HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW
HOPE IN A TIME OF FEAR
BIG PHARMA
PRISONS TO POLLS
VOLUME LI NO. 2, SUMMER 2020 HARVARDPOLITICS.COM
AMERICA’S
SPEAK
SUMMER 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 1
HARVARDPOLITICS.COM/REDLINE
2 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2020
AMERICA’S YOUTH SPEAK This issue’s cover topic was edited by Joseph Winters, Swathi Kella, Chloe E.W. Levine.
3 Discrepancies in Professions of Patriotism Chloe E.W. Levine with Oliver York
6
12 Youth Want Equal, Not Just Socialist, Institutions Christine Mui
14 American Identity? Jelena Dragicevic and Brammy Rajakumar
Confusion, Alienation, Invigoration Swathi Kella
8
Struggle and Unity Abigail Romero and Jing-Jing Shen
CAMPUS
23 Politics of Protectionism Jay Garg
UNITED STATES 23
Politics of Protectionism Jay Garg
26 Big Pharma Donovan Keene 29 Prisons to Polls Maya Bharara 34 The Political Economy of Australia’s Wildfires Jack Taylor
32
In New York, A Blow to Democracy Connor Chung
WORLD 34
Hope in a Time of Fear Rebecca Araten and Jing-Jing Shen
37
Obstacles to Macron’s “True European Army” Maxwell Zhu
39
How the UN Failed Haiti: Inadequate Response to the Cholera Outbreak Andre Ferreira
16 Remaking Ethnic Studies Swathi Kella 21 Lessons From a UC Meeting Ajay Sarma
10
CULTURE 42
How Blue is Bluegrass? Chloe E.W. Levine
45
Monopoly, But Make it Socialism Winona Guo
INTERVIEWS 46
The Struggle for Global Justice: Interview with Geoffrey Robertson Jack Taylor
The Political Economy of Australia’s Wildfires Jack Taylor
42 How Blue is Bluegrass? Chloe E.W. Levine Email: president@harvardpolitics.com. ISSN 0090-1032. Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved. Image Credits: The Noun Project: Cover- Made by Made; Cover- Chris Kerr; 26,28- Three Six Five; 26,28-Orin zuu; 29parkjisun; 39,41- Alex Muravev, RU; 39- Ted Grajeda, US; Unsplash: Cover- Devin Avery; Cover- Priscilla Du Preez; Cover- Alexis Brown; Cover- Anna Vander Stel; Cover- Josh Barwick; 1- Campaign Creators; 3- Ali Morshedlou; 6,7- Louis Valazquez; 8- Wylly Suhendra; 10,11- Leon Contreras; 10-Raychan; 12- Hello I’m Nik; 14,15- ben sweet; 16,17- Brandon Mowinkel; 17- Forest Simon; 21- AbsolutVision; 21- Hugo Rocha; 23- Sharon McCutcheon; 32,33Mike C. Valdivia; 32- Element5 Digital; 34- Ricardo Gomez Angel; 35- Martin Adams; 35,36- Toa Heftiba; 36- Chirag Nayak; 37- ev; 45- Brian Miller; Wikimedia Commons: 14,15- jacobolus; 46- Elizabeth Allnutt. Design by: Winona Guo, Swathi Kella, Tosca Langbert, Trina Lilja, Kendall Rideout, and Madison Shirazi.
