Politicians have lusted after the “youth vote” for decades, but the “youth vote” is getting even younger these days. Great Britain, for example, has just dropped the voting age to 16, one of fewer than 10 nations where minors that young can vote.
Advocates for young teens voting tend to lean left politically, and for good reason: Children lack the wisdom and insight that come with more experience and understanding of human nature; they are easily swayed by the emotional appeal of words like “compassion,” “fairness” and “equality,” without the ability to discern the actual motivation behind those appeals, much less to understand the likely outcomes of the policies being advanced, intentions notwithstanding.
In the United States and across the globe, the Left is hemorrhaging supporters and losing political power. Now that the consequences of the Left’s disastrous policies have become evident to people who have been on the planet more than a decade and a half, they apparently need children to vote for them.
The arguments in favor of child voting are absurd on their face. Indeed, even organizations like UNICEF that argue for the right of adolescents to vote admit that other age requirements (for example, to marry, get a driver’s license or enter the military) should not be lowered, because children are vulnerable to pressure.
Wait — what? How are children not impressionable and their relative ignorance not easily manipulated when it comes to politics, yet they are somehow still vulnerable in other important areas? More to the point, why should my life be impacted by the votes of tens of thousands of minors who can’t be trusted to decide whether or not to have a beer?
In this vein, a recent article in Upworthy by author Annie Reneau sheds light on the attitudes of “Gen Z” (defined as anyone born between 1997 and 2012). Her essay is titled, “I showed my Gen Z kids ‘Dead Poets Society,’ and their angry reactions to it floored me.”
Reneau, who describes herself as “Gen X” waxes rhapsodic about her lifelong love for the film, saying that she found it, “aesthetically beautiful, tragically sad, and profoundly inspiring.” She was shocked when her own children were far less enamored with it.
Personally, I’ve never been a big fan of “Dead Poets Society.” I think it’s overwrought, selling hopelessness and suicide as the traits of a tragic hero — a perspective only compelling to self-absorbed but ignorant 16-year-olds. And the characters themselves — a passionate and unconventional teacher; a brilliant, sensitive teen misunderstood by his ambitious and selfish parents — are two-dimensional and tedious.
A much better “coming of age” film that explores the relationship between a teacher and his students is Alexander Payne’s 2023 film “The Holdovers,” starring Paul Giamatti and newcomer Dominic Sessa. “The Holdovers” has the realism and humor that “Dead Poets Society” lacks. Teacher Paul Hunham (Giamatti) is awkward and unpopular with students at the tony northeast boarding school where he teaches Latin. Sessa plays Angus Tully, a student forced to spend Christmas break on campus under Hunham’s supervision. Hunham is condescending and impatient; Tully is immature and aggravating. But the two come to understand each other through a series of fairly unremarkable but heartwarming interactions. Like John Keating, Robin Williams’ character in “Dead Poets Society,” Hunham pays a professional price for the trust he earns from Tully. Unlike the grandiose theatricality of “Dead Poets Society,” however, Hunham’s is a quiet sacrifice that only he and Tully know. It is a small gesture that liberates them both.
Movie reviews aside (but seriously, watch “The Holdovers”!), Reneau’s essay sheds light on how Gen Z sees the world, and what that might translate to, politically.
First, she notes that her children were unsatisfied with the ending of “Dead Poets Society” and concludes that “Gen Z sees inspiring change through a systemic lens, not an individual one.”
Second, she remarks on Gen Z’s difficulties dealing with unexpected hardship and tragedy. “Gen Z was raised in the era of trigger warnings and trauma-informed practices, while Gen X kids watched a teacher die on live TV in our classrooms with zero follow-up on how we were processing it,” Reneau writes, referring to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.
Third, Reneau was taken aback by her children’s rigidity and inability to process nuance, particularly in interpersonal relationships.
I found Reneau’s observations fascinating, if concerning. If she’s correct, Gen Z does not grasp the power of individual agency. “Systemic change” is a buzz phrase for a worldview that is top-down rather than bottom-up. Those who subscribe to it are easily swayed by collectivism, which promises “new systems” without mentioning that those systems will be run by people whose flaws are as bad as — or worse than — those who succeed under the current systems. Worse, “systemic change” advocates are often ideologues who see individuals as impediments to their utopian plans, rather than people of inestimable value whose inspiration and ideas help new realities take shape.
As such, the “systemic change” worldview is also either antithetical to Christianity or a warped version of it. Whatever is “good” is defined and implemented by institutions like government. People are valuable to the extent that they advance government objectives. This is the same perspective that considers taxation to be a form of Christian charity. But institutionally mandated behavior isn’t virtue, and compelled “giving” is not charity at all.
Furthermore, hardship often arrives without “warnings.” Few of us want to face difficulties or suffering, but it isn’t (and shouldn’t be) the government’s job to prevent them all. Facing and overcoming hardship is the path to resilient adulthood, wisdom and a strong sense of self-worth. People perpetually shielded from difficulty end up weak and emotionally stunted.
Finally, the inability to recognize nuance in human behavior can make one judgmental, fearful and authoritarian, and more inclined to choose a government comprised of individuals who feel the same way. We saw plenty of that garbage during the COVID-19 lockdowns; it should serve as a warning.
Should teenagers be given the vote? I vote “no.” Admittedly, some of the members of Gen Z are well into adulthood. But even they — as well as their younger counterparts — have a great deal of wising up to do before they make decisions that impact the rest of society.
Agree/Disagree with the author(s)? Let them know in the comments below and be heard by 10’s of thousands of CDN readers each day!
