Alternative Title (with double negative) : Just because I'm young and new to politics doesn't mean I won't light this fucking place on fire.
This is for the most part my first diary although it's a concept I've been meaning to write about for quite some time (and I apologize if it has been covered and/or covered to death by other diarists).
A good starting point is the image below:
I took this photo in the streets of Philadelphia in the summer of 2000 during the Republican National Convention. This RNC protester is "gesturing" to the mounted riot cops that were directly behind me. Shortly after this photo was taken the police began to arrest anyone under 25. Needless to say, these were interesting times for me.
Now, its been a while since the summer of 2000 and a shit-ton of things have changed (sorry, a less crass word seemed like an understatement) and, on top of this, a whole new generation is now eligible to vote.
Now, before I go any further I know by writing about the "youth vote" many will assume this is (at the very least) an Obama-leaning diary since he has attracted a large chunk of this demographic. To counter this, I will state now that this diary is more interested in how the Democratic Party AS A WHOLE engages incoming young voters (and has little to do with individual candidates).
I turned 18 in 1997. This was a very odd time to reach voting age in the US. The internet was young (only a 5th of us had computers in our dorms freshman year and of those only half had a decent internet connection) and Clinton had been in office since, well, pretty much forever. Politics for our small demographic was forgettable at best. And then the 2000 election began to approach and a VERY interesting thing happened.
Nobody bothered asking us for our opinion.
This may seem like an over-simplification. Some of you older and wiser than me may say, "But we did reach out to the youth and they were simply unresponsive." This may in fact, to some degree, have been the case, but that's not how it appeared at the time. To back this up with a little fact I throw this into the mix:
In a landmark study of 15-to-24-year-olds in November 1998 by the National Association of Secretaries of State, nearly seven out of ten young people agreed with the statement: "Our generation has an important voice but no one seems to hear it."
Ouch.
So you see, it doesn't matter if we were actually disenfranchised at any level. We sure as hell sort-of-almost felt that way (even if we had no idea what "disenfranchised" meant). And what did we all do about it? Well, a lot of us simply discovered Napster and started HUGE freaking mp3 collections the likes the world had never seen! Yup, a good deal of us just simply tuned out. And the few stragglers? Well, becoming a radical seemed like the only other logical choice (This is where my alternate title about lighting the place on fire comes in).
The protests against the WTO in Seattle in late 1999 should of been a sign. The protests against the IMF and World Bank in April of 2000 should of been an even bigger sign (and these weren't subtle signs. These were like that annoying guy from the Verizon ads who says, "Can you hear me now!?" if he was yelling it through a bullhorn and throwing molotov cocktails at you). Being part of that and looking back the hindsight becomes a great case study. Its unfortunately a sad case study in what happens when youth energy is ignored by those who yield power.
The rest is (for lack of a better cliché) history.
Both the DNC and RNC were heavily protested in the summer of 2000. Anyone around and following politics at the time should not forget the news images of the DNC's convention at the Staples Center in LA entirely circled with riot cops (and oh-so-pretty razor wire). Eventually a large chunk of the youth who did end up voting pulled the lever for Nader and, if memory serves me correctly, shit (again, I apologize for the expletive) went down hill pretty quickly after that.
But that's well behind us now. The people who are now turning 18 and being handed their civic responsibility to vote were 10 when I was getting tear gassed in various city streets. The Florida debacle, Ralph Nader, hanging chads, and hell, even Napster don't mean anything to them. One thing is for sure though. They are quite engaged and (thanks to the internet) much more connected. Luckily as well, this time around a large chunk of them are taking part in this democratic process on the Democratic side.
This, although, should not be a reason to feel complacent or victorious. This only gives us a small window to figure out how to build upon this (because in 4 years there will be a whole new group that will need a very good reason to vote). There are obviously grave implications if any new generation sits out the process, but it is even more worrisome that (because of OUR inability to communicate and engage them) they decide to revolt against the process altogether. As I've clearly shown above, the youth vote can make their presence known in the most uncomfortable ways.
To this point I believe that all Democratic candidates (and the party in general) should always remember that the "youth vote" is the LEAST monolithic of any voting group and also the first to resort to drastic measures when their voices (real or perceived) are ignored. Recently we have seen some great strides with our current Democratic candidates this year to involve this demographic (some through genuine appeal and some out of old fashioned political necessity). It is my hope this not only continues but is expanded into an actual plan to continue this everyday and between every election.
As politically active Democrats we talk a lot about the voting blocks, but we should always be cognizant that the "youth vote" will never toe the party line because they may have in the past (or do so in the present). In fact, they're just as likely to start lighting things on fire and we ignore this truth at our own risk.