SUMMER 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 1
FROM THE PRESIDENT
HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW
The Politics of Protest
A Nonpartisan Undergraduate Journal of Politics, Est. 1969—Vol. LI, No. 1
EDITORIAL BOARD
PRESIDENT: Alexis Mealey PUBLISHER: Wyatt Hurt MANAGING EDITOR: Marian Bothner ASSOCIATE MANAGING EDITOR: Ilana Cohen ASSOCIATE MANAGING EDITOR: Clay Oxford STAFF DIRECTOR: Cate Brock SENIOR COVERS EDITOR: Kendrick Foster ASSOCIATE COVERS EDITOR: Kate Gundersen SENIOR U.S. EDITOR: Joseph Winters ASSOCIATE U.S. EDITOR: Swathi Kella ASSOCIATE U.S. EDITOR: Chloe Levine SENIOR WORLD EDITOR: Kelsey Chen ASSOCIATE WORLD EDITOR: Ruhi Nayak ASSOCIATE WORLD EDITOR: Ajay Sarma SENIOR CULTURE EDITOR: Jacob Blair ASSOCIATE CULTURE EDITOR: Christine Mui SENIOR CAMPUS EDITOR: Winona Guo ASSOCIATE CAMPUS EDITOR: Jaden Deal INTERVIEWS EDITOR: George Dalianis BUSINESS MANAGER: Duncan Glew ASSOCIATE BUSINESS MANAGER: Victoriah Verna SENIOR DESIGN EDITOR: Trina Lilja ASSOCIATE DESIGN EDITOR: Tosca Langbert ASSOCIATE DESIGN EDITOR: Kendall Rideout SENIOR MULTIMEDIA EDITOR: Jacob Heberle ASSOCIATE MULTIMEDIA EDITOR: Nicolas Medrano ASSOCIATE MULTIMEDIA EDITOR: Annelisa Kingsbury Lee SENIOR TECH DIRECTOR: Kodi Obika ASSOCIATE TECH DIRECTOR: Yaodong Yu ASSOCIATE TECH DIRECTOR: David Hacker COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DIRECTOR: Alexandra Diggs
STAFF
Alex Tam, Alienor Manteau, Alisha Ukani, Alison Chen, Allison Piper, Amy Danoff, Amy Wang, Annelisa Kingsbury Lee, Audrey Sheehy, Ava Salzman, Ben Roberts, Benjamin Firester, Brammy Rajakumar, Bridger Gordon, Byron Hurlbut, Campbell Erickson, Caroline Yun, Carter Nakamoto, Charles Xu, Chloe Lemmel-Hay, Chris Sun, Christian Browder, Clara Bates, Clara Nevins, Colton Carpenter, Connor Brown, Connor Schoen, Daniel Friedman, David Hacker, DJ Kranchalk, Eleonore Evans, Eli Berlin, Emily Malpass, Emily Moss, Emmet Halm, Enrique Sanchez, Esha Chaudhuri, Ethan Schultz, Fatima Taj, Gabrielle Landry, Garrett O’Brien, Graham Walter, Hadley DeBello, Hafsa Muse, Hope Kudo, Isabel Cole, Isabel Isselbacher, Jacob Kern, Jake McIntyre, Jamal Nimer, James Blanchfield, James Coleman, Jamie Bikales, Jamie Weisenberg, Jay Gopalan, Jerrica Li, Jerry Huang, Johannes Lang, John Ball, Jon Riege, Jordan Barton, Jose Larios, Joseph Minatel, Josh Berry, Katharine Heintz, Katherine Ho, Katie Miao, Kevin Bi, Lainey Newman, Lauren Baehr, Lauren Fadiman, Leila Wass, Libby Palanza, Lindsey Bouldin, Lu Shao, Manuel Abecasis, Marcus Trenfield, Matthew Hatfield, Matthew Shaw, Max Snyder, Maya Bharara, Meena Venkataramanan, Melissa Kwan, Mfundo Radebe, Michael Montella, Michael Wornow, Mikael Tessema, Mimi Alphonsus, Miyu Imai, Mustafa Ansari, Natalie Dabkowski, Nicholas Sleeper, Nick Danby, Nidal Morrison, Nikole Naloy, Noah Knopf, Noah Redlich, Otto Barenberg, Pawel Rybacki, Peyton Dunham, Roger Cawdette, Rumi Khan, Ryan Chung, Ryan Golemme, Sam Meyerson, Samantha FrenkelPopell, Sandy Koenig, Sanika Mahajan, Sarah Deonarain, Sarah Tisdall, Satish Wasti, Sophie Dicara, Tamara Shamir, Tom Slack, Vanessa Ruales, Will Finigan, Will Polster, William Boggs, Yash Kumbhat, Yashaar Hafizka, Yuri-Grace Ohashi, Zachary Buttenwieser, Zehan Zhou SENIOR WRITERS: Akshaya Annapragada, Alicia Zhang, Amir Siraj, Andrew Zucker, Anirudh Suresh, Beverly Brown, Chad Borgman, Corbin Duncan, Darwin Peng, Drew Pendergrass, Eve Driver, Gordan Kamer, Hank Sparks, Jessica Boutchie, Katie Weiner, Keshav Rastogi, Lauren Anderson, Matthew Rossi , May Wang, Nicolas Yan, Perry Arrasmith, Russell Reed, Sarah Shamoon, Savitri Fouda, Waseem Nabulsi, Will Imbrie-Moore.
