Idle youth vote

National Review, Sept 1, 2008 by Jonah Goldberg

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

THERE'S an old story of an ancient bureaucrat at the British Foreign Office who, after working from 1903 to 1950, reminisced that "year after year the worriers and fretters would come to me with awful predictions of the outbreak of war. I denied it each time. I was wrong only twice."

Well, I'm waiting to be wrong even once about the youth vote. Admittedly, I haven't been at my desk for half a century, but every four years I'm told that this year will be different, this year the vote-rockers will do that voodoo they've never done well, and--this time!--they'll sweep a progressive, youth-oriented, Generation-XYZ-friendly guy into office.

They said it about Howard Dean, and he blew up after the "Deaniacs" failed to turn out. Later they said it about John Kerry; the young people would rise up in anger over an unjust war. In fairness, 2004 saw the biggest surge in young voters in twelve years. But George W. Bush was reelected. Under-30 was the only age demographic that Kerry won. They just didn't matter that much.

In 2000, the new digerati prophesied that Al Gore--the first cyber-savvy candidate, or somesuch--would benefit from the rising up of the Internet generation. Alas, most couldn't be bothered to rise off their couches. Gore beat Bush by a whopping two points among 18-to-29-year-olds. In 1972, the modern fons et origo of youth-vote hype, Democrats were convinced that the lowering of the voting age would yield a progressive tide of first-time voters the likes of which Western man had not seen since the first Greek democrat asked for a show of hands. McGovern split the youth vote. Meanwhile, Nixon won the plain old vote in a landslide.

Ah, but this time will be different. These young'uns, they like Obama, not the "white-haired dude," as Paris Hilton likes to call McCain. And the data must give Obama some comfort--and some concern. He won the Iowa caucuses thanks to an enormous turnout among young voters. But he lost in New Hampshire because the same demographic failed to materialize for him. A recent Gallup poll found that, among registered voters, Obama leads by a few points. Among likely voters--who tend to be older--Obama trails McCain. This should worry Obama, because history shows that young voters are the least reliable voters. They get distracted by shiny things--TV, iPod glare, whatever--and fail to make it to the polls. Meanwhile, the oldsters, they've got nothing better to do.

The youth vote may indeed be decisive this time around. Obama's messianic glow may outshine that of any Game Boy. It's a Democratic year, the Obama campaign has worked youngsters like none before, and, despite skyscraping piles of steaming, uh, nonsense from self-described youth activists insisting otherwise, the "youth vote" is liberal and partisan. So if Democratic turnout is big, the youth vote will likely be big too.

But every four years I'm told that this is the year young people will be decisive--and every four years I say, "No, it's not." So far I've always been right and they've always been wrong. Maybe that will change this year, but I bet it won't.