Smart As a Whip

We're apparently back in the days of needing to make a rambling post just to set the stage for the things I actually want to talk about. Even though it generally paid dividends in sleeker and better constructed posts I stopped doing that sort of thing because they always wind up taking way longer than they should. But, dammit, I'm not about to spend all that time researching without deriving more benefits than a single post. Which, you know, probably means good things. Or that it's too hot to sleep.

Anyhow, this isn't yet the post I really want to make but it's still a tangent that raced through my mind while working on the previous one, so, yeah, profits abound. But thinking about the age and competence of the aforementioned whippersnapper got me to thinking and sent me down a particularly rewarding pathway.

And, yes, I'm well underway getting Frenzied up. Because that's two paragraphs of (hopefully) whimsical yet irrelevant digressions serving to pad my word count. And at least one metaphor staked to the ground and writhing in pain. Oh, and a lot of synonyms, too, that would send lesser people scurrying to the thesaurus. Oh yeah, June's going to be fun.

But getting back to the topic at hand, Mr. Zeitlin's youth reminded me of something. Namely, that chronological age only roughly corresponds with maturity. Perhaps I was lucky enough to know some good people when I was young or perhaps I've spent too much time in online communities where the default position of anonymity can lead to some shocking revelations when, say, you finally bump into someone on vent or skype. Or maybe I'm just still a young punk at heart who's spent far too much time running from responsibility and maturity myself. But, for me, age is nothing but a number. What truly matters is how emotionally and intellectual a person is capable of handling a set situation or responsibility.

We use age as a convenient metric because judging how mature someone really can be is dauntingly subjective and complex. But there's no sudden insight into proper, adult behavior that separates someone on the last day of their 20th year from the first of their 21st and magically endows them with the ability to drink responsibly. Not that not being of legal age is really an impediment to drinking but I have to think the criminalization of that behavior is just as responsible for the abuses you can see at your average college party as the lack of maturity. Nor is their some arcane boundary between a 15 year old and a 16 year old being able to get behind two tons of self-motivated metal and race around with ridiculous amounts of kinetic force on their way to the mall or the strip or however it is they waste their time these days. It's the hours of training and practice before being licensed that separate the drivers from the non-drivers. And there's nothing, beyond it being the commonly agreed upon date, keeping that set at the age of 16. Indeed, I knew someone who was driving, legally, from the age of 12 because their guardian was legally blind. Which you think would have made them really cool but, evidently, you overestimate the appeal of an '84 LeBaron that smells faintly of peppermints and old age. I haven't checked lately but I'm pretty sure that provisions to gain a license prematurely out of need are still on the books.

I'm not suggesting we need to give people an exam before we let them buy beer (Although...having tended bar at one point, that's not such a bad idea when you get right down to it...) just trying to point out it's not like we don't make exceptions to hard and fast chronological rules when we hand out responsibilities. We just do it in a haphazard fashion. And that, perhaps, we might be able to reconsider exactly how we view maturity to better reflect both our needs and concerns.

For whatever reason, our society has developed along lines, legally, of protecting our young from maturity rather than fostering them along and encouraging them to slowly but steadily pick up those responsibilities along the way. The default position is to shield them, hide them, and keep them from advancing. Until, at least, they're old enough at which point they're assumed to have picked it up along the way. Which is not to say that no one grows up or we're headed for cultural decline and collapse because we don't believe in the holy trinity of God, Football, and Elvis hard enough just that our laws outsource the job of raising a child from inexperienced youth to responsible adult. And that's, by and large, probably a good thing but I also don't think that a secular society has to completely ignore the task of creating new citizens. If it's through teaching children to grow, well, up and become their own persons that individuals achieve a kind of immortality then it's having each generation give way to the succeeding one that gives a civilization permanence. A nation, therefore, has a vested interest in making sure that goes as well as it can. And one area where I think we're currently failing is civics. For such a wealthy and educated democracy we have a shockingly small amount of participation in our government. And, for me, it all comes back to the vote.

A vote is like owning a share in a company. Having one makes you involved, gives you some ownership of the outcome, and having that piece means you're much more likely to take an active part in things. Not everyone will exercise it, of course, but that's okay. Rather than forcing people to participate or restricting participation to those elite who are ready, the goal should be to lower the barriers to entry in hopes of creating a larger pool of potential participants. Even if only a fraction of them take part, simply by growing that population, you'll increase the number who will take part. And that's, in parts, why I favor lowering the voting age.

Because, let's face it there are some really smart teenagers who don't have the vote but would probably acquit themselves quite well with it. While there are some, supposed adults who vote in such an ill-informed and unprepared a manner that they really, probably shouldn't. Like, say, if I could pick who votes and who doesn't anyone who's ever found themselves nodding along to Fox News or thinks Saddam has ties to 9/11 or likes the designated hitter rule or thought shoulder pads were a good idea.

