It's a mistake to blame our current Political situation on college students.

[MineralMan]

It's a mistake to say that in the 60s and 70s, college students were activists, protesters and politically aware participants in political activity. They weren't, any more than they are now. A small percentage of them were involved in all that. The rest were doing what college students do. They were studying, partying, maintaining their student deferments, working part-time, pairing up, as late adolescents do, and other such activities.

I know this because I was a college student then, and one of that small minority of politically involved people. I didn't understand why everyone wasn't as involved as I was, but they weren't. People who weren't around then tend to overestimate the percentage of young people who were involved. Seriously overestimate.

Lots of college age people are active today. Lots were back then, too. But, it was always a pretty small minority. That's the nature of youth. In reality, about the same percentage of older adults are active and serious about politics. That's always the case.

Don't blame college kids for our current political reality. It's not their fault. It's the fault of all of us. We are all responsible, and we should all be responsible for changing things. Blaming people is a useless thing to do. Motivating people is useful.

[Demsrule86]

1. In general, kids take an interest later...when they have careers and family.

I see kids going to rallies both Sen.Sanders and also Perriello in Virgin's rallies...but not voting in significant numbers yet. Not enough to elect those they support. My kids voted for Sen. Sanders in the primary and voted for Hillary in the general...so to blame all kids for Trump is unfair.

[MineralMan]

3. Exactly. People in the 18-30 age group have never voted

in large percentages. They haven't yet figured out that such things are important in their lives, for the most part. That's not where they are focused, usually. Some always are, of course, but I suspect that percentage hasn't changed much, really.

If you look at voter turnout by age group, the pattern continues to be about the same over time. I'd love that age group to be more active, but I don't expect it. I celebrate those who are active, regardless of their age, but I also know that most adults aren't active either. It's always a small percentage of people who make politics an important part of their lives.

Nothing has changed. It would be nice if it did, but I don't expect it.

[Shell_Seas]

2. Can I ask you something, MM?

I'm only 36, so the 60s were before my time.

Recently I've heard my Dad and others from his generation in my family talk about how there was more social and political turmoil in the 60s than there is now. But from things I read and watch, it doesn't seem that way to me.

What's your take on it?

[MineralMan]

5. There was a lot going on during that period, for sure.

But, it was all happening with a small minority of young people. The vast majority did not participate in protests and activism. Even those who did included a lot of people who were just showing up because there was something going on that got people together.

Between the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War protests, there was visible activism in a lot of place, but mainly in larger cities. Even then, though, it was just a small percentage of people who even participated and a far smaller percentage who were involved in organization and encouragement of such activism.

I remember. I was one of that smaller group. It's the same today. When I look at the demonstrations and protests, I see lots of young people, but I know that it's just a tiny minority of people in that age group who I'm seeing, just as it was back then. In fact, it's a small percentage of any demographic that shows up and is active.

We remember the activism of the 60s and 70s, but we don't remember all of the people who weren't active. Nobody noticed them. I did, because I wondered how they could not be out there with us. But, they weren't. I understand that.

It is always a tiny minority that is actually active in politics and movements. Most people simply do not take part, then or now.

[Shell_Seas]

7. Over a million people marched on the January 21 Women's March

(Nation-wide)

That doesn't seem like a tiny minority to me.

[MineralMan]

11. But it is, nevertheless.

In a nation of roughly 320 million people, a million isn't all that many. There have been a few demonstrations of that size in our history, but not many. Getting a million or more people together in one place is a very, very difficult thing. The civil rights movement inspired a couple of such events. The Vietnam War did, as well. This past election accomplished that, too.

Look at Obama's inauguration. Now there was a huge gathering in support of a single issue.

The Women's March took place in many different cities. But, if you compare the number of participants to the populations of those cities, it's clearly just a small percentage. We always have to remember that. If we're participants, it feels like a huge turnout, and we can lose sight of all of those people who did not participate. That's always a much, much higher number.

Here's something to keep in mind when you look at any political event: Sports like NFL football routinely fill stadiums with tens of thousands of people, just to watch grown men play games with balls. We don't think of those audiences as representing a majority of people. So we have to keep turnout at political activism events in context and not overestimate the numbers as a representation of the far larger majority.

That's the lesson I learned back in the days when I was very active in movement activism. I learned that no matter how many we turned out, there were far, far more people who weren't even aware of our gathering. It's sobering, but it's also reality.

