serious environmental laws, for example, that
we need for a more humane society for our children.
With a platform like that, we just might "click" on.
AARON JOHNSON (25)
LEE PALMER (24)
Baltimore
As a 22-year-old anxiously waiting to vote for someone, anyone not
Bush in 2004, I disagree with Thomas Geoghegan's assessment of people my
age. I agree that too few of us vote, but plenty of us do, and do so
passionately. I see decreasing voter turnout as a national issue that
afflicts all generations. To assume that young voters cannot be
galvanized unless issues like loan debts are "pitched" to us is to
grossly underestimate us. Though I agree that college should be free, I
feel there is a flood of more pertinent issues right now, including the
corporate merging of the media, the ineffective war on drugs and our
ridiculously backward foreign policy.
Yet, call me crazy, I am optimistic, and I'm getting a feeling that
people my age are pretty pissed about our current government. Many
people I know who didn't vote in 2000 have already registered and can't
wait to whup some Bush ass next year. I'm excited about the change I
see; more and more of us are waking up to the fact that the people who
run this country couldn't care less about the public interest. And we're
getting active.
KATIE RUBRIGHT
Madison, Wisc.
As a graduate student who teaches undergrads, I disagree with Thomas
Geoghegan's claims of lack of interest from this age group. Ask
Representative Tammy Baldwin. UW-Madison students are one of the main
reasons she holds her office. She constantly comes to campus to discuss
issues with her constituents and recruits students to work in her
campaign.
What the Democrats need to do, as Geoghegan points out, is demonstrate
how their vision of America will assist students to become people who
are not burdened by debt, can find a decent job and be part of a society
that is not so divided by race, class, sexual orientation and gender.
One of best resources is the Internet--as Howard Dean has shown. If
Democrats were to tie in issues that young people are concerned about
with web pages that hold their interest--bands, shopping, sports,
etc.--they could generate a lot of interest.
CHRISTOPHER BROWN
Grants Pass, Ore.
Woo the young not with college debt forgiveness but jobs that pay.
Most young people are not college-bound and are trying to piece together
a living with nonunion, underpaying jobs. Many have become entangled in
credit card entrapments and are facing economic ruin at an early age
because the jobs they can get are dead end and their consumer appetites
outstrip their means to pay. If Democrats returned to being the party
for the underpaid and benefitless, they might find a voice among the
young--a very loud voice. Yes, these kids have spent unwisely; but they
also founder without strong unions or businesses that offer solid jobs.
Democrats need to get corporations and all businesses behind an increase
in the minimum wage and challenge them to create futures for their young
workers rather than turn them into part-time employees that go from job
to job.
RALPH BOWMAN
College Park, Md.
Most of us college kids have been led to believe that our vote doesn't
matter--but there's no lack of activism. A group of us here at the
University of Maryland have been assailing the Republican governor over
his budget cuts--our tuition is going up 21 percent next year, an
additional $2,240 for me. This is the perfect point for a Democratic
contender to make.
Most college students tend to be liberal. When 2,000 students turned out
for an anti-Iraq war protest, the college Republicans had a counterprotest--of eight
people. However, I was at the polls for an hour on Election Day 2002,
and I saw about ten students vote. I'd reckon that this is because we've
been made to feel "unnecessary."
JERRY LEVINE
Somers, NY
As your 23-year-old liaison to "the young people," I'd like to give
all your middle-aged and senior Nation readers an encouraging
report from the frontlines of younger America: The times they are
a-changin'. Young voters are shedding their politically apathetic skins
and filling in the blanks left by our subpar educations. What is the
reason for this shift? It is none other than our beloved President. When
not-quite-President Bush promised to cut carbon dioxide emissions in his
campaign speech and then did just the opposite, he sent a message to the
young people of America: A healthy future doesn't mean squat to him. In
fact, the "Clear Skies" Initiative is one in a series of euphemistically
misnamed policies whose titles are the exact opposite of what they
intend. Like Orwell's Ministry of Peace, Bush's Operation Iraqi
"Freedom" is another example of a clever misnomer aimed at lying to
America. Or how about the "Clean Water" Act? And my personal favorite,
the "Jobs and Growth" tax cut.
That people might start paying attention is obviously something the
extremists in the White House didn't count on. By lying to the American
people they have inadvertently inspired a new wave of young people whose
mantra seems to be "Screw You Back." Young people are most certainly
uniting, and conservatives and republicratic "New Dems" better be
scared, because we're liberal and we're mad. Let the success of
Howard Dean's campaign attest to our potential--because the
once-upon-a-time apathetic young Americans are the secret in Dean's
sauce.
ERIKA BOETSCH
GEOGHEGAN REPLIES
Chicago
Hey, I'm not worried about the voting rate of young people who read
The Nation. But what do our correspondents make of the drop in
this rate to 35 percent among 21- to 24-year-olds, and the fact that
it's still dropping? And that no one is reading a newspaper? I am glad,
though, that so many readers are ready to rally the young.
TOM GEOGHEGAN
