Young People in Politics

Anthropology and psychology prove that whenever there is a group of people who collectively experience some kind of dis-ease, it is because society is not meeting their fundamental needs. Malaysia women experienced ghost attacks in the 1900’s while at work because they were dealing with inhumane working conditions; similarly, women in the 1950’s collectively developed “housewives disease,” and were prescribed Xanax from doctors who said their apathy towards life was unexplained when in reality their basic psychological needs were not met due to the repressive construct of the nuclear family. If we look at young people today who are collectively experiencing anxiety and depression at rates almost unheard of in history (a steep 15% rise), what basic psychological need is not being met?

Young people have grown up dealing with the brunt of political unrest falling on them in the form of school shootings, COVID19 and BLM protests, all while many were too young to vote. The depression and anxiety in today's youth could simply be a subconscious way to express dis-ease about the repression of their voices, considering the effects that the political climate has on their personal lives. Is an earlier voting age a basic need that we have not accepted yet? If the political decisions affect young people too, why aren't they allowed to have a say in the world they live in--they too have reproductive organs, pay taxes, have dealt with the effects of gun laws, breathe the air of the environmental crisis, and are losing loved ones due to the political handling of the coronavirus.

Throughout American history, young people have consistently been the initiators and leaders in political changes: the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and anti-Vietnam War protests, for example. Even our idea of “teenagers” is cultural --- they used to simply be adults. The idea that 16 year olds have nothing to say is not correct. That's the age the founding fathers were when they first got involved in politics. What we are lacking is the infrastructure for young people to develop as leaders and active participants in society during adolescence. Those entrenched in power have very little motivation for restructuring power; the young, on the other hand, have everything to lose if they don't. If young people had more power, our society could fix a slew of problems quicker and more effectively. Older generations hardly even understand technology, yet are trying to run the government during an age of information.

First, I think that our society would greatly benefit from more young people in their twenties and thirties in government positions. There is no reason for this not to happen --- millennials have more degrees than any previous generation. Second, I think better political education should be provided in schools to allow highschoolers the knowledge to participate in elections, sooner rather than later. Third, I think the voting age should decrease, first to 17, then to 16.

Our country's founding fathers are remembered as old, wise men, but they were the age of our modern day college students when they established our country. Alexander Hamilton was 21 years old when he signed the Declaration of Independence and in his 20’s when he wrote the constitution. James Monroe was 18 years old and Aaron Burr was 20 when they signed the Declaration. Today, when we look at who sits in the seats of power in our country, where are the young people? Our country is being controlled, ordered, and led by people who will die before they live to see the society they create.

Youth have been successful leaders in communities where there is investment in education and resources for young people on how to lead. For example, in the Young Lords Organization of New York, a youth group founded in 1969, “the average age was 18, and 15 year-olds were looked to for leadership,” says Columbia University professor Frances Negron-Muntaner who studies politics of young leaders. In the Nishinaabeg people, a Native American group, “children were full citizens with the same rights and responsibilities as adults,” (Simpson 3). They were given autonomy and, therefore, became active members of the community.

Teenagers on social media have stronger voices than I see from the vast majority of the rest of the American population, yet they are the ones who have the least political representation, and no political representation by vote. In 1965 Richard Nixon changed the voting age from 21 to 18--is it time that it be lowered again? In 2015, Scotland reduced the voting age to 16 years old and it has been quite successful--”If you’re old enough to join the military and leave school, you should have a right to choose who’s representing you,“ (Samaké-Roman 3). Today’s youth has been shown to be not only a bold generation but a powerful one because of the unified communication that they have through Tik Tok and Instagram; if there was opportunity for younger people to vote, Gen Z would be the one to jump on it.

If there was to be a detectable difference in politics if the voting age was 16 or 17, then I believe it can be argued that there is a repression of voices in our teenagers today. With young people’s opinions having more weight, college tuition may lower. College loans may be forgiven. Anything that disproportionately affects young people would likely be addressed and dealt with much quicker. Our environmental crisis could be in a better place because we are the ones that have to live in the world we’ve been destroying. Women’s reproductive rights would possibly not be in question anymore.

In the future, I see a revival of young people as leaders. The concept of “teenagers” is a societal construct that frequently changes throughout history in terms of age and accountability and it is not innate to human nature for them not to have a voice, especially in times where they are being disproportionally affected and showing to be collectively depressed.

By: Bethany Ward

Columbia University

English and Comparative Literature