[Shell_Seas]

15. Thanks for the insight.

[LeftInTX]

21. I do feel that protests accomplished something very important:

The 26th Amendment

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age".

Of course the civil rights protests resulted in the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

[MineralMan]

24. I'm not saying that they don't accomplish things.

Not at all. I'm very aware of what an influence they have had, and am proud to have been part of that. My activism began in about 1965 and was civil rights-based. Then, after a period in the USAF, I began again in the late 1960s, protesting the Vietnam War, while still being involved in civil rights activism. I'm no longer involved in street activism, though. I simply no longer have the energy for it. It's a young person's thing, really.

Yes, street activism can create change. But only when it reflects or creates changes in thinking by the larger majority. 18 year olds got the right to vote, because the old "I can fight for the country but not vote in it" argument finally got through to people. The Anti-Slavery movement in the mid 19th Century finally ended that inhuman practice, but it took a civil war to finish the job. The Women's Suffrage movement finally got women the right to vote. It was one of the first movement to succeed in the 20th Century. The Civil Rights Act became law because enough people finally realized that the color of one's skin shouldn't matter when it came to rights. The Women's Movement ended anti-abortion laws and generated some progress in other areas.

Yes, activism can create change. No question about it. However, it's just one factor in creating change. Until a majority of people decide to make the change, it doesn't happen. Activism helps that majority recognize the need for change, but the actual change often occurs considerably later.

And then, there is always pressure to relax, which often diminishes the impact of such change. We have to be vigilant always to avoid back-sliding. It's complicated. It will always be complicated.

[Shell_Seas]

27. Part of which (voting rights) have been removed,

We are paying for that greatly where I live in Texas.

[LeftInTX]

36. That is true

[dumbcat]

17. 0.003 of the population of the USA

0.05 of college student population (approx 20 million.)

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. there WAS much more social and political turmoil in the '60's

Civil rights, integration, multiple assassinations of major political figures in a short timeframe (JFK, MLK, RFK), the rise of feminism and women becoming part of the workforce in large numbers, etc. In 1968, after MLK was assassinated? There were riots all over the country. Detroit, DC, NYC, Baltimore, Louisville, Kansas City. There were places in some of those cities where whole blocks burned in the riots and were still abandoned, rubble-strewn vacant lots and blasted-out shells of buildings 20, 30 years later. The past decade or so, in the USA at least, is not at anywhere near the level of turmoil of the '60's.

[Shell_Seas]

16. Do you think that we are headed in a direction of a possible repeat of history?

[Spider Jerusalem]

41. History doesn't repeat, but sometimes it rhymes

and I expect that things are probably going to be much worse than anyone's prepared for, with the pressures of climate change driving massive movements of refugees in the coming decades and fuelling the sort of ethnic nationalist resentment that played a significant part in Trump's popularity.

[LeftInTX]

13. There was the draft

That was the one thing that created a bunch of fear.

It was very acute.
Sure lack of health insurance is just as bad, but people tend to see getting killed/injured in a war more differently.

Social turmoil isn't as bad as back then.

Political turmoil, if you are talking about Russian interference, I don't remember too many "Impeach Nixon" protests. I'm sure they were there. But they weren't massive.

[Shell_Seas]

19. Ironically, I spent this last Saturday watching Watergate/Nixon Docs on YouTube

It is absolutely no comparison.

When we see the things that are happening now and the level of corruption, it makes the Watergate scandal look like child's play. IMO

[LeftInTX]

25. Exactly, but the Vietnam War was the big fear

There are triggers now which bring about protests, such as the travel ban, bathroom bills etc.

However, there aren't too many people protesting about Russia. Not many protested Watergate.

The Watergate story was technical and didn't create knee jerk reactions.

Same with the Russian interference.

It isn't that the Russian interference is hard to follow, we just haven't seen a "smoking gun".
There are the Louise Menschs out there, but they are not MSM.

Even the MSM has gotten it wrong about Russia a few times and had to backtrack.

I'm waiting for a smoking gun.
Maybe this story about meeting with the Russian lawyer is.

[Shell_Seas]

26. Maybe things will start to unravel

There is an awful lot of smoke for there to be no fire.

[hamsterjill]

37. The draft was absolute fear.

I lived in a small town in south Texas during the Viet Nam war and it was a major, MAJOR happening when someone's son received his letter from Uncle Sam.