Fortunately, I don't have the power to determine who votes. No one does, really, beyond your birth certificate (And, well, arrest record.). And that's a good thing because once you start coming up with reasons to toss voters out for incompetence or inattention, or any other way of saying “they're not good enough” you're headed to a scary place (And the historical trend is away from that scary place – where you had to have the right property, the right gender, the right gender, and even the right beliefs in order to vote – and towards greater populist inclusion.). So, we rely on things like place and date of birth to determine these things because those objective facts are neutral. But, again, there's no magic reason why the reasonable age has to be set at 18.

My friend who got his driver's license at 12 (heavily restricted but still, he could drive.) might not have been a chick magnet. But he was never in an accident, never unsafe, and, in fact, one of the best driver's I've ever known. And I'd pin it on something one of my English teachers once told me when discussing one story or another about driving, “You're only 16, you still think just being able to drive is cool.” And, at the time, I couldn't conceive of a mindset where having that freedom, that responsibility, wouldn't be, if not the greatest thing ever, a really nice thing to have. But, as the years have gone by and I've logged hours and miles behind the wheel, it's true. Driving isn't cool, it's routine. And I'm a lot less likely to speed or try some crazy passing maneuver because that adrenaline rush isn't pounding in my vein. I'm much more likely to plan out my route so I arrive in plenty of time, to react to an accident better, and otherwise do everything that means I get a lower insurance rate because I'm accustomed to driving now. It's something my friend learned earlier than I did because he'd put in that time not from 16 on but from 12 on. Part of it is his personality but part of it is giving him that opportunity. That experience.

Say, for argument's sake, that we set that age to 12. Sure, there would be some pre-teens who would be incapable of handling that responsibility. But you can't tell me that there aren't some twelve year olds at least as well-read and informed as, if not more than, the average 25 year old. And it's the 12 year olds who are going to be most affected by things like reforming medicare or entering into a war because they're the ones who are eventually going to be shouldering that burden (For example, an 18 year old soldier just finishing basic training today would have been around 12~13 in 2001 when the decision to send them into combat was being made. They had no say in that beyond whether or not they signed up for active duty or not.). Rather than arguing denying them the vote is some kind of taxation without representation, I'd argue that allowing them to vote on such issues, to take part in the discussions about them only helps them to understand the issue better and ready them for when they actually will have to bear the brunt of the responsibility. By including them earlier, by giving them that ownership stake in the state, we help them to prepare for the day when they'll be the ones with children and making the decisions about where the ship of state should sail. Those bright and talented young people who are ready to handle the vote would help to influence the ones who aren't but could be, if they tried. And it's those children such a change would be aiming at helping because instead of slipping into cynicism and apathy before they reached the legal voting age, they'd be given an opportunity to actually contribute. Not all of them might respond but, I think, enough would to make for a stronger electorate in the years to follow.

Because, not only would giving the 12 year olds the vote motivate them to become involved, it would motivate the community around them. A 12 year old is likely still in school, still being compulsively taught, meaning there'd be ample opportunities for civics lessons to prepare them for their eventual vote. Think of all the energy that goes into school elections and imagine if, instead of voting for pizza over hot dogs or the school council, if that effort was channeled into the national debate. The schools, the adults, the parents around these children would be there to help them. To guide them, to teach them, about voting and how to handle the responsibility in a structured environment. At least, one more structured and consistent than the one for 18 year olds. Who might or might not be in high school or college or working, living on their own or with their relatives, and otherwise all over the place. In contrast, most 12 years olds have at least middle school in common.

At the same time, giving the vote to younger citizens motivates not just them but the adults around them. When that 12 year old hears about voting from school and their friends and goes home to ask their mother or father about it, you think that doesn't make that parent much more likely to participate? To not only vote, but to look into the candidates and positions, if only so they can answer those pernicious questions they're likely to face from their children? How many relearn math or history thanks to their kid's homework? It's a trickle down effect, a cascade, as being more informed, more likely to contribute to candidates or write letters or post comments, these parents will bump into those adults without children. At the office, on a website, wherever, and pass along that greater interest. And they become more likely to talk about things, to inquire into things, to take part, and to get out there and vote.

Again, not everyone joins in. Because it's an opt-in system and when you put up even the simplest gate like that, not everyone passes through it. But the point is to increase the number of people streaming through. An informed electorate is its own best resource. Making it larger provides more opinions and potential solutions. Calls for more information and holds those providing it more accountable. Makes it harder for elected officials to get misinformation past them. And lowering the voting age creates, I think, more opportunity for people to opt in, strengthening the system for everyone else.

I'm not sure if 12 is the appropriate age or not (In fact, I'd probably do away with a strict age limit altogether. Make it so that anyone who can prove citizenship and can show up at a polling place gets a vote. Maybe, because you can assume they'll be highly influenced by their parents give small children a half vote until they reach a certain point of maturity for which, yeah, around puberty strikes me as a good mark. Such a system would give greater voting weight to those with a family but since I think that encouraging people to have and maintain families is not exactly a bad thing, I'm pretty okay with giving them a greater say in the direction of things.) and it's something that would require a lot of thought and research. And the hurdles involved in passing such measures are considerable. But what I am sure about is that the percentage of eligible voters who actually vote has been falling and that it's a problem. And it's one that bears thinking about.