From the Heartland

Are Young People a Problem for American Democracy? Yes, No... Well... Possibly

By Stephen Earl Bennett

Russell Dalton’s essay, “What’s the Matter with Kids Today?” which appeared in the April issue of Public Opinion Pros, partially rescues young Americans from the opprobrium heaped on them by a number of commentators, including yours truly. Before exculpating young Americans, however, we need to consider the importance of taking part in the political process—a key ingredient for popular government—and assess young people’s attitudes about the United States and democracy.

Dalton writes that democratic citizenship has at least two facets, which he labels “citizenship as duty” and “engaged citizenship.” The first is the “classic model of a citizen-subject that is well known in the political culture literature.” On the other hand, “the engaged citizen appears willing to act on his or her principles, be politically independent, and address social needs.”

As Dalton notes, young Americans eschew traditional political activities—such as voting, campaigning, and contacting politicians—but they show concern for others, engage in volunteer activities, and so on. Young people’s record of traditional political activities suffers in comparison to older Americans, but they exceed senior citizens when it comes to engaged citizenship.

According to Dalton, a new survey shows that, “Claims about the decline in citizenship values among younger Americans are incorrect.” In contrast to Americans who came of age during the Great Depression and World War II, “young respondents reflected a new political reality, and stressed alternative norms that should encourage a more rights-conscious and socially engaged public, and a more deliberative image of citizenship.”

Dalton acknowledges that young Americans’ low rates of voting “limit… their influence in the political process and may even shift electoral outcomes.” Nevertheless, he asserts that focusing on traditional types of political activity overlooks the fact that “young Americans are committed to… a model of citizenship substantially different from the norms of their parents and grandparents.”

The recently published A New Engagement, by Cliff Zukin and his colleagues, also sheds useful light on young people and civic engagement. Zukin and his coauthors remind us that to understand youthful engagement, we need to look at experiences in the family and the schools.

An important message from Dalton’s essay and A New Engagement is that scholars need to reinvigorate the study of political socialization, a topic that has been relatively neglected lately.

The 2004 American National Election Study, the most recent of the series of surveys conducted by the University of Michigan in conjunction with American national elections since 1948, gives helpful purchase on these issues.

The 2004 ANES asked a random sample of adults a plethora of queries about interest in public affairs, political information, reliance on “old” and “new” electronic and print news media, traditional modes of political participation, and engagement in organizations and communal activities, including volunteering and protesting. This survey also plumbed attitudes about democracy and U.S. citizenship, and made it possible to compare young Americans—that is, those between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine—with older Americans, 75 years old and older. When this is done, the picture that emerges is at once supportive of Dalton’s claims, and a good deal less reassuring.

In some regards, the 2004 ANES confirms established relations between age/generational/birth cohorts and political life. In particular, people under thirty are less likely than persons seventy-five and older—a large portion of whom came of age during the 1930s and ’40s—to be politically interested (although there is something to be said for apathy), knowledgeable, and attentive to electronic and print news media.

Turning to reports of engaging in classic modes of political participation and “engaged citizenship,” we tend to find few differences between the young and the elderly. If the focus is on reports of registration, turnout, and engagement in campaign activities, one is struck by how small these differences are. The same holds true if attention shifts to protest, communal activities, or volunteering during the previous year. Turning to the quintessential democratic activity—contacting a public official to express an opinion—14 percent of young people and of those seventy-five and older respectively claimed to have done so “in the last twelve months.”

Unfortunately, the matter does not end there. Among several questions about democracy in the abstract and U.S. citizenship, ANES respondents were asked if they thought democracy were the best form of government, and if they were satisfied with democracy in America. They were also asked how seeing the American flag flying made them feel, how important it was to be an American, and how strong their love of country was.

Dispositions such as these shed a different light on modern citizenship than that offered by Dalton and Zukin.

On every one of these measures, young people espouse decidedly less support for democratic norms, and are much less likely than the elderly to hold “patriotic” views. Let two examples suffice. Older Americans are much more likely than the young to claim that democracy is the best form of government. Nearly two-thirds of persons seventy-five years old and older said it was “very important” to be an American, compared to slightly over two-fifths of the young.

If beliefs about democracy and American citizenship give any purchase on the future, young people’s attitudes are hardly reassuring. In this sense, and this sense only, Dalton’s analysis is only partly gratifying.

Stephen Earl Bennett is adjunct professor of political science at the University of Southern Indiana.

Readers who wish to respond to this or other articles appearing in Public Opinion Pros, or to contribute commentary of their own in 800 words or less, should consult our author submission guidelines and editorial policies under "Letters to the editor and op-ed articles." Op-ed submissions must be received at least two weeks before the first of the month for the issue in which they are to appear.