Last week I posted an article on Barack Obama from this month's Atlantic Monthly in my links corner. If you haven't already checked it out you definitely should. Whether or not you plan on voting for Obama, or even for a Democrat, it raises some very interesting points about the divisions in America and what may or may not help heal those wounds.
While reading this article's discussion of the role Obama could play in reuniting America and ending long-standing generational divisions, I kept coming back to another, related, bridge an Obama nomination and presidency might span. In my mind, Obama is the candidate most likely to awaken the sleeping giant represented by the younger voters of our nation.
Much has been made about how to get out youth votes. Howard Dean seemed to make some progress in this area. The expansion of online campaigning and blogging seems to be involving younger audiences in the political process. But as of yet, this increased involvement has not spread to the ballot box.
The surge in Generation X and Y participation in the 2004 election that was expected to help elect John Kerry did not materialize. I think an Obama nomination is the most likely scenario to make this much fantasized voter gold mine a reality. Why? For many of the same reasons Sullivan pointed out in his article.
Obama isn't a Baby Boomer - so it's less like our parents preaching at us about health care or other issues, and more like a peer or a mentor talking to us. Plus, he looks more like us than Hillary or Rudy or McCain. I think the idea of being able to vote for someone we relate to and identify with is much more appealing than voting for someone who embodies the generations we have grown up thinking are so "out of touch." I think "old" candidates are too easily associated with "old" answers regardless of whether or not their policies are fresh.
At the same time, the fact that Obama doesn't look like everyone else is a strength. I think the younger voter is much less concerned than some older generation voters with the fact that Obama has dark skin or an ethnic name. We grew up in a time when the world was much smaller. Travel abroad is standard to many college experiences these days. Our athletic idols weren't Larry Bird or Joe Montana or Jack Nicholas - they were Michael Jordan, Dikembe Mutombo, and Tiger Woods. So, the idea of a multi-racial, non-Anglican named president doesn't seem like a stretch to us. I would even venture to say that for some just the opportunity to vote for such a candidate is reason enough. It answers the question of "Why bother?" We might "bother" just to be able to cast such an historic vote.
So, I agree with Sullivan's contentions that many of the attributes Obama's opponents might like to view as drawbacks are actually potential strengths. And I would add another reason in the strengths column. I think Obama can inspire the younger generation voters in a way that none of the other candidates can. I think he needs to inspire the younger generation voters in a way no other candidate is - not only to help put more votes in his ballot box, but because our country needs a more engaged population. The most civically engaged demographic is aging rapidly. The beauty of our nation lies in our ability to participate. We desperately need someone to reignite the desire to do just that.
Footnote: I've linked an article from today's New York Times that outlines the difference in the 08 candidates' - Republican and Democrat - positions on energy policy. It's a great read to help separate the field as well as help evaluate what energy policies might mean for our future.
