david broder

I've not been shy about critiquing those who work in journalism within the Beltway for getting lost in their bubble. Many times these journalists will construct realities or political narratives that don't exist or simply aren't true in the rest of the country.

We should first distinguish between the prognosticators who make the stuff up, and the reporters who objectively report the bullshit.

We have an example of the former today, as David Broder argues that Sarah Palin should be taken seriously. Calling Palin "a public figure at the top of her game -- a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself," Broder paints Palin as a populist hero, someone capable of leading the romanticized teabaggers to a climactic victory over the oppressive government and Glenn Beck-haters everywhere.

So epic!

Broder might want to revisit populism's root word and his newspaper's polling operation, though. Unfortunately for Palin and Broder, people aren't buying it. Not even the GOP. So says the Washington Post.

Although Palin is a tea party favorite, her potential as a presidential hopeful takes a severe hit in the survey. Fifty-five percent of Americans have unfavorable views of her, while the percentage holding favorable views has dipped to 37, a new low in Post-ABC polling.

There is a growing sense that the former Alaska governor is not qualified to serve as president, with more than seven in 10 Americans now saying she is unqualified, up from 60 percent in a November survey. Even among Republicans, a majority now say Palin lacks the qualifications necessary for the White House.

Palin has lost ground among conservative Republicans, who would be crucial to her hopes if she seeks the party's presidential nomination in 2012. Forty-five percent of conservatives now consider her as qualified for the presidency, down sharply from 66 percent who said so last fall.

Among all Republicans polled, 37 percent now hold a "strongly favorable" opinion of Palin, about half the level recorded when she burst onto the national stage in 2008 as Sen. John McCain's running mate.

Keep in mind this is all after Palin's spike in visibility.

I'm not sure how this developed in Broder's brain, but the evidence is clear -- people (even conservatives) aren't buying into Palin's message. It's unfortunate that Broder continues to be one of the leading voices in Washington punditry.

In the Sunday Washington Post, David Broder - the Dean of political journalism and purveyor of Beltway conventional wisdom - put pen to paper and produced this utterly useless column about young voters: Breaking Through to Voters. I wish that my tongue-in-cheek title for this post were a joke, but sadly, this seems to be the conclusion reached by Broder, who is widely regarded as on of the most influential and knowledgeable pundits in the Beltway.

Within the space of 700 words, Broder manages to repeat the false meme that young voters are apathetic, contradictorily claim that young voters face barriers to participation (without really describing what those are or how to remove them), and claim that young voters "distrust government" without exploring what that distrust entails or how far it actually goes. The only redeeming factor of the column is Broder's (correct) conclusion: "Young Voters respond when treated seriously." It's ironic, because his own column fails to give young voters the credit and respect they deserve.

Addressing Broder's points one by one:

• Youth are not apathetic. Youth turnout is up in the past three elections. In Iowa in 2004, youth participation in the primaries quadrupled (pdf). Since 2003, literally dozens of nonprofit organizations have been started by young people for the sole purpose of engaging their peers in political action. These are trends, not blips and you will see them again soon.
• Young voters face barriers to participation. This is true, but beyond the few anecdotes provided, I would recommend you look into reports of voter suppression in college communities, the lack of voting booths on campuses, and harsh identification rules that disadvantage young voters. The Brennan Center has an excellent primer on the subject. I would also suggest that Broder look at potential solutions like Same Day Registration and Voting By Mail. Demos, a public policy groups is a wealth of information on potential solutions to these barriers and this would be an excellent issue for Broder to throw his weight behind.
• Young voters distrust government. Also true, in so far as government officials lie to us, and engage in corrupt practices or work to obfuscate the truth about their policies. That's what makes programs like The Daily Show and Colbert Report so popular. However we are also believers in the power of government to do good. This is one of the motivating factors behind our increasing rates of participation.

If David Broder wishes to write about young voters, I'm all for it. As the Dean of political journalism, he has more power than anyone to alter conventional wisdom with a few taps to his keyboard. And to be sure, conventional wisdom on the role of young voters in our political system still needs changing, as many campaign hacks and beltway pundits are still running around repeating the same tired ideas that Broder uses to open his Sunday column.

When the [dot]org Boom in progressive youth organizing occurred in '03 and '04, barely any pundits from inside the beltway reported on it. When youth turnout spiked hard in 2004, the pundits got the story wrong and said that "the youth vote never materialized for Kerry." Interestingly, that year saw more young voters at the polls (in sheer numbers) than voters over 65 - those old reliables, "seniors" (source: a power point presentation by the Harvard Institute of Politics). In 2006, young voters pushed a number of Democratic candidates over the edge (Tester, Webb, Courtney), and not only did our turnout rise, but it broke almost 2-1 in favor of Democrats, but still, many didn't believe.

Young voters are participating. In the absence of support from the parties or pundits, we started to reach out to each other more than 4 years ago. The only question is, are you going to continue to sit on the story, or will you, on behalf of the political press who got the story so wrong for son long, take the opportunity to give us the respect we deserve?