Guest Post: Obama and the Youth Vote

The youth vote finally had an impact. While voters 18-29 only made up one more percentage point share of the total vote (18% of total vote, up from 17% in 2004), an overwhelming 2/3 of them voted for Obama. No candidate, winner or loser, has taken such a large share of that sector of the electorate for at least 28 years (sorry, the exit poll data I looked at only went back to the 1980 election). Obama won without taking a larger share of voters 45-59, or voters 60 and up. No Presidential winner has done this in at least 28 years.

This may have been the first time in our lives when the youth vote actually played a meaningful role in a Presidential election. For many of us, it was the first time we felt national politics responded to our beliefs and values. The sentiment was: This country is ours, we’re calling the shots now. We have helped craft America into the country we could only dream of before.

Now the dream is reality, and we’ll see how Obama actually governs. On the campaign trail, he dodged the question of what promises would have to take a backseat due to financial crisis. Of course, now he will have to set some priorities and make some decisions. Will his priorities reward the youth who helped sweep him to office, or will he cater to the elderly, despite their tepid support? A key area to watch is how his economic philosophy plays out in actual policy decisions.

Greater deficit spending equals more money we have to cough up later, perhaps just as our generation is hitting peak earning capacity, or looking to retire. It’s clear that the Federal government will have to run deficits for at least a few more years, given the bailout, a likely stimulus package, and almost assuredly diminished revenue due to slowed economic activity. That’s fine, counter-cyclical deficit spending isn’t a problem. But it does mean that Obama won’t be able to pay for everything, so he’ll have to pick and choose. Like Clinton before him, Obama promised infrastructure investment, to improve transportation and alternative energy capacity. A stimulus package could take the shape of public works project, or we could have a direct cash infusion (or obviously, some blend of the two). Because the benefits of investment will accrue over the coming decades, a straight cash infusion gives the youth less value relative to older citizens, while still shouldering us with the debt burden.

The question of infrastructure investment is particularly important because of climate change concerns. It’s not just that a public works program could put people to work, and improve productive capacity, but it may also be vital to preventing serious harm to the planet. Even if it’s not the optimal way to approach the economy (as Clinton himself decided; he went for aggressive deficit reduction over public works), we may have no choice if we want to take the climate change issue seriously. Climate change, of course, will have virtually no direct effect on voters 45 and up, but could have enormous consequences for younger voters.

What the heck does he do about Medicare and healthcare more generally? Healthcare was a huge part of his campaign, and there will be a lot of pressure for him to follow through. Due to the baby boomers, there is a massive chunk of the population who will soon be consuming lots and lots of resources. Will today’s young voters in the coming decades spending more and more to treat today’s 45+ voters? Will healthcare expenditures crowd out energy/infrastructure spending and deficit reduction? If so, our generation, the youth voters, could really get hosed.

Obama has huge ambition, and a broad mandate to make some significant changes in the role the Federal government plays in our lives. The choices he makes will have some inter-generational costs and benefits. I don’t really know what the best balance is amongst all of these competing promises, but it will be interesting to see who gets the shorter end of the stick.

-Civil Rights Dude