Professor Reynolds has noted a couple times (including today) that the 12 to 17 set seems to prefer Bush to Kerry. I'll freely admit that the young can have a kind of accidental wisdom -- heck, I went for Reagan (twice)* and Bush Sr. (once) when I was a child and teenager, and I would've made the same choices again today at thirty.
I'm not sure, however, that "teenagers for Bush" is quite so effective a slogan this time around. Indeed, isn't the ur-criticism of Bush that he's executed his policies the way a teenager would? Long on hope and intent, short on skill and sobriety?
Frankly, I think "teenagers for Bush" literally "proves too much."
UPDATE: The-always-calm-and-reserved Professor Leiter one-ups (or is it downs?) Reynolds! It turns out that, although kids 12-17 prefer Bush, kids 2-11 apparently prefer Kerry. So our choice is between the moody teenager who just wants to goof off and (maybe) blow something up, and the little kid who wants his ice cream and T.V. and a horsey NOW NOW NOW NOW!
Finally, everything is clear to me. I'm going to go get a drink. Wake me November 3rd (or whenever the Supreme Court issues its decision.)
(Via Professor Bainbridge.)
*Really. When I was five (I'm thirty now), my best friend and I had long and involved Carter v. Reagan debates on the junior Little League field, with me taking Reagan's side. For a long time, I thought I had imagined or embellished the debates. Years later, however, I bumped into a guy who happened to have been the coach of the team (I didn't remember him until a friend explained the relationship). The first thing he uttered was, "boy, all I recall is you and M. P. going at it about Reagan and Carter. I swear, you guys knew more about them than I did."
More evidence, I suppose, that I was born this way.
Being that teenagers have been targeted by programs like Rock the Vote, stars like P. Diddy and of course Hollywood has a huge impact on teens and the vote turned out this way does say a lot about their ability to wade through alot of propaganda aimed at them.
Posted by: Blue | October 21, 2004 at 06:06 PM
their ability to wade through alot of propaganda aimed at them.
You know, if you go to the Channelone site, you can't actually find any pictures of Kerry on the front page, but you can find an article entitled "Presidential Perks: How the Commander in Chief lives large. The 'article' with it is brief enough to quote in full
I appreciate the underlying notion that teenagers can be smarter than usually imagined (being one at heart myself), but I think you are really underestimating them if you think that this kind of site pulls in a representative sample.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 21, 2004 at 06:28 PM
One of the things that has surprised me about the recent polatrization of US politics, and by effect, world politics, is the large number of politicized youth. At least here in Canada. My thirteen-year-old son and his skater buds can't see Bush on television without slandering him verbally, and he actually drags me out to anti-war demonstrations that I'd prefer not to go to (I paid my dues in that regard in the 70's, thank you).
Now they're trading stories of the Chilean coup, Stephen Biko's murder, and Michael Collins and the Irish struggle.
This is from a group of 13 year old skaters, mind you. And they're having to educate their teachers, as they use this stuff for group projects at school, and the teachers have no idea who they are.
So I guess that I have at least one thing that I'm grateful to this adminstration for.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | October 21, 2004 at 06:34 PM
Now they're trading stories of the Chilean coup, Stephen Biko's murder, and Michael Collins and the Irish struggle.
My advice is to keep them the hell away from any political blog threads. And don't let them near google...
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 21, 2004 at 07:07 PM
. . .
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
But He beholds the light, and whence it flows,
He sees it in his joy;
The Youth, who daily farther from the east
Must travel, still is Nature's Priest,
And by the vision splendid
Is on his way attended;
At length the Man perceives it die away,
And fade into the light of common day.
VI
Earth fills her lap with pleasures of her own;
Yearnings she hath in her own natural kind,
And, even with something of a Mother's mind,
And no unworthy aim,
The homely Nurse doth all she can
To make her Foster-child, her Inmate Man,
Forget the glories he hath known,
And that imperial palace whence he came.
. . .
Posted by: Trickster | October 21, 2004 at 10:26 PM
I just put the link because it would violate posting rules to put it here
Phillip Larkin's This be the Verse
Posted by: liberal japonicus | October 21, 2004 at 10:55 PM
Profanity in literature seems to be one of those gray areas, l-p: I probably wouldn't have said anything, but thanks anyway. :)
Posted by: Moe Lane | October 21, 2004 at 11:12 PM
It was Churchill, I think, paraphrasing another notable (Chesterton?), who said anyone who is not a liberal at age 20 has no heart, but anyone who is not a conservative by age 40 has no brain. I'm sure the actual quote was more felicitous.
It's the folks who forgot to pass through the liberal stage who really worry me. Me, the one with arrested development.
On the other hand, Woodrow Wilson: "Generally young men are regarded as radicals. This is a popular misconception. The most conservative persons I ever met are college undergraduates."
Posted by: John Thullen | October 22, 2004 at 02:11 AM