Missing Piece of the Puzzle

The other day I was reading (I forget where, a hazard of reading too many blogs) that youth turnout was also extremely high (both in general, and for Obama) in South Carolina. The blogger who posted this information pointed out that this major plotline has been ignored in the media's haste to make the primaries about race and gender. Although it certainly is a historic race, it isn't the first time large numbers of blacks or large numbers of women have voted, or the first time they have had an affinity for a particular candidate. However, it seems that historic "firsts" are occuring with respect to youth turnout.

I've been trying to figure out why this is. One possibility is that gender and race are more sexy and contraversial than age. Another theory I have is that in a sense, stories which focus on the campaigns as a battle of identity politics diminish women and blacks and also the strength of the support for the candidates they are turning out for. The implicit argument is along these lines: "Women are only voting for Clinton because she is female." "Blacks are only voting for Obama because he's black." This then makes it seems as though the support isn't based on substansive policy, and a reasonable (white male) is the only one sufficiently disentangled from identity politics to objectively judge the candidates.

It's harder to make the identity politics case with young voters. A narrative in which voters between 18-25 jump up and down about Obama because he's 14 years younger than Clinton (and a mere 22 years older than them) just doesn't seem plausible. There are four competing narratives, one of which is infinitely more appealing.

First, young people could like Obama because he seems cool and hip and has the support of Obama girl. In this storyline, any boost in youth turnout in the general election next November can be traced to, like, political "debates" on facebook, and the youtube debate. Message: package old ideas in a new and sexy way and the kids'll come out. I feel pretty unqualified to comment on the veracity of this explanation-- my 18-25 year old circle is more wonky than hip-- but I'm not thrilled by the implications.

A friend pointed out a second explanation to me today. Obama's youth support comes from college campuses. That's the mechanism through which youth voters are typically registered and reached. Only half of Americans are able to afford a college education. We already know Obama does well among wealthier, better educated liberals. His youth support may just reflect the general class trends in the primary.

Being moderate became very cool sometime when I was in college, maybe a little after the 2004 election when Bush bashing felt trite to some people. (I guess people don't want to stay on the losing side too long...) I think people who considered themselves 'intellectuals' or 'reasonable' liked to label themselves as moderate because it seemed intellectually rigorous and less ideologically driven. I thought we were done with that trend after 06, but some of Obama's support among young people could stem from his claims of post-partisanship.

The story I like the best is that youth support for Obama is because young people are tired of staleness and looking for something new and different. If we must set it up as a vision vs experience debate, they are looking for sweeping vision. I also think (and if anyone has confirmation of this, I'd love to see it) that youth are likely to be the most angry about the Iraq war. First of all, all wars are fought by young people. Second of all, it's gone on for our entire adulthood. I think we may also be less likely to accept or appreciate political calculus and compromise, therefore Clinton's voting record on foreign policy seems more atrocious to us then it might to someone who was willing to see it as "politics as usual."