"This is exactly why kids need a union!"
--Bart Simpson, The Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror XXII"
As a twenty-something ne'er-do-well, I'm prone to quoting The Simpsons a lot. After more than twenty years on the air and hundreds of episodes, there is a choice quote from The Simpsons for nearly every situation. So last October, when Bart uttered those words during the ever-funny, always topical Treehouse of Horror episode, I nearly hugged my television.
Why? Because it's true! Kids do need a union!
During the 1980s and 1990s, conservative organizations like the Family Research Council led the charge against the coarsening of American culture and the erosion of traditional family values. The writers of The Simpsons replied with an incisive and mocking riposte to the culture warriors, squalled by Helen Lovejoy.
Won't someone please think of the children when school districts are forced to lay off teachers? Or when tuition costs for the nation's largest public university system more than triple over ten years? How about when legislators threaten to cut food aid or health insurance benefits to poor children? Helen Lovejoy's wail for the children is indicative of the hollowness of the culture warrior's campaign, all style, no substance.
There is no single organization with enough clout to address these issues and others, and that needs to change.
More after the jump!
The policy goals of a nonpartisan youth union are pretty obvious: lifting as many children out of poverty as possible, reducing childhood hunger and obesity, improving the quality of curriculum and instruction in the nation's public schools, making higher education affordable, ensuring our generation and generations to come are not saddled with crippling levels of public and private debt, and, in light of the Supreme Court's impending invalidation of Obamacare, universal access to healthcare for children.
Today, these goals are being addressed largely in piecemeal fashion. This is not to denigrate the work being done on a day-to-day basis to advocate for quality education or children's healthcare, but to suggest that in the future, a united front could produce better legislative outcomes for children and young adults.
Older demographic groups have substantial lobbying powers in Washington; AARP has tens of millions of members and considerable legislative clout. Were members of Congress to target programs considered essential by AARP's members, cries of disapproval would be deafening. When President Bush proposed replacing Social Security with private retirement accounts in 2004, AARP "adamantly oppose[d]" the plan, citing the potential danger of "weaken[ing] [Social Security]...for future generations".
One might argue that the creation of a youth union or lobbying group is pointless for a number of reasons. First, young people have no money and typically do not turn out to vote, and therefore hold no clout. Their interests and values are represented by their parents.
One would be right in saying that twelve-year-old Timmy isn't going to turn out to vote or donate to a Super PAC any time during the next election cycle, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a vested interest in the quality of his school. And one need only look at the generational divide between Millennials and their parents and grandparents on issues like immigration, gay marriage, and miscegenation to know that sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree.
Second, once people pass age 50, they are eligible for membership in AARP and their eligibility remains for as long as they live. Conversely, young people eventually grow out of their youth. Mostly. A youth union would have a transitory membership base, diminishing its influence.
Granted, an advocacy group for youth and youth issues would have to do more than protect the interests of its members. AARP lobbies for the preservation of Social Security and Medicare not just for current beneficiaries, but for future generations of elderly as well, as demonstrated by their opposition to President Bush's Social Security reform proposal. A youth union would have a consistent membership with a broad, continual set of policy goals. Indeed, there are already millions of non-youth allies, and thus potential members, for such an organization, from educators to social workers to pediatricians to parents.
As more Boomers approach retirement age, a strong youth union will be necessary to make sure that youth-oriented issues are not crowded out of the legislative agenda. Congress is already a gerontocracy; its members will need sharper reminders of the needs of future generations as programs for the elderly consume increasingly more of federal and state budgets. We, as younger people today, ignore these facts at our own peril.
We need to get more young people a seat at the table. This could be a significant step toward that.
No comments:
Post a Comment