Search News


Browse Archives

News

Displeased, Not Disaffected

November 2, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

They’ve been labeled politically apathetic, but college-aged students are planning to vote in record numbers on November 7, according to a poll from Harvard University’s Institute of Politics.

Thirty-two percent of 18- to 24-year-olds surveyed in the biannual poll on politics and public service said they “definitely will be voting" in the midterm elections, and three in four said the likelihood that they would cast ballots was at least 50 percent.  

Young voter turnout has hovered around 21 percent in the last four midterm elections, an institute official said. Since the voting age became 18, the best non-presidential election turnout was 1982, when roughly 27 percent of this demographic group participated.

For the first time in six years of polling, the institute sought out 18- to 24-year-olds who are not attending a college or university. About half of the 2,546 people surveyed between October 4 and 16 were enrolled in an institution.  Among all voters in the age group, recent college graduates were the most likely to say they "definitely" planned to vote, with the least likely being people who never attended college or are in high school. Undergraduates and graduate students were the subgroups most likely to indicate being "politically engaged or politically active."

A record young voter turnout  would come despite poll findings that young people remain skeptical of their leaders and many aspects of the political process. While trust grew after the September 11 terrorist attacks, it has waned since then, most likely due to the government's response to Hurricane Katrina and the war in Iraq, according to the report.

"[September 11] has had a transformative effect on our generation," said Krister  Anderson, the survey co-chair and a Harvard senior.

Sixty-five percent of those surveyed indicated that 9/11 has had an effect on their views toward government, with about half saying that they are now more cynical. Six in 10 said the country is on "the wrong track." Three in four surveyed said politics has become too partisan. And when asked, "Whom do you trust more to handle the war on Iraq: Democrats or Republicans?" 43 percent answered "neither," compared with 32 percent for Democrats and 25 percent for Republicans. 

More than four in 10 people said the most pressing issues facing the country are the war in Iraq, terrorism and national security. When given four plans for dealing with the war, nearly half of those polled said they favored either withdrawing troops immediately or within the next year. One in three favored withdrawal, but not until Iraqi forces have proven the ability to take control. Five percent said more troops should be sent.

President Bush, who earned "C" and "D" grades from those surveyed on his handling of seven issues -- including education, health care and the economy -- received his lowest average grade (a D+) on the war. He has a 32 percent approval rating among this age group, according to the poll.

John Della Volpe, director of polling for the institute, said that in past years a lack of trust in leadership had translated into a lack of civic engagement and low voting numbers among young people. But this group has maintained an interest in staying informed and involved, he said. Seventy percent of those polled – and 84 percent of college graduates -- said politics is relevant to their lives. In all, 60 percent said getting into politics is "honorable."

“I’m encouraged because we’re seeing a trend that we saw start before the 2004 elections -- increased engagement,” said Jeanne Shaheen, director of the institute, which is part of the John F. Kennedy School of Government. “Hopefully this will translate into better turnout at the polls.”

Fifty-two percent of those polled who said they would “definitely vote” on November 7 favored a Congress controlled by Democrats. Twenty-nine percent from this subgroup said they favored Republicans. A plurality (39 percent) of those surveyed identified themselves as being “independents,” compared with 35 percent Democrats and 27 percent Republicans.

Jason Mattera, a spokesman with Young America’s Foundation, whose motto is "the Conservative movement starts here,"  said he isn’t surprised to see a high expected voter turnout because he has seen the level of college activism increase over the last few years.

Though the poll indicates that a majority of likely young voters favor a party switch in Congress, he said young Republicans who feel strongly about politics historically make it to the polls at a high rate, which tends to tip races. Mattera added that "left-dominated campuses" play a role in swaying students' opinions about the political state of affairs.  “I wouldn’t take this as an indictment of the current administration or a vote against President Bush,” he said. 

Ben Adler, editor of campusprogress.org, a publication of the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said the most telling poll numbers are those about the war.  "Five percent want more troops in Iraq -- that is striking, but I can't say I’m surprised by it," he said. "Young people are the ones who are bearing the brunt of the occupation."

Adler said wartime tends to mobilize young people to vote -- even when there is no mandatory draft. He said while people in the 18- to 24-year-old demographic generally don't support the way the war has been waged, they still support American troops.

According to the poll, the military is the most revered of all American institutions -- trusted "all" or "most" of the time 55 percent by those surveyed. Half said that about the Supreme Court, 38 percent about the United Nations, 31 percent about the President, 29 percent about Congress and 12 percent about the media.

The poll also found that the rate of volunteerism is on the rise, particularly among undergraduate and graduate students.

“There’s been an attitudinal change,” said David King, the institute's director of research and a Harvard lecturer in public policy. “We no longer think of a 'me' generation like the Baby Boomers, but a 'we' generation that is involved in community service and campaigns.”   

King added that campaigns still undervalue 18- to 24-year-old voters and don't take advantage of the best ways to reach them -- through social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, rather than through calls to their land lines (which only about half have, according to the report).  

