The 2008 presidential election may well be remembered as the moment when young people re-entered American politics. It's already clear that our generation is watching the race with far more attention than youngsters have paid to any recent political contest. One survey showed that in early 2008, 58% of young people were following the race closely, compared with 34% at a similar point in 2004. That rings true; it probably understates the surge in partisan commitment that is growing among a generation that feels angry about Iraq, concerned about the planet and nervous about the economy.
It used to be said that middle-aged people vote because their jobs, families and spare-time activities give them a sense of involvement with society; by contrast, younger people, so the theory went, saw themselves as free-floating, marginal, and unable to make a difference. If that was ever accurate, things are changing now. Young voters have already had an impact on the primaries (chiefly to the benefit of Barack Obama). But our input in the November vote will be far more significant. Remember: nearly 40% of young voters (aged 18-24) lack any firm party affiliation, so they have been bystanders in the primaries. But by November, the overwhelming majority of younger Americans will have registered to vote, and there is every sign that turnout among this cohort of citizens will be massive.
Healthy as this sounds for democracy's future, there is one unknown factor that may determine whether this enthusiasm continues growing: the role of financial contributions, big and small, in the campaign. The details of campaign finance regulation may be confusing, but the principles are crystal-clear, and young people care about them. If it becomes obvious that financial donations from the rich and powerful are still the only real drivers of change, the spasm of civic engagement that is now palpable among my generation will relapse into cynicism. Call us utopians if you like, but the ever-deepening relationship between wealthy interest groups and ambitious politicians seems to us to be one of the worst features of American politics.
How, on this yardstick, do the candidates look in young citizens' eyes? Much has been written about Senator Obama's ability to communicate with new voters. Yet my generation (even those who would never vote Republican) likes one thing about John McCain: his courageous role as the co-author of a 2002 law that went some way towards correcting the effect of big spending on politics. Many of us can sympathize with Senator McCain's lament (in 1999) that "preoccupation with money" had "cut a deep gash, if not inflicted a mortal wound on the concept of public service." And we like the new idea that small-donor democracy, helped by the Internet, could counter the influence of massive contributors.
Looking harder at the 2008 race, there are some things to make money-conscious youngsters rejoice, and some things that still dismay us. The level of spending, and the share of it going on crude television advertising, looks terrifying: this will be the first presidential election where total expenditure by candidates easily tops $1 billion. On the other hand, the latest news, covering donations in February, shows that tiny on-line gifts are playing an ever-bigger part in the Democratic contest. To people of my cyber-minded generation, that is very welcome. Hillary Clinton (who pulled in $30m on-line out of a total income of $35m) seems to have learned the tricks of the small-donor trade from Barack Obama. (His income for February included $45m worth of internet gifts, out of a $55m total.)
But clever fund-raising alone won't be enough to impress those of us who will cast our first ballot in 2008. We are disappointed that none of the front-runners in the primaries was willing to submit to the discipline that goes with accepting public finance, including a cap on total expenditure. We are watching to see which of the candidates will be first to accept public financing for the November contest. (Senators McCain and Obama have been playing chicken over this issue, saying something like: "I will if he will.") And we will warm to any candidate who promises to extend the clean-up of American democracy that was initiated with the campaign-finance law co-sponsored by Senator McCain. That law helped to curb the power of unregulated donations known as soft money; but there is much further to go.
All these sentiments have a single starting-point. As our generation contemplates the future after two decades of spectacular but poorly-distributed economic growth, which may now be coming to a halt, we refuse to accept that anybody who wants a say on America's future must make a fortune first.