From: Brenau Window, Feb.2008

My generation revels in the conceit that we were the political activist generation. Student-led “power” demonstrations and younger voices heard from the ballot box had “the man” up against the wall. We stopped the Vietnam War, ended the draft, lowered the voting age, saved the environment, elevated the status of women and created momentum for transferring our raw political power through future generations of young people.
Or, so we thought.

The 26th Amendment, ratified just before the 1972 presidential campaigns, added 11.5 million voters to the rolls. Still, only 55 percent of those under 30 actually voted. In 1996 only 31.2 percent of registered 18-to 20-year-olds voted. In 2000 only 36 percent of those under 30 voted – 26 percent less than the over-30 turnout. Programs like “Rock the Vote” wooed three million more young voters to the polls in 2004, the largest increase since the ’70s. The 18-to 24-year-old turnout increased 11 points to 47 percent compared
with the four-point jump to 64 percent overall.
For the sake of our democracy, I hope the last numbers signify a trend. I believe the most important thing Brenau University could do to change the world is teach students the value of their vote, the rewards of embracing citizenship responsibilities and consequences of not doing so.
As we enter the important 2008 election year, we will strongly encourage our students toward democratic participation.
In addition to making it easier for them to vote, we will try to increase their interest in the political process with programs like the sure-to-be-exciting April campus visit by husband-and-wife pundits James Carville and Mary Matalin.
We all know one vote matters. We all know that the 2000 presidential election hinged not on millions of votes around the nation, but only hundreds in one state.

“Experts” still play the game: what if the youth voter turnout in Florida in 2000 had even approximated ’72 percentages?
For those of us on campuses of colleges and universities,
“what if?” is the wrong question. We should be asking
why more college-aged citizens are not engaged in the process. We need to energize efforts that will help them seize the concept of personal power and responsibility in the American democratic system. We must pass on to our young people that what we do, or neglect to do, as a country and as communities will have global ramifications. Consequently it is increasingly important whom we elect as decision-makers and legislators at every level of government.
We see three levels of political commitment among students today. A small percentage is deeply engaged, more often than not, in galvanizing, emotional issues or out-of-the-mainstream political factions. Second are those who inherited political philosophies from their parents. The third and largest group is the apathetic.
It would be easy to dismiss apathy as a symptom of youth. Associated with myriad distractions like text messaging, iPod downloads, social networking Web

sites and other “new media,” this leaves our young people – if you will indulge me one Jimmy Buffett paraphrase – so connected, yet so alone. Apathy, however, is a gravely dangerous habit, one easily manipulated by the wrong influences. What was Nazi Germany if not the evil of a few mobilizing the apathy of many under the shroud of national and political isolation?
Some political scientists argue that young people will not vote unless there is something in it for them, like ending the draft and lowering the minimum age for buying beer were issues for our generation. These experts overlook one factor from the latest data: When new voters in 2004 and 2006 were asked why they participated, most said it was because somebody asked them to.
All this is compelling evidence that students want to be involved. Our challenge is connecting them with the habit of voting. Our task is encouraging them to connect. Join me in asking.

Ed Schrader, Ph.D.
eschrader@brenau.edu