ADVISORY BOARD Jonathan Alter Richard L. Berke E.J. Dionne, Jr. Ron Fournier
Walter Isaacson Whitney Patton Maralee Schwartz
2 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2020
As I write this letter, I am, for once, at a loss for words. When I wrote the last President’s Note in January, the world looked radically different from that which we see today. We looked forward with hope for a new decade, only to be faced immediately with immense hardship. Societies across the world have been turned upside down, and we have all struggled to adapt. Even as we emerge from this crisis, we weather the storm in solidarity with the many whose lives have been lost and the countless others whose lives will never be the same. Yet in the wake of this pandemic, one fact remains apparent: life moves forward. We struggle onwards, negotiating our global grief within the simultaneously harsh and hopeful reality that life must continue. We find new ways to connect, new ways to laugh, and new ways to exist. This issue of the Harvard Political Review is no exception. For the first time in HPR history, we have built a magazine around articles written in collaboration with the Harvard Public Opinion Project (HPOP), a biannual poll which results in the most comprehensive dataset of political opinions and trends among young Americans. Our writers worked with HPOP data specialists to bring you the heavy-hitting, data-driven political analysis you will find in this issue. First, Chloe E. W. Levine and Oliver York explore the implications of patriotism for candidates seeking the youth vote in “What’s in a Name?: Discrepancies in Professions of Patriotism.” Next, Swathi Kella breaks down young Republicans’ complicated feelings on President Donald Trump in “Confusion, Alienation, Invigoration: The American Youth on Three Years of the Trump Presidency,” examining a trend of ideological confusion among young conservatives as they come into power. Abigail Romero and Jing-Jing Shen then analyze the large number of youth who identify themselves as “struggling,” tying the data to trends in young voters unifying behind change in “Struggle and Unity: Young People Demand Change.” Shen and Rebecca Araten continue to analyze struggling youth in “A
Young Person’s Recipe for Hope in a Time of Fear,” noting that young voters remain optimistic for the future. In “Youth Want Equal, Not Just Socialist, Institutions,” writer Christine Mui breaks down how this hope has manifested itself as a desire for equality. Finally, Jelena Dragicevic and Brammy Rajakumar dig into young American identity in “What does it mean to be American?” Each of these pieces is filled with top-notch analysis from some of our most talented staff, but to our publication, this magazine represents something greater. These articles were written as we were evacuated from campus with just five days to pack our belongings, say goodbye to friends, and return to homes that many of us no longer recognized in all corners of the world. This magazine is not just a collection of articles. It is evidence of our grit, our resilience and our commitment to good journalism and to one another. Over the past three months, we have lived at home, finished classes and dealt with the uncertainty of this pandemic. Nevertheless, we at the HPR have still hit milestones we never dreamed could be possible, breaking all-time viewership records on our website and publishing almost dailt. In all of this uncertainty, the HPR has served as a point of light and solace in my life and in the lives of so many of our staff. We have you, our readers, to thank for allowing us to continue to share our thoughts and stories with you, and we will be forever grateful. We hope that you enjoy this magazine that, to us at the HPR, represents so much more.
Alexis Mealey President
THE POLITICS OF PROTEST
Discrepancies in Professions of Patriotism Chloe E.W. Levine
SUMMER 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 3
AMERICA’S YOUTH SPEAK
E
spousing — no, exuding — patriotism has been a tacit requirement for U.S. presidential campaigns since the dawn of the nation, even as debates about the true meaning of patriotism have embroiled candidates. Who could forget the 2008 scandal in which then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., decided to forgo a flag pin and sparked a national battle over the very definition of patriotism? Unlike in 2008, however, in 2020, winning the right to call oneself a patriot may not mean winning the election. In fine-tuning their formulas for success, candidates that hope to win the youth vote must tread cautiously around the topic of patriotism. Amidst plummeting levels of national pride, invoking patriotism may still prove viable, but only if handled with care. Young Americans’ responses to questions about their patriotism vary based on the specific words used to ask them. Understanding these discrepancies could provide valuable insight into the dimensions of young voters’ love for their country, helping campaigns calculate how best to harness that love in the name of victory.
WORDS MATTER For many young people, patriotism holds some appeal, but self-identification as a patriot would be a bridge too far. A recent poll of 18- through 29-year-old Americans by the Harvard Public Opinion Project finds that they have drastically different reactions to the words “patriot,” “patriotic,” and “patriotism.” When asked which from a list of ideological monikers (patriot, socialist, capitalist, democratic socialist) they identified as, if any, 33% of the HPOP poll’s respondents claimed the label of “patriot.” Respondents were much more likely to consider themselves “patriotic,” with a total of 62% describing themselves “very” or “somewhat” so. The popularity of patriotism as a concept falls between those two rates: Presented with the same list in noun form and asked which schools of thought, if any, they supported, 52% of respondents expressed support for patriotism. Significant contingents of young people polled, then, would call themselves patriotic despite a lack of support for patriotism or a refusal to self-identify as a patriot, revealing prevalent ambivalence about these words and the ideologies for which they stand. These trends in respondents’ relative reactions to different word forms characterize the HPOP data across party lines. Political parties undoubtedly grapple with patriotism in different ways: Republicans are, on balance, more enthusiastic about their national pride, while Democrats emphasize constructively criticizing the nation in order to improve it. Nevertheless, members of both parties seem to associate their preferred politicians with the term “patriotic,” implying that they view the adjective positively. For example, 35% of Democrats said Republican President Donald Trump was patriotic, compared to 87% of Republicans, and 39% of Republicans said former Vice President and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was patriotic, compared to 69% of Democrats. Indeed, for both Democrats and Republicans, respondents were most likely to identify as patriotic and least likely to identify as a patriot, with 33 percentage points separating the two figures. A parallel trend held for respondents not affiliated with either major party. These findings suggest that candidates of all party affiliations should pay attention to the nuances inherent to potential voters’ understanding of patriotism.
