What are Youth Politics?

With the recent election of Zohran Mandami, it appears that American politics has been struck by a thunderous wave of youth. Some have been quick to reiterate a classic claim: If one wants a more progressive future, new bursts of youth and change are needed everywhere. For our own sake as young people, let's weigh this claim in the context of history. 

The 1960s were the time of youth populism. ’64 was the year Bob Dylan released his immortal protest anthem, “The Times They Are a-Changin.” He didn’t mince his words: “Come mothers and fathers throughout the land / and don’t criticize what you can’t understand … / for the times, they are a-changing.”

And they were — throughout the country, activists rose to headlines, heralding a promised world of social equality and peace. In lockstep with Dylan was student protester Tom Hayden, who captured the zeitgeist of change in his dramatic Manifesto, the Port Huron Statement: “We are the people of this generation … looking uncomfortably at the