When Britain completes its messy surprise divorce from the European Union, young Britons will be left dealing with the fallout of a decision they did not support.
Brits under 24, regardless of where they lived, overwhelmingly supported Remain. On the day of the referendum, a viral graphic flew around social media showing that those voters who would live with the decision the longest vastly preferred life in the EU.
Young Americans can sympathize. We’ve spent the last year rejecting both Donald Trump’s racism and Hillary Clinton’s corporate-friendly centrism, only to see the two emerge as the last candidates standing. But they continue to ignore the will of young Americans at their peril – we may well decide the result of the upcoming presidential election.
I had my doubts about Bernie Sanders as a candidate, but there was no doubting his appeal among younger voters. He won massive majorities – including among young African Americans, Latinos and women, the same groups where his words fell flat among older generations. Sanders addressed the very real concerns of young voters that our future is grim, and it’s because of decisions made by our predecessors.
We live with the worst consequences of an economic system rigged to support financiers over productive working people. We graduate into pitiful job markets at a time of stagnating economic growth, with piles of debt (in the United States) or little hope of being able to afford a house of our own (in the United Kingdom). We’ve seen tuition increases, the privatization and looting of public institutions that prior generations enjoyed, and global environmental damage on a scale never before seen.
Despite bearing the disproportionate brunt of conditions they had no say in creating, many younger Britons strongly support staying in the EU – but too many didn’t vote in the Brexit referendum. This isn’t surprising. In Edinburgh during the 2014 Scottish referendum, I was struck by the positive vision of the young supporters of the Yes campaign, who believed a better society could be created in an independent Scotland but felt their ideas would never be heard in elections. Perhaps voters like these were not motivated by a Remain campaign whose idea of outreach to young people was sending Ed Miliband to warn of doomsday scenarios.
Meanwhile, in the US, Clinton seems unsure whether to try to inspire young people or to appease the worst instincts of older voters, split between a multicultural, finance-based capitalism on one hand, and xenophobic populism on the other. She has walked back prior support for mass incarceration and spoken boldly about reproductive health and economic freedom. But she has also mocked tuition-free college and provided momentum to rampant Islamophobia by using the loaded term “radical Islam”. Perhaps the best example her attempt to have it both ways is the draft Democratic party platform, a muddled mess that somehow manages to be both more progressive than in 2012 and far too cautious to inspire the generation that energetically supported Sanders.
The great test of whether Clinton understands the generational opportunity will be her selection of a running mate. If she plays it safe with a conservative white male in the hopes of not offending furious older voters, she’ll risk leaving young Americans disgusted by Trump but uninspired by her. On the other hand, selecting a vice presidential nominee with a clear track record of progressive policies, such as an Elizabeth Warren, would send a clear signal that Clinton hears the voice of a generation demanding more from the future than a slightly kinder neoliberalism.
Young people are rejecting dog-eat-dog economics and welcoming diversity, while large chunks of our older and supposedly wiser compatriots do the exact opposite. If our leaders are willing to listen, this generation can build a new consensus and a fairer and more inclusive society. If not, they will replicate the mistakes of the Remain campaign – and that way lies disaster.
