November 12, 1969

Lower Vote Age To Combat Radicals

Lowering the voting age in Ohio to 19 would be a further erosion of the Constitutional safeguards against popular government, but the technology of mass communications may have made this change inevitable.

This nation's founding fathers justifiably mistrusted democracy.  Throughout history, governments subject to popular will have crumbled from over spending and soft living.  To avoid this, the unique American "republic" of checks and balances - a mixture of democracy and monarchy - was created.

Maturity was the first requisite of an elector, and so the traditional age of 21 was adopted.  Only the House of Representatives were to be elected by popular will, but it was made dominant by giving it command of the treasury.  U.S.  Senators were to be elected by state legislatures.  Presidents were to be selected by an Electoral College, the members of which were elected by the people.  Great effort was made to remove a few key units of government from the heat of partisanship.

The direct election of U.S. Senators was inaugurated in 1913.  Since then, the Senate has been moving gradually to a mirror of the House.  Only a burdensome system of Senate committees and seniority has slowed the flood of legislation a land-slide administration can ram through Congress.  Before long, even this last check will be gone.

Now the direct election of presidents and the enfranchisement of youth seem about to become realities.

We can only hope that our educational and communications systems have prepared us during the last 182 years to always elect wisely.

The main argument of those favoring a lower voting age is that those who are subject to military service have a right to participate in national decisions affecting their lives.  This logic is irrefutable.

Those who oppose the vote for young people like to point out the hippies, peaceniks and racial militants as examples of irresponsibility we would be taking to our bosom.  On the face of it, this is a frightening possibility.

The thing that concerns me about the first proposition is not that the youth might refuse to fight in the necessary defense of our country but, on the contrary, might be too quick to engage in military adventures.

As a young man I resented going into World War II only because it was an intrusion of my plans, not because I was afraid of dying.  The young believe they are immortal.  Death is something that happens to the careless and aged.

It is parents who agonize over the effects of war on their children.  Throughout history it has been young men and mad men who have started wars.

The second proposition succumbs to the majority of young folks who are decent, law abiding, responsible members of society.  The noisy rabble are, really, a small minority.

Our own observations as parents, reinforced by the little experience we have with lower voting ages, should augur optimistically for sensible voting by our youth.

Four states have lowered their voting ages - Georgia to 18, Kentucky to 18, Alaska to 19 and Hawaii to 20.  The moves had no effect on traditional voting patterns.

Surveys made of young people during the last election showed they would have voted in about the same proportions as their elders did.

Personally, I don't think young people will "radicalize" or "liberalize" politics to any greater degree than we older citizens now are - which is quite enough.

On the contrary, again, I believe that widespread lowering of the voting age will tend to make politics more conservative.  The gung-ho liberal who believes in correcting all the evils of the world with some one else's money and rights is the young adult 21 to 35.

The teenager, on the whole, strongly clings to order, and tradition, and the old fashioned virtues he learned from his parents.  It is significant that the leaders of college radicals are upperclassmen and post graduates well past 21.

I have from time to time in this space faulted my profession for sensationalizing news.  Journalism, with the advent of television, has become less a reporting service and more an entertainment vehicle.

For what ever reason, the mass news media play up the rioting and dissent and marching.  It is exciting, if not significant.  It isn't likely that my voice in the wilderness is going to lead journalism back to the path of objective reporting.  Therefore we must accept the fact that our mass communications media are going to continue to give prominent attention to radicals.

Our defense against the young rabble that are given underserved voice by the press is to give our responsible young a countering voice in the polling places.

Yes, this would chip off another piece of the Constitution.  But we can't make television and giant newspaper chains go away.

For better or worse we are headed down the road to popular democracy.  It hasn't worked before, but must work sometime if mankind is to achieve universal peace and prosperity.  If we, too, fail we will, at least, provide valuable lessons for future experimenters.

Perhaps our Constitution could only be a breathing spell while human nature caught up to progress.  The big question is - are we ready?

Ready or not, technology demands a new response.  We have allowed the dissenters to challenge us, we have no other recourse than that of committing the champions we have been training for this moment - our youth.

Author: Lindsey Williams