(Cross-posted at Students for a New American Politics)
Chances are, if you have been involved in progressive politics at all, you've worked for a candidate who "didn't pay their dues" or who needs to "wait their turn". In fact, I'm pretty sure this has been a factor in every race I have worked on. I do not think anyone whose been involved in politics finds this idea particularly surprising, and there are many who find it perfectly right. But in JamieG's great diary about the state of Youth movement on Daily Kos that led to the formation of Youth Kos 2.0, a discussion started about Democrats and Republicans treat young people differently, and that's a conversation that I think deserves a much broader discussion.
I do not think I need to spend much time talking about why comments like the one in the opening show up in politics. It's simple math - there are a finite number of seats that people can elect for, and talent isn't evenly distributed so that the best person fills every seat - talent clusters, people want to move up the chain, and competition naturally becomes part of that process. As a result, this hierarchy system develops virtually everywhere, and come election season, it is certain people's "turn" to run, and others will get their chance in the future.
I am by no means arguing that there are not good reasons to defer to someone with greater name recognition, a higher political pedigree, or an excellent record of public service. The kind of people who these arguments are made about - Tim Kaine, for example - clear the field because it doesn't just make sense to them, but it makes sense to everyone. Even if you carry around some personal vendetta against Kaine, I think it would be incredibly difficult to make an argument that Kaine's candidacy does not give Democrats the best chance of holding that Senate seat. In situations like this, the political hierarchy makes plenty of sense.
But the above counts for a very small number of elections, where the candidate with the best chance at delivering a victory for the party is obvious. An overwhelming majority of the time, these questions don't have simple answers. There are plenty of open seats where whatever Democrat emerges from the primary will win the general election, and other cases in which it is totally unclear who possess the best opportunity to pick up the seat. After all, there's a reason we go out in the field, knock on doors, and make phone calls - it takes campaigns to win elections! Yet even in situations where there is no pressing concerns about clearing the field, there is still immense institutional pressure to line up behind the candidate who has bided their time and waited for their turn.
This is where the fundamental problem arises.
There is no question that the Democratic party, and particularly the Obama campaign organization, are successful at motivating and involving young people in the political process. I spent my sophomore year of high school in New Hampshire as many weekends as I could, and I was by no means the only young person involved - offices were packed with student volunteers, not to mention the overwhelming number of staff who had taken a semester off from school to work long hours for little pay. Young people knock on doors, call voters, run registration drives, and hold up signs. In my experience, they perform critical roles in campaign operations. But when it comes to talking about issues, it seems that we are expected to give full deference to those in office. When it comes to changing the way things are done, the old method is applauded without consideration of its faults. And if it ever comes to running for office - well, there is a long list of people you need to get in line behind.
A quick look at the current Congress sees the results of this mentality. Of the four Senators under 45, three are Republicans, and the one Democrat - Kirsten Gillibrand - was initially appointed to her seat (in fact, if you add the next two youngest, you get another elected Republican, Rand Paul, and another appointed Democrat, Michael Bennett). On the House side, Republicans outnumber Democrats 2:1 on members 40 years old and younger, with the youngest of those members almost exclusively Republican. Moreover, up-and-comers like Josh Mandel threaten to skew that balance even more in the GOP's favor, where as the two young Senate candidates Democrats have come from their small pool of young House members.
So why does this inequity exist? Demographics of the parties at large wouldn't seem to suggest that older, conservative Republicans are disproportionately more likely to entrust young people with their political agenda. So in some respects, this difference has more to do with the candidate's decisions rather than those of the party. A lot of these young Republicans stayed in state for college, were helping runt he family business as soon as they graduated, and were on safe financial footing to run for office by their mid-20's. Meanwhile, a lot of politically-motivated liberals I know are seeking graduate degrees, and heading to places like New York City and San Francisco - great places, but ones that have even greater barriers to political office.
So some part of this falls on the backs of candidates - we need more young people heading back home, helping their communities, and establishing themselves at a young age. At the same time, however, we still get plenty of candidates like this, who run up against major institutional hurdles once they make their intentions known.
Last year, I had the incredible opportunity to speak with Senator Byron Dorgan about this very issue. While Senator Dorgan retired in the fall after a long life of public service, he ran his first campaign for statewide office at 26, when he ran for North Dakota State Tax Commissioner. When I asked him how young candidates can deal with these issues, his message was to just go for it - the only way to quiet the doubters is to tell them you are prepared when you are running, and show them you are prepared when you are elected. Is that what this comes down to - more people just have to be willing to take that chance on our side?
Young people are not going to buy in to the progressive agenda if the face of youth is the Republican party. The strength of the Democratic party in long term is dependent upon the continual development of the next generation of leadership. Yet right now, at least at the top levels, we don't seem to be doing as good of a job at making this happen.
The progressive leaders of tomorrow are simply not going to exist if we don't give them opportunities today. I'm very happy to be working for Students for a New American Politics, where our endorsements in Congressional elections come in the form of fellowships to college students, who spend twelve week as full-time field organizer and learn a tremendous deal about how progressive politics works on the ground. But we are just one part of the Democratic network that has to start bringing more young people into positions of power.
Is it appropriate to focus on electing younger politicians, or is our current structure serving its purpose just fine? Do you think the opportunities for getting involved are the same on both sides of the aisle, and if not, what sets them apart. I'm looking forward to the conversation in the comments.
P.S - After the suggestions of a few in a previous diary, I'm applying for a scholarship to attend Netroots Nation 2011. If I am awarded one, I can guarantee that I'll be there this summer, making sure that the youth voice is an important part of this years convention, with the same energy that I'm tackling my current activism. Your support would be greatly appreciated. Here's my link, I'd love your vote.