4 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2020
NATIONALISM AND PATRIOTISM The connotations of right-wing nationalism carried by some iterations of patriotic language today help to elucidate the HPOP results. President Trump frames his political movement as a defense of American pride, expressing affection toward patriotic symbols and using the slogan “Make America Great Again” to encourage nostalgia for American history — although that history is inextricably linked to oppression. He unabashedly ties his version of patriotism to a controversial brand of nationalism which puts “America First” in a militaristic foreign policy agenda and often rejects the value of international cooperation. In just one example, the disastrous outcome of the Trump administration’s individualistic response to the coronavirus has demonstrated that “America First” is a clearly fallible strategy for ensuring the wellbeing of Americans. Still, by his definition, globalists and patriots are opposites. Due to this widespread conflation of patriotism and nationalism, even academics struggle to articulate the contemporary difference between the two in the United States. Consequently, many Americans perceive a connection between the application of patriotic ideology and violence, discrimination, and division. Labeling oneself as a patriot is therefore ambiguous: Do self-identified patriots view themselves as Trump-era nationalists or idealistic critics? Is their love of country unqualified or aspirational? Adopting such a label without an explanation may feel risky, since psychological studies have found that labeling a person unleashes an arsenal of associated assumptions upon them. Coupled with the diminishing importance of patriotism in the daily lives of young Americans, professing personal patriotism distinct from nationalism may not seem worth the potential misunderstanding. This effect could explain respondents’ reluctance to call themselves patriots in spite of their support for depersonalized patriotism and claim of the adjective “patriotic,” which from a linguistic perspective partially modifies their identity rather than definitively characterizing it.
THE NEED FOR NUANCE Attesting to a belief in patriotism is made more difficult by the ideology’s wide-ranging definitions, imprecision which could make even Trump voters feel uneasy about an admission of support. The McCourtney Institute for Democracy’s June 2019 Mood of the Nation Poll reveals significant variance among respondents about patriotism’s defining characteristics. The component most commonly agreed upon was “showing respect, loyalty and love for one’s country,” but there are multitudinous possibilities for the real-life manifestations of that quality. An almost contemporaneous Economist-YouGov poll found similar disagreement. In one particularly stark difference, Democrats were 37 percentage points more likely than Republicans to allow that an American could be patriotic despite “refusing to serve in a war that they oppose.” Democrats were also more likely to accept a similar allowance for Americans who “disobey a law they think is immoral,” though with 56% of them in support as compared to 41% of Republicans, both groups were divided. The relationship between patriotism and morality is thus unclear; some see the two as inextricable, while others believe patriotism can require immorality. All these discrepancies suggest HPOP respondents unwilling to brand themselves as patriots/patriotic
AMERICA’S YOUTH SPEAK
or support patriotism might have been deterred by uncertainty about the literal terms of the question. It follows that when given the option to place themselves along a spectrum of patriotism, respondents were more willing to identify as at least somewhat patriotic than they were when given a binary choice between support and disavowal of the ideology. According to the HPOP data, the highest rates of patriotism were derived from the net affirmative responses to a question which asked young Americans how patriotic they considered themselves to be (very, somewhat, not very, or not at all). Respondents nervous about the implications of an unconditional affirmative answer could, in the adjectival form of the question, answer with reservation. This result indicates that politicians would be electorally ill served by presenting a monolithic, all-ornothing patriotic vision. For 2020 candidates, then, the solution to this ostensibly conflicting data could be simply broadening campaigns’ definitions of patriotism. Young Americans disagree about the parameters of patriotism, and their responses suggest apprehension about the ideology’s associations, but a clear majority express some measure of interest in patriotic thought. Appealing to that interest thematically — without getting bogged down in the hackneyed
language and cliched iconography with which discordant ideas about patriotism are so often wrapped up — might just earn candidates the votes they need.
