Over one month after the horrific school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the debate about the proper policy response is still raging on. If that seems unusual, that’s because it is—the staying power of even the deadliest shootings in the public consciousness tends to wane after an alarmingly short period of time. The life-cycle of the Parkland shooting can be attributed to the political activism of a group of surviving Stoneman Douglas students, who have made their rounds on network television shows and remained active on social media to call for new regulations on firearms. In doing so, the Parkland students have written the blueprint for a youth movement in American politics that is much needed, given that Americans of all ages are represented by an increasingly elderly political class with drastically different worldviews.
Although the post-Parkland discourse has been unique in this way, it isn’t yet clear if the policy results will be. The two heavily polarized sides of the gun control debate have not made significant concessions in any way. What should be welcomed by all, though, is a surge in political interest and action by those millennials and older members of Generation Z who have recently reached voting age or are bound to in the coming years. Gun control is an ambitious political project and, regardless of what measures may or may not pass, the work of student activists has given all young Americans an opportunity to demand better representation. In particular, there is a host of policy issues where a widening age gap between the representatives and the represented has left young Americans economically and socially vulnerable. These policy issues present an opportunity for activists to rally behind, even long after the fray surrounding gun control has ended.
Diving into the data, the age gap in American politics looks more like an age gulf. The 115th Congress elected in 2016 is among the oldest ever on average, the culmination of a decades-long trend. The average representative is now 20 years older than their constituency. Although Democrats target college students and young people as a key voting bloc, the average age for Democratic House leadership is 72, while chairman and ranking members average 68. Both of these figures are significantly higher than the ages of their Republican counterparts. There are four Democratic representatives, including John Conyers (87), who was re-elected in 2016 but resigned in 2017, who are twice the age of their median constituency. Moreover, two of the most sought-after Democratic candidates to run in 2020 against President Trump (71 years old) are Joe Biden (75) and Bernie Sanders (76).
This presents a dire situation, especially when put into context with the relative disinterest in politics and voting of young people. Historically, the block of 18- to 29-year-olds is the least likely to vote and has not turned out above 50 percent in any election since the 1980s. It could be argued that low turnout is either a cause or a result of the aging political class, but the gap isn’t likely to go away regardless if turnout trends continue.
The possibility for a new groundswell of young Americans becoming active political voices in the wake of Parkland begs an important question: Which policy issues can this group turn its focus to as being representative of the problem of age politics in the United States today?
A consequential one is Social Security, which without serious reform will fail to keep its promise of retirement income for young Americans currently paying into the system. Social Security’s issues are less partisan than they are demographic—the payer-to-beneficiary ratio was 5.1 in 1960 and even higher when the program was initiated. The Social Security Administration’s own website admits that once the ratio hits 2.1 in 2040, the fund will be exhausted entirely. Despite this bleak outlook, 25 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds are still counting on the program to provide substantial retirement income. Young Americans of different political leanings may differ on a specific policy prescription—raising taxes to prolong the shortfall, privatizing the program, or allowing people to opt-out. But they can agree that inaction is unacceptable and will leave everyone worse off.
While Social Security could be the most consequential policy area affected by the age mismatch, it is only the tip of the iceberg. Zoning laws and their inflationary effect on housing prices is another case of misaligned incentives between the old and the young. By imposing onerous requirements for new housing developments, these laws have effectively fixed the supply of housing in major cities where a majority of well-paying, highly skilled jobs exist. The situation is particularly troubling because of the direct financial benefit reaped by older homeowners, who see a measurable increase in their net worth due to the distorted conditions of the housing market. Naturally, these unfair laws are pushed by older homeowners and passed by old politicians, making home ownership increasingly infeasible for young Americans with every passing year.
The list goes on and on. Many of our representatives went to college in the 60s and 70s, when you could earn one year’s worth of tuition by working a full 14-week summer break. Starting around 2008, it required a full year of work, and it’s only getting worse. Should we hold our breath for a policy response to climate change given that lawmakers will never be around to feel its effects? And how can we expect them to ensure the security of the digital infrastructure supporting our elections if the technology came so far after their time?
None of these issues feel as pressing as the need for a response after a mass shooting at the moment. But that doesn’t make them inconsequential, and in the long run, the effects of inadequate policy responses to these problems will have massively widespread effects. In confronting the daunting economic and social hurdles facing young Americans in their future, the current aging Congress cannot be expected to deliver effective action. The Parkland tragedy has provided a clear blueprint for an active political youth in the years to come—student activists making the push for gun control have already done what others could not by prolonging the discussion well past the short 21st-century attention span. As millennials continue to bear the cost of a political class filled with Baby Boomers, increased political involvement of any kind undertaken by young Americans should be a real source of optimism.