June 29, 2016 at 1:55 p.m.
Let's raise the voting age to 25, at least
Let's raise the voting age to 25, at least
That amendment, of course, lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, thereby granting voting rights to teenagers. That should have been a red flag right there.
We're a lot smarter and more grown-up now, of course, so we should just admit that was a mistake fueled by the rise of baby boomers, and do what we should have done then - not simply reverse the 26th Amendment but raise the voting age to 25.
We'll all be better off if we do.
We're being a little facetious, of course, and in any case the political correctness of the age would prevent any such thing, but raising the voting age is nonetheless worthy of discussion, if nothing else as a way to highlight the true political ridiculousness percolating among the younger set, aided and abetted and nourished by we elders ourselves.
First of all, the notion of raising the voting age is gaining respectability. Tennessee law professor and columnist Glenn Reynolds has mulled it over, as has conservative author Jonah Goldberg over at National Review.
Here's how Goldberg put it in an interview with The Daily Caller: "Personally, I think the voting age should be much higher, not lower. I think it was a mistake to lower it to 18, to be brutally honest....It is a simple fact of science that nothing correlates more with ignorance and stupidity than youth. We're all born idiots, and we only get over that condition as we get less young."
Goldberg went on to say that the stupidity and ignorance of youth is something that conservatives have to beat out of them, figuratively or literally.
He was joking about that last point. We think.
Anyway, the science - and don't liberals love science? - is on Goldberg's side.
Truth is, the human brain is not fully developed, nor is it capable of making fully rational judgments, until at least the age of 25. Here's how the University of Rochester Medical Center puts it in its health encyclopedia:
"It doesn't matter how smart your teen is or how well he or she scored on the SAT or ACT," the encyclopedia states. "Good judgment isn't something he or she can excel in, at least not yet. The rational part of a teen's brain isn't fully developed and won't be until he or she is 25 years old or so."
In fact, the encyclopedia asserts, adult and teen brains work differently, that is to say, adults think with the "prefrontal cortex," or its rational part - "this is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences" - while teens process information with the amygdale, or the emotional part.
And that's why, the encyclopedia points out, young people can't explain later whatever in the world they were thinking. That's because they weren't thinking, at least not rationally.
So if people under 25 years old can't make good judgments or think rationally, why on Earth are we letting them make decisions in the voting booth? The ever-younger participation of young people in elections must be considered a significant cause in the decline of political rationality since the 1960s.
Of course, if anyone doubts these scientific conclusions, there's plenty of real-life evidence in the field to support them. Just go to any college campus and observe young people in action. It will scare the wits out of you.
At Yale, students were offended by Halloween costumes, and then offended again when a lecturer disagreed with a campus advisory for everyone to be sensitive to offensive costumes, to the point they wanted the lecturer and her professor husband censured. They are no longer teaching at Yale.
Over in Ohio, Oberlin students accused the university's food service company of cultural appropriation by altering recipes without respect for the cuisine of Asian cultures and countries.
At Amherst, students protested what they called a legacy of campus oppression and in particular a campus group that promoted free speech. According to Forbes, the students called "for the free speech fans to be disciplined and 'be required to attend extensive training for racial and cultural competency.'"
On the West Coast, students wanted a Martin Luther King Jr. quote removed from a wall because they deemed his "I have a dream" message not inclusive and diverse enough. And, back at Yale, a majority of students, when asked on the street to sign a petition to repeal the First Amendment - wait for it - actually signed it!
Still think these people should be voting?
Well, consider that those not mature enough to rationally think through the implications of their censorship positions - to grasp the long-term consequences, to use the encyclopedia's parlance - have failed to understand that suppressing free speech is only good so long as you're the censor. Given the number of people and special interests in the country, that's not good odds.
It's called a colossal failure of judgment, and it makes for a powerful argument to raise the voting age.
At the very least, perhaps young people should be barred from federal elections. After all, you have to be 25 to be elected to Congress and older to qualify for the Senate and the presidency. If younger peopler aren't qualified to hold positions of governance, then why should we allow those very younger people to have a say in who does govern us?
At the end of the day, we older folks are responsible for a lot of the political mess on college campuses and in the larger younger population in general.
That's because, rather than give young people the controlled, disciplined, and supervised environment they need to make mistakes and learn from them, to engage in the world and to understand that others have different points of view - to mature and grow into responsible adults - university administrations and icons of political correctness have helicoptered and coddled them.
They do so by giving in and validating ridiculous demands rather than using those moments to teach social skills, empathy, respect for opposing viewpoints, and the reality of a world that is not self-centered. They obliterate the very legitimacy of boundaries and strip from liberty the critical constraint that it is valid only so long as it does not betray the rights of others.
Here's hoping we can all learn from this generational debacle before it's too late. After, all, we'll never really raise the voting age, and that means, lacking any change in trend, the censorship and suppression of constitutional liberties so popular on campuses today will be just as strong an impulse in larger America tomorrow.
We have, in effect, legitimized immaturity. The deconstruction of so-called oppression has turned out to be nothing more than the deconstruction of rationality itself.
If we cannot save reason and good judgment on America's campuses, the least we can do is preserve them in the voting booth.
Comments:
You must login to comment.