It was also very real and very sobering when someone's son returned in a box. You didn't hear about it on Facebook; you went down to the only funeral home in the town and actually saw the body (if the body was in one piece) as you paid respects to the grieving family.

[Leith]

4. My Memories and Experience Are the Same as Yours

except that I was one of the non-involved ones. The most I did was to giggle privately about a guy who was a yaffer (member of young rethug college group). He had the funniest walk ever: before lifting up his trailing foot while walking, he would put it up on tippy-toes, hold a second or two, then pick it up to step ahead. Most people leave their trailing foot flat or with the heel slightly raised before lifting the foot for the next step. It made him look bouncy and rather silly.

[MineralMan]

6. Thanks. Yup. Those who were around then remember.

Those who weren't are seeing history, and only the history that made the news is remembered. I look at the Women's March on Washington from early this year. Now, that was a huge demonstration of activism, but it's still only a tiny minority that is represented. It's always just a tiny minority, frankly.

[hamsterjill]

38. I'm nearing 60 and I was also uninvolved at that point.

The war was a very real thing. As I stated up thread, I lived in a small town and everyone knew when someone's son was called. We all also knew when someone from the area was killed in the war. Not from Facebook or the news, but because everyone went to the funeral home to visit the grieving family.

It was all very personal.

I was completely awakened politically, however, when women's rights started taking shape. I remember working to get the ERA passed.

[pirateshipdude]

8. During the 50's and 60's, many were also marrying and having babies.

A different time, for sure, but I agree with you.

[Sunlei]

9. don't understand. Thought it was incredible how in the primary such a high number of 17/18 to 30ish,

were enthusiastic, involved in campaign & voted. Highest number ever of the "younger crowd"

In the 60s rally, protest 'numbers', boots on the ground mattered the most.

These days online on major social media is where the younger voters 'are'.

Online can be good or bad for a political party.

Trolling, fake "fans" that cause violence, constant spamming of campaign "ads", lies & fake news, can hurt a candidate.

The D party has to change, we need a clear, short (not boring & spamming) message. Yes there can be the full policy on a candidate website but the message about the D 'policy' has to be short and very clear about the difference between R & D policy.

No candidate should every say in a debate, town hall or press interview-, "We can't do this" "Not going to happen" "go to my website to read about it"

[Demsrule86]

18. It was not enough to elected Sen. Sanders though. The primary is over

and traditionally young voters don't turn out until they are older ...established in careers with families.

[Sunlei]

23. Senator Sanders still has his supporters, his fans. D Party NEEDS to include him & ALL of them.

He won 23 states with their help and votes.

[Demsrule86]

42. We are a big tent and welcome all...but clearly it would not be a majority.

[Sunlei]

43. We'll stuff everyone in the tent! Sanders can call some little birds :P

[Demsrule86]

44. Works for me.

[loyalsister]

10. It's also a chicken or egg question

Maybe not wanting to have an institution with racist leanings for an alma mater on their resume just means the students are smart and discerning?


"Tyler Morris, a white student from St. Louis, said he was afraid of being stereotyped as a bigot if he went to Missouri. So he decided to go to Missouri Valley College, “just down the road” in Marshall."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/us/university-of-missouri-enrollment-protests-fallout.html?mwrsm=Facebook

[MineralMan]

14. One of the things that struck me hardest during the Vietnam War

when I was involved in organizing protests in the DC area was how many people showed up who were there for the party, rather than for the cause. I wasn't any sort of leader, but just worked as a grunt in the organizing. But, when the day of the demonstration or protest came, an amazing percentage of people who showed up always appeared to be more or less clueless about what the whole thing was about. That frustrated me considerably, but it was important that the numbers be high to make an impact, regardless of why people who participated showed up. I learned that, but it was still disappointing.

I'm an old man, now. It seems like I've always lived in "interesting times." We make some progress and then slip backwards and have to do it all over again. I guess that's how it goes.

[loyalsister]

20. I am most familiar with MU

And the university still refuses to acknowledge that maybe the revelation of history and ongoing racial strife opened a secret that people do not want to be associated with.

[FreepFryer]

22. Great post. (n/t)

[NobodyHere]

28. If they're adults

Then they do share part of the blame, especially if they vote R or don't vote at all.

