Tuesday, October 22, 1996
VOTING:
Students’ needs will be met by electing a pro-education
presidentBy Darrin Hurwitz
The view expressed by columnist Jake Sexton, that "the political
effects of voting are negligible", is both ill-conceived and
damaging to the concerns which we as young people hold. Sexton’s
proud claim to apathy sends the message that voting is unimportant
and has little impact on the policies which affect our daily lives.
As evidence shows, nothing could be further from the truth.
Indeed, when a group of people with similar interests vote en
masse, the policies enacted, not surprisingly, tend to reflect
those interests. Case in point is the disparity in turnout among
young people between 1992 and 1994 and the policies which
resulted.
In ’92 young people turned out in record numbers to support Bill
Clinton and not surprisingly, the president has delivered on his
commitment to young people.
In four years, Clinton has created the Americorps national
service program, established the Direct Lending Program, increased
Pell Grants and proposed making tuition tax-deductible all in order
to make education more accessible. Furthermore, the president’s
strong record on the environment, protection of choice and creation
of new jobs all reflect the long-term vision which is consistent
with our age group’s needs and ideals. At the same time Clinton has
made education a benchmark of his domestic agenda, speaking of
youth issues, with real concern.
Of course, the elections of ’94 serve as a reminder of what
happens when young people who share Sexton’s cynicism choose not to
vote. Indeed, fewer than 20 percent of young people voted
nationwide in 1994. Why, then, should we have been surprised when
Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress attempted to slash
college loans and gut environmental protections or when Pete Wilson
and the 18 appointed Republican regents dismantled affirmative
action?
The resulting equation is pretty simple. When young people turn
out to vote, we elect pro-education candidates who reflect our
beliefs and long-term concerns. When we do not exert our power as a
voting bloc, our leaders can not be counted on to defend our
interests.
Sexton’s claim, echoed by others in the Viewpoint section this
year, that the "difference between [candidates] is minuscule" is
simply ridiculous. On the issue of education, a vote for Clinton is
a vote for continued and expanded accessibility, for national
solutions to complex issues. A vote for Dole is a vote against
educational opportunity, against the concept of public education,
and against making youth issues a national priority.
Beyond education, the differences between the candidates and the
parties, on issues from abortion to the environment to concepts of
community to the role of government, could not be more clear. 1996
is a pivotal election year. We, as young people, made the
difference in 1992. We can do it again.
Ironically, low voter turnout contributes to the involvement of
big money in politics which Sexton criticizes and which we all
dislike. When people do not vote, special interests abound with
power. This is why tobacco companies have for so long been able to
avoid regulation, why industry has been allowed to pollute, and why
the National Rifle Association has stood in the way of sensible gun
control.
But when people vote, when we make our wants known through the
ballot box, we elect leaders who listen to the people, who go
beyond rhetoric and escape the grasp of special interests to use
the power of government effectively. This is the fundamental notion
of democracy, one which all of us as citizens should strive to
preserve.
To quote from a powerful political poster, voting is a right
which those before us in this country fought long and hard to
attain. In other countries’ transition to democracy, the right to
vote has often been fought for with blood and violence. And all we
had to do was turn 18. No matter who you support or what
propositions concern you the most, take a few minutes and vote on
Nov. 5.