At NewDeal 2.0, Brad Bosserman
writes:
A recent survey conducted by Harvard University revealed that while 69 percent of 18-29 year olds believed community service was an honorable thing to do, only 35 percent felt that way about running for office. This has real ramifications for the make-up of our legislatures. A recent article in Salon explained that Congress is getting older not because incumbent members are sticking around longer, but because the age of incoming members is rising.
It is worth considering the impact of having telecommunications and Internet policy drafted by politicians who are still “learning to get online” and leaving foreign policy decisions to people whose views were shaped and developed during the Cold War. Stephen Marche made the case earlier this year that these trends have also led to “thirty years of economic and social policy that has been rigged to serve the comfort and largesse of the old at the expense of the young.” So where are the Millennials who should be beating down the doors to the Capitol?
Some have suggested that the absence of young people in elected office is all about economics. Older Americans have gone from out-earning their younger counterparts by 10 times in the mid-'80s to nearly 50 times in 2008. This migration of wealth from young to old has occurred alongside a dramatic growth in the cost of running a successful campaign, with political spending in House and Senate races increasing eight-fold between 1970 and 2000.
This alone does not seem to explain the systemic aging of our legislatures, however. The technology booms of the '90s and aughts also produced a record number of young millionaires and billionaires. Yet they have chosen to stay out of elected office in far greater numbers than wealthy members of previous generations. Why?
I have a theory.
Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2005:
Some people have questioned the wisdom of turning Tom DeLay in particular and ethics in general into a campaign issue for the upcoming election cycle. Personally, ever since Chris Bowers articulated the plan, I've thought it an excellent idea. I think if we want to see a national tide turn against the GOP, we've got to use a national issue against them. And, as it turns out, the issue is starting to get some serious traction:
After enlarging their majority in the past two elections, House Republicans have begun to fear that public attention to members' travel and relations with lobbyists will make ethics a potent issue that could cost the party seats in next year's midterm races.
In what Republican strategists call "the DeLay effect," questions plaguing House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) are starting to hurt his fellow party members, who are facing news coverage of their own trips and use of relatives on their campaign payrolls. Liberal interest groups have begun running advertising in districts where Republicans may be in trouble, trying to tie the incumbents to their leaders' troubles.
Among those endangered are at least two committee chairmen and several other senior members. Congressional districts that traditionally have been safe for Republicans could become more competitive, according to party officials.
Tweet of the Day:
I've notice a great shift in the news media in the last ten years. They've stopped reporting on action and focused entirely on reaction.
— @Pres_Bartlet via web
High Impact Posts. Top Comments.