[MineralMan]

30. I don't disagree, but they are not the reason we lost.

We lost because people in all age groups failed to show up and vote. Not just college kids. Everyone needs to turn out. Everyone.

I don't like blaming one group and ignoring the others.

[Mariana]

34. A much smaller percentage of them

voted R than the percentage of older people that did. Sure, plenty of them didn't vote at all, but if they had it may have made no difference. They might have shown up and voted R, just like the old people did.

[tblue37]

29. I teach college English. Several of my students are politically involved, and

one is actually majoring in political science and international studies and planning to go to law school because, even at age 18, he figures that is the best way to prepare for a political career. Meanwhile, he was actively involved as a volunteer--a major player in organizing volunteers, even--in the Sanders campaign in our state.

Another 18-year-old asked me in conference about my politics. She had guessed I might be very liberal, but she wanted to be sure before asking me for suggestions about how to get involved in the campaign, since she was ver busy with school and work and wanted her efforts to have as much impact as possible rather than just be wasted.

She ended up using her volunteer time registering voters, passing out information packets to young people, and taking time to talk with them about candidates and issues. She also recruited many of them to help register voters and inform others about candidates and issues.

After the election she was in tears, but she was also determined to get involved in a group of liberal students determined to change the direction of our state and our country.

The kids I have talked to (those two are just examples--there were others) are passionate about taking control of their future through political activity.

[MineralMan]

32. Fortunately, there are always some who are eager and willing

to be active. We need to make sure to encourage those people whenever we can. Thanks for doing what you can to encourage your students. With luck, they will be lifetime activists in electoral politics.

[csziggy]

31. I started college the fall after Kent State

My parents pounded into me to not get involved, though I did a little. My first college was a tiny liberal arts college tucked away on a large campus with limited interaction with the community. They promoted getting involved but there were few demonstrations.

The one I went to was to protest a law that required anyone the cops stopped to have at least $25 in cash on their person. This in a retirement community with a LOT of subsistence level retirees who often had no money at all by the end of the month. Some cops had hassled some of the retirees who were just spending some time in city parks.

Pat Nixon was coming into town for a campaign rally and the rumor was that she never carried any cash. So we protested her visit and that the cops did not ask her if she had the required $25. Silly, but the protest did make the newspaper.

By the time I got to FSU Nixon had been re-elected and anyone who was politically active was depressed. Many of the liberal campus organizations pretty much dissolved. It wasn't until the investigations into Watergate started gaining steam that they re-vitalized, but by then I was too tied up with classes and could not protest. My friends and I did spend every moment we could watching TV once the Watergate hearings started. And we threw a HUGE party the night that Nixon resigned.

On the other hand, my older sister was VERY active in anti Vietnam War protests. About 1968 she was a speaker at a protest on the University of South Florida campus, obviously anti-war. They also had a pro-war speaker, a veteran who had served in Vietnam and who was from a military family. After they each spoke their piece, they got to talking, went out for coffee, started dating, and got married in 1973.

My sister completely converted him and they have been protesting for liberal causes for almost the last fifty years. They also volunteer for a number of organizations and are very active in local politics.

[MineralMan]

33. Thank you for sharing your experiences!

[csziggy]

39. I was just thinking - many of the young people I know that are liberal/progressive

Are actually out there working for causes and not protesting.

The most notable one I know is my niece who works for NGOs. When she first got out of graduate school she was an unpaid Congressional aide during the passage of the ACA. She worked in Washington DC until she could get a position in a NGO abroad and has for the last several years spent most of her time in troubled areas across the world. She has been in the Philippines, Afghanistan, Turkey (right across the border from Aleppo in a refugee camp), and is now heading to Baghdad.

She has never had time to protest. While in college and graduate school she was working to help pay her way and between jobs and study had little time at all to join organizations or protest. Since being out of college she has worked constantly, in unpaid and paid positions to fight for the things she believes in. Her work certainly does more for the world than any street protest.

I have to take something back - she was in Washington and marched in the Women's March on January 21. So when she can she does participate.

[Gothmog]

35. Agreed

I have trouble buying the concept that the current round of college students bear any blame here

[MineralMan]

40. Well, I do wish the millennials voted in higher numbers,

but it's the nature of the age group, I guess. It's always been that way, really. But blame? Nah. Everyone's to blame for losing in 2016. We all participated in that.