The New Hampshire primary is over. The candidates and the media have fled the state, and our airwaves will cease to be bombarded by ads for Republican candidates. I have to admit I'm disappointed it's finished. I truly enjoyed the more political atmosphere on the campus. I thought it was great that many of the candidates came up here, because their appearances sparked thought and discussion. It was wonderful to hear my classmates talking about various political topics over dinner and to read about national politics in The D.
But, somehow, I expected more. I was very excited my freshman year when I connected the significance of the New Hampshire primary with the state where I was attending school. I made it a priority to be on campus this winter, because I really wanted to see all the candidates come up and to be here when the College was politically alive. I envisioned large rallies, both with and without the candidates, massive "get out the vote" efforts, lively debates on issues, campaign literature and signs everywhere, and huge attendance at candidates' speeches. Apparently, that was a bit naive.
I do not mean to belittle the contributions that many students made to the effort, by any means. A number of students were very involved in campaigns, and there have been several efforts to encourage students to vote. Members of a couple fraternity houses, namely Alpha Delta and Beta Theta Pi, contributed to the effort, invited candidates to speak and prominently displayed banners and posters. Despite any personal differences I have with those organizations or the candidates that some of their members chose to endorse, I'm really glad that those houses played active roles in the political process. I think it's important that students and young people do so, as we will be affected a great deal by any policies and programs that result from elections.
But I wonder why more individuals and groups on campus did not become involved. Leaders of major organizations in the United States endorse candidates all of the time in an effort to encourage their followers to vote. Imagine, if Jim Rich, John Barros, Dani Brune and other organization heads had picked their favorite candidates and debated each other on issues. Lots of other students might have followed suit. Just think of the campus-wide repercussions there would have been if all the Greek houses and undergraduate societies had chosen to endorse a candidate . Basing this remark solely on stereotypes and for illustration purposes only, Amarna could have endorsed Clinton, Kappa Kappa Kappa could have displayed Buchanan signs, and Bonesgate could have rallied for "The Hemp Lady." We could have had a wave a political activism that would have rocked the granite state.
But, most Dartmouth students, for whatever reason, did not become politically involved. I'm sure the majority did not vote. Why is that? Is the fact that the vast majority of Dartmouth students were not politically active in the primary emblematic of the "Generation X" phenomenon? I'm not sure, but I don't tend to think so. Is it due to disappointment in the selection of candidates, both Republican and Democrat? In part, but not entirely.
My hypothesis why younger people are much less likely to vote than their parents is that they are often less immediately affected by governmental decisions then older people. While not entirely true that people "vote with their pocketbooks," there seems to be an element of reality to the idea. When we all graduate and go on to become taxpayers, I think the importance of governmental economic decision making will be more clear.
Like many people, I like to say that I vote for primarily ideological reasons. In my case, that could be generally true. I have a clear vision of where I would like to see the United States head in the future, and I tend to support candidates with a similar vision. I am one of the small percentage of Americans that fall in either the liberal or conservative camps (you guess which), rather than somewhere in the middle.
At the same time, however, although I will rarely admit it, part of the reason I vote the way I do probably rests on my economic self-interest. I am very aware that I and people I care about have a direct stake in the outcome of elections and legislation in Congress. I receive several forms of federal financial aid and am consequently personally concerned about possible cuts in the program. My twenty-year-old cousin and her baby receive welfare benefits, my brother will soon be attending a public grammar school and my stepmother is a legal immigrant. More than many people my age, I am aware that my life could indeed be affected by the November election, and that awareness has helped inspire me to become politically active.
If my assumption is true, and Dartmouth students will become politically active and aware only when they see governmental decisions as impacting their purse-strings, then I won't have long to wait. When large numbers of my classmates go on to have high-level corporate positions or become doctors or lawyers, an upsurge in political interest would follow. Unfortunately, I imagine the tendency will be to become involved in politics different from my own. At that time, please remind me that when I was an undergraduate I felt strongly that, regardless of ideology, everyone should be informed and involved in the political process. I'll try to remember.