The poll also showed that:

  • 72 percent of those in the 18- to 24-year-old demographic said they are registered to vote (82 percent of those in college; 69 percent non-college.)
  • 60 percent said they "follow national politics closely."
  • 23 percent watch cable TV news regularly; 16 percent watch "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" regularly.
  • 70 percent said religion is at least "somewhat important" in their lives.
See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Displeased, Not Disaffected

  • Ben Adler
  • Posted by Craig C , political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com on November 2, 2006 at 9:51am EST
  • It's sad to see the usual comments coming from those on the Left. Adler calls the Iraq situation an "occupation", as opposed to what it really is and that is more of a police action. The US is not there to occupy Iraq. It is there to throw out Saddam Hussein (done) and then establish a viable self sustaining government. Once that is accomplished, US forces can leave.

  • Posted by Tom on November 2, 2006 at 11:40am EST
  • Yes, Craig, and Part 2 is going swimmingly, isn't it? I guess, by your plan, US troops will be able to leave by 2025 with some luck.

  • Posted by Philip on November 2, 2006 at 12:05pm EST
  • Tom, you missed the point. The left always misses the point, blinded as always by ideology. The fact is, occupation is just as Craig said, and it is not what the US is doing. In essence, Adler was lying by using what he KNEW to be an erroneous term, then stating it as fact. But when there is an "ends justify the means" mentality (typical of the left), it is considered acceptable.
    Second, Craig did not say that "number 2" is going "swimmingly." It isn't. However, we are not occupying, and progress is being made, albei at a slower pace and greater cost than anyone would want. Such, though, is the nature of the beast.

  • Besides Word Choice
  • Posted by Ben Adler , Editor on November 2, 2006 at 1:30pm EST
  • I don't think the central issue is whether you call our presence in Iraq an occupation or something else. The point is that young people recognize the terrible mistakes the Administration has made in Iraq, and they want to find a solution that brings some stability there and brings our troops home safely.

  • Posted by John on November 2, 2006 at 1:30pm EST
  • you mean to say the right is never blind?? yeah right. the point is even though the process is "albeit" slow and costs are heavy, it is my tax money and my country's lack of leadership to find an alternate vision that has created this quagmire.

  • Posted by Ricardo on November 2, 2006 at 1:45pm EST
  • I guess it really is the right who miss the point. Since the story is about the survey numbers, not whether you call it a war, police action or occupation, the grain of truth in Adler's quote is the 5 percent who want more troops. So you might way it's the right, doing what the right does oh, so well, misdirecting the conversation to little nitpicky things they can twist to their cynical political advantage.

  • Posted by Tom on November 2, 2006 at 1:48pm EST
  • The left always misses the point? That's rich, considering that the whole Iraq adventure missed the point of going after the real terrorists.

  • Don't worry Tom...
  • Posted by John Luiten on November 2, 2006 at 5:30pm EST
  • ...when the left gets into power and we bail out of Iraq. We'll have the real terrorists we can handle right here in the States. ;-)

  • Tom, John, Ben
  • Posted by Craig C , political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com on November 3, 2006 at 5:55am EST
  • Please try to understand what is happening in the world. It's not about Iraq. It's not about Bin Laden. It's not about US casualties. It is about preventing more attacks on US soil. When Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese to get us into WW2, it was and attack on US sovereign territory.
    We did what we had to do to destroy the culprits. It's not about any one objective in any war. It is about a strategy to get the bad guys where they live, so they don't attack you where you live. So it's about all of the above, not just one.

  • Try using your brains, for a change...
  • Posted by David Dickey-Griffith on November 3, 2006 at 2:10pm EST
  • The notion that by "fighting them over there" we are somehow preventing them from striking us on our home soil is perhaps the biggest, most pervasive misconception about the war. It is really just an assertion, with nothing to back it up. In a recent report, our own intelligence agencies confirmed what most liberals already intuit, that the war is fueling anti-american sentiment and global terrorism instead of stopping it.

    The current apporach to fighting terrorism is fundametally misguided. We will never defeat the terrorists just by killing them all, because to accomplish this requires us to do things that inevitably create more terrorists, like bombing a village, or occupying a ccountry.

    You will never kill all of the terrorists, because at its most basic level, terrorism is an idea, not a group of people. One of these days, we are going to have to accept the fact that terrorism is here to stay, just like murder or car-accidents. Once we accept that, we will find that the most effective way of remaining relatively secure is to avoid throwing rocks at hornet's nests like Iraq and focus on border security and good intelligence.

    In the meanwhile, feel free to conflate rational approaches to the problem with a lack of patriotism without questioning your own assumptions. After all, that's what republicans do best...

  • Posted by PS on November 5, 2006 at 12:35pm EST
  • If it is about protecting American soil, Craig, then why attack a country that never attacked us nor had any intentions? I understand that Cheney wants his company and his other friends (cowards who never served but reguarly question the patriotism of others) to be rich, but there are other more urgent and pressing threats (Iran, N. Korea, Afghanistan).

    The usual response is that we had to liberate the people of Iraq. While this is appealing, why Iraq? There are plenty of people living under more harsh regimes, particularly in Africa. Why not liberate them?

    It is not hard to connect the dots and see this war was started by a few rich people who wanted to be richer and used religion and fear to use the war to garner contracts and funding for their friends in the oil companies and those who would reap billions in no-bid contracts in all the cleanup activities in Iraq.

    These are questions the GOP has refused to answer and is why they will lose in the next elections. Americans will only tolerate dying for the enrichment of a select few for so long.