“Patriot”
Percentage of Respondents Per Party Who Identified With:
“Patriotic” “Patriotism”
75%
50%
25%
0% DEMOCRATIC
INDEPENDENT/UNAFFILIATED
REPUBLICAN SUMMER 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 5
THE POLITICS OF PROTEST
CONFUSION, ALIENATION, INVIGORATION:
The American Youth on Three Years of the Trump Presidency
Swathi Kella
A
s the 2020 elections draw near, the future presents two possible paths: the continuation of a presidency that has become emblematic of a global shift rightward, or a return to the liberal moderation that defined the term prior. This choice takes the form of the presidential contest between incumbent Republican President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Joe Biden, and it has been heavy on the minds of young people across the nation. The past three years of the Trump administration have significantly impacted youth engagement with politics by confusing the young Republican base, alienating swing voters, and invigorating those on the left. Trump’s 2016 presidential candidacy and election sent shockwaves not only through the establishment Republican party but also through the youth Republican base, which presents very confused attitudes about his current tenure. In a poll conducted by the Harvard Public Opinion Project among 18through 29-year-old Americans, an overwhelming 83% of young Republicans said they approve of Trump. Despite this apparent certainty, only one in three conservative respondents reported that Trump has made their lives better. Instead, 40% of young conservatives even said Trump’s presidency has had no impact on their lives. This finding presents a large gap in reasoning that may be reconciled by considering the dual position that young people occupy in society — at once still very influenced by their parents but also developing an increasingly independent consciousness. On one hand, as Boise State University political science professor Jeffrey Lyons discovered in a 2017 study, a young person’s political position at the age of 18 is strongly influenced by their parents’ beliefs. On a seven-point scale, ranging from strongly Democrat to strongly Republican, a child whose father was strongly Republican was an average of 2.5 points more conservative than a child whose father was strongly Democratic. Lyons elaborated that this was the effect of environmental conditioning on both sides of the ideological spectrum, saying, “Kids are these empty cups you can pour beliefs into, and they’re more
6 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2020
likely to stick.” Parents’ beliefs, then, may be a strong predictor of the attitudes that young people profess towards the president. While young Republicans are likely to avow the political views of their parents through approval ratings, responses to deeper questions suggest that their internal feelings are more conflicted than that. This pattern may be the result of a shift within the ideology of the conservative youth: A 2016 study conducted by Gary C. Jacobson in the midst of the prior election cycle found that Republicans were extremely splintered by generation, with youth party affiliates identifying as much less conservative than their elders. Similarly, Wired contributor Issie Lapowsky found that young conservatives view both the president and his ideology as “relics of the past,” representing older Republicans more so than the youth. This trend would explain young Republicans’ professed support for the presidential incumbent, despite harboring more conflicting personal feelings regarding Trump’s direct impact on their lives. This generational divide also sheds light on a major dissonance between the sentiments of Republican youth across the country and the actions of Republicans in Congress, who have largely fallen into rank with party leadership. A FiveThirtyEight Congressional tracker that compares how often members of Congress vote with or against the president indicates that all but seven Republican senators — out of a total of 63 — have voted in line with Trump’s position more frequently than predicted based on his 2016 margin within their home districts or states. Taken together, this voting tracker and the HPOP data suggest that the Republicanism espoused within the highest legislative chambers — one that frequently follows executive direction — is not representative of the opinions of Republican youth. Conflicted youth attitudes towards the current presidency, and the larger generational difference within which it is seated, can be ascribed to the way Trump has handled a number of key issues. For instance, take Trump’s antagonistic record towards climate — in three years, the Trump administration has reversed 58 environmental regulations, with 37 more rollbacks in the pro-
THE POLITICS OF PROTEST
cess. Given interest in climate change among younger generations who will invariably have to deal with the detrimental effects of current environmental practices, it comes as no surprise that most young people do not take a favorable view to Trump’s presidency. A study from the Pew Research Center even found that only three in ten members of Generation Z (those born between 1997 and 2005) approve of Trump’s job performance. Another contributing factor to young Republicans’ hesitation is the changing social landscape of America. There appears to be a growing racial consciousness among youth on both sides of the aisle that is increasingly distancing itself from Donald Trump’s platform and demeanor. According to Pew, Generation Z Republicans are more likely than any other Republican age cohort to say that blacks are not being treated fairly, with 43% agreeing compared to the 20% of Republican Boomers, the generation that dominates Congress today. Climate change and social issues are just two of the issues that have fueled the disconnect between the youth and the current administration. This uncertainty and ambivalence among Trump’s own youth voter base will translate into real political consequences this fall. While 83% of young Republicans reported approving of Trump earlier, only 53% are sure that they will vote for him in the upcoming election cycle. Among those who identify more broadly as conservatives, rather than just Republican, only 41% are sure they will vote for Trump. This result leaves Trump’s own base divided in half over whether they will vote for him, further highlighting confusion among young conservatives. In addition to its conflicting impact on Republican youth, the Trump administration has alienated young centrists. Roughly 40% percent of young moderates and those who identify as independents say that they have a worse view of the Republican party because of Trump, while only 7-11% of the same demographic report having a better view. Young people who identify as independents also have a worse view of Trump on the issues, considering that 77% of this demographic disapprove of his handling of climate change, 70% disapprove of his handling of
health care, 57% disapprove of his handling of the economy, and 63% disapprove of his handling of coronavirus. These views encapsulate the genuine alienation among swing voters who might otherwise be drawn to the Republican party during the 2020 elections. One in four moderates reported that they would be more likely to identify with the Republican party if Trump were not associated with it. And even moderates leaning right on the political spectrum are wary of Trump — 75% of them are uncertain whether they’ll vote for him in the general election. This doubt leaves a large portion of the moderate voting base open for either candidate or an independent. This fact is especially significant when taking into account that among young likely voters, there are as many moderates as liberals. Liberals in particular may be especially vocal about the upcoming election, with 48% of liberals reporting that they are more politically active because of Trump, compared to 24% of moderates and 27% of conservatives. Together, moderates and liberals make up 77% of all young likely voters, most of whom feel alienated in some way by the current president. Trump has lost out on a major portion of the youth vote, leaving these ballots up for grabs by Biden or an independent candidate, if they can figure out how to tap into this electoral cache. While Trump’s approval ratings among young Republicans initially appear high, a closer look at the data shows that views among the youth towards the current presidency are far from monolithic. Instead, there is far more ambivalence and alienation among young people, both within the Republican party and among independents and Democrats. The race for the youth vote, then, will largely be determined by whether Trump can convince disillusioned young Americans that he can represent their generational perspective or whether Biden can successfully channel their disillusionment and confusion with the previous three years.
SUMMER 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 7
AMERICA’S YOUTH SPEAK
Struggle and Unity Abigail Romero and Jing-Jing Shen
O
nce bustling public spaces, now visited only by the occasional mask-wielding passerby. Funerals with no attendees. Blue tents dotting long-winded streets. These images bore into the minds of so many Americans amidst the coronavirus pandemic. Though the pandemic is not the genesis of our society’s problems, it has heightened the fears many young Americans already feel on a daily basis. An inadequate health care system, debt, and housing costs, among many other concerns, persist in our already fragile state. Hospital workers who fear contracting the virus confront shortages of personal protective equipment and a mental health crisis. An overall uncertainty surrounding the end of the pandemic remains, highlighting the global community’s lack of preparedness for major disasters. Financial insecurity from missing stimulus checks alongside asymmetrical access to COVID-19 tests have unveiled the disproportionate impacts of emergencies on poorer communities. As the death toll rises, the struggles that preceded the coronavirus have also grown, raising the question: Will the months after quarantine be any less anxiety-ridden? Half (50.4%) of Americans ages 18 to 29 identify themselves as struggling, according to the most recent youth poll from the Harvard Public Opinion Project. Growing up in the wake of 9/11, experiencing continued fall-out from the Great Recession, and now confronting a global pandemic have contributed to young people’s sense of struggle and made them apprehensive about
8 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2020
the present and future. Beyond the coronavirus, each day young people endure struggles with individually unique effects. Yet across educational disparities, party divides, and racial differences, youth are facing these difficulties together. While the suffering is uneven and each challenge distinct, the struggle is collective — young people are not persisting through these times alone.
STRUGGLES ON MANY FRONTS Despite the multitude of issues in the world, from climate change to income inequality to gender inequity, many youths have rallied behind a few priorities, including debt, housing, and health care. This selectivity in and solidarity behind issues can then concentrate focus on organizing. As an example, most young people agree the government should take action to address debt. With U.S. personal debt growing 19% since 2009 and reaching its highest-ever levels last year, it comes as no surprise that debt is an issue that many people will face. Over half of young Americans find themselves in debt. Further, one in five youth say they have debt that significantly affects life decisions. When turning to policy, young Americans are split on how the government should manage student loan debt, with 33.1% of HPOP respondents saying the government should cancel student loan debt for everyone, 16.7% saying it should only do so for those in need, and 34.9% saying
AMERICA’S YOUTH
it should help with repayment instead. Still, only 13.4% wanted no change in loan policy. In essence, an overwhelming majority of youth are unified in seeking further governmental action on debt. Many of the nation’s young people are also worried about their health and ability to obtain care. The HPOP poll found that 44.8% of survey-takers agreed with the statement “I am concerned about accessing health care if and when I need it,” and an equal percentage felt the same about mental health care. With the prevalence of mental health issues among youth reaching an all-time high, and millennials accounting for 20% of patients hospitalized with the coronavirus, healthcare access is becoming even more salient. Most respondents (62.9%) attested to a belief that basic health insurance is a right for all people and the government should provide it for those unable to afford it. Much like with debt, most youth agree that the government must change its policies to fundamentally attend to these daily challenges. Concerns about accessibility extend into housing, especially given the recent appreciation in housing costs. More than threefifths of young Americans express concern about housing costs. This worry is not confined by region, as 68.2% of young urban residents and 64.4% of young suburban residents express feeling the impact of rising housing prices. Likewise, a similar percentage (59.1%) of small-town and rural residents echo this point. From city to country, affordable housing has become harder to obtain for residents of all different communities. Even without readily apparent solutions to rising housing costs, recognizing that a majority are suffering lays the foundation for continued action in this realm. More than half of respondents (59.9%) felt that “Basic necessities, such as food and shelter, are a right that the government should provide to those unable to afford them,” suggesting that young people have compassion for others who are struggling. This concern offers promise for political solidarity and empathy. Young people have vocalized concerns surrounding debt, health care, and housing, either through majority opinion on the impact of these difficulties or insight into preferred policies. The prioritization of such issues can streamline a path towards change in the political sphere.
as compared to federal ones, it may be beneficial to pursue solutions through institutions at a regionalized scale. Institutions can reduce policy lags to help spark the change for which the populace calls, but first, these institutions need to build trust with an already burdened generation. In the meantime, many young people are already enacting this regionalized approach themselves on a small scale. More than three in four (77.3%) respondents agreed with the statement “Community service is an honorable thing to do,” up from 70% in spring 2019, underscoring how young people increasingly value helping others. In fact, according to a 2019 Deloitte survey, people are more likely to aspire to help their communities than to dream of starting businesses or families. Around the world, they are taking matters into their own hands when authority figures fail. Although the coronavirus pandemic is a devastating global catastrophe, it highlights these community-oriented tendencies. Despite mandated physical separation through social distancing and quarantines, many communities have become more socially connected. And young people are on the frontlines of providing coronavirus-related aid — teenagers are delivering groceries for senior citizens, college students are offering free K-12 tutoring, and medical students are joining understaffed health care teams. Especially with the coronavirus pandemic exacerbating the problems they grapple with, young Americans seek impactful remedies. The struggles encountered by young people have fostered their unification behind policies on everything from debt to health care. These struggles are real, and the youth are unified in desiring substantive action, in demanding real change.
INSTITUTIONAL VS. COMMUNITY CHANGE Governmental institutions may have the capacity to carry out transformative policies in these areas, but young people are skeptical of them. Two-thirds of young Democrats (66.2%) and close to half of young Republicans (46.4%) feel that “the government does not represent the America I love,” showcasing a lack of trust in institutions that can compound the struggles they already feel. To whom can young people look to address their needs? After all, young people harbor distrust for national leaders. Under one-third of respondents said they trust the federal government (32.5%), fewer trust the President (31.4%), and even fewer trust Congress (28.8%) all or most of the time. However, local institutions retain more trust. The HPOP poll found that 42.5% of respondents said they trusted their state government, and 43.2% trusted their local government. These figures may point to greater confidence in authority located closer to home. Given young people’s proclivity for trusting regional institutions
SUMMER 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 9
AMERICA’S YOUTH SPEAK
Hope in a Time of Fear Rebecca Araten and Jing-Jing Shen
R
ight now, the lives of young people are fraught: worries surrounding healthcare, debt, and the cost of housing weigh heavily on young consciences. A majority of America’s youth — 50.4% — describe themselves as suffering in some way or another. They worry about what the political realm has in store for them, expressing dissatisfaction with policies, politicians, and even politics overall. Yet young people still harbor hope. The latest poll of Americans ages 18 to 29 conducted by the Harvard Public Opinion Project found that over half (57.9%) of respondents said they felt fearful about the future. The sources of these fears are plentiful. The most commonly cited concern was the novel coronavirus (19.4% of responses), followed by issues related to health care (14.8%), the environment (7.9%), and the economy (6.4%). Levels of concern over the economy and the environment remain close to the corresponding figures from the Fall 2019 HPOP survey while healthcare worries have risen twofold. Close to a majority of youth (43.4%) voiced concerns about accessing health care, and a similar number (44.8%) expressed
10 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW SUMMER 2020
worries about accessing mental health care. Around two-thirds of survey responses came in right as the COVID-19 pandemic began to cause massive national closures, and four in 10 (43.0%) respondents said they believe someone they know will die from the disease. Beyond health worries, a majority (57.2%) of youth have debt, an even greater number (63.4%) are concerned about the cost of housing, and a staggering 64.8% of college students believe it will be difficult to find a job upon graduation. As overwhelming as these figures may be to process in close succession, they are even more overwhelming to live through on a daily basis. Troubles abound and only seem to be growing. Among the problems that young people face is a disappointment in how the political realm, which theoretically should offer solutions, functions. Young people feel a disconnect with their political leaders, with only 10.3% of survey respondents feeling that elected officials share their priorities. A majority of young people (55.8%) agreed that politics has become too partisan. These findings line up with growing party divides and dissatisfaction with polarization. A March 2020 Pew Research
AMERICA’S YOUTH SPEAK
Center study found that a striking 91% of survey respondents believed that conflicts between Democrats and Republicans are either strong or very strong, up from 86% in 2017. The growing hostility across political differences is just another problem that young people face. Nonetheless, it is not one that prevents young people from seeking the political changes they want to see. Despite the laundry list of anxieties, hope springs eternal. While young Americans worry about both the present and the future, many believe that change is not only necessary but possible. This hope manifests in numerous ways. For some respondents, it displayed itself as a relativization of their own struggles and a conviction that, on the whole, America is a better place to live than most other countries. Of all respondents, 60.7% preferred to live in the United States rather than anywhere else. And over half of young Americans agree with the statement “I can succeed in America by working hard.” Despite minor variations among different races (65.6% for White respondents, 59.2% for Black respondents, and 64.8% for Hispanic respondents), a majority of youth retain faith in this American Dream. The poll results also imply that politics may serve as a source of hope since most respondents believe political processes can have a real impact. Three in five (60.6%) young people think the outcome of the 2020 presidential election will make a difference in their lives, and 63.7% of survey respondents disagreed with the statement “It doesn’t really matter to me who the President is.” Daily worries that young people must wrestle with are real, but there is potential personal relevance from politics and policy. The struggle is ongoing, but a belief in the potential efficacy of politics to address the challenges confronted by youth persists. Additionally, politically engaged youth have more hope about the future. Among self-identified politically engaged respondents, the percentage of people who said they were more hopeful than fearful about the future rose to 45.6%, versus 40.5% for all respondents. Young people who are more hopeful are not only slightly more politically engaged (35.4%) but also say they are more likely to vote in the 2020 presidential election (70.4%) compared to those who are not hopeful (31.5% and 67.9%, respectively). This correlation between political participation and hope suggests that those who imagine a bright future are actively striving to make that vision a reality. In one example, although the environment is a huge source of anxiety for young people, young folks have harnessed their fears to fight for a better environmental future. This model of fear catalyzing activism is one that could extend to other troubling issues. The environment has not been a source of positivity for young people, a 2019 Washington Post survey showed, with 69% of surveyed teens saying that they do not feel optimistic about climate change. HPOP survey data corroborated this in finding that young people are still plagued with environmental concerns, with 7.9% of respondents overall, and 10.2% of fearful individuals, listing the environment as a top source of alarm. Consequently, teenagers have been responding to their anxieties with activism and action. One in four of the Washington Post’s surveyed teens had participated in a walkout, demonstrating how ready younger Americans are to take active steps toward change. Young people are not only driven to work towards change that benefits them specifically; they also have compassion for others. The HPOP poll found that 87.6% of respondents supported some form of government involvement in debt cancellation,
as opposed to inaction, as a remedy for the rising levels of debt confronted by many young people (57.2% of those surveyed). The poll results demonstrated this widespread support for public policy to address the crisis, although well over a majority (67.5%) of young people rated their own personal financial situations as “good.” Among financially stable individuals, 66.3% favored replacing current political institutions, and 71.6% supported institutional reform. While individuals might not be facing financial difficulties themselves, they still would opt for change, suggesting that people may be interested in systemic improvements beyond improvements to their own personal wellbeing. Veneration of selflessness was a common thread throughout responses, with 77.3% of surveyed youth agreeing that community service is honorable. This altruism may push young people to bring about change, with impacts that extend beyond themselves. Young Americans are worried about the future. Yet their belief in the possibility of change, potentially as a result of the upcoming election and/or future governmental action, prevails. On the heels of hope follows engagement. Youth who are more hopeful are more likely to follow the news closely and respond that they will likely turn out for the upcoming general election. Even as many issues keep young Americans up at night, there remains hope that they will awake to a better tomorrow.
SUMMER 2020 HARVARD POLITICAL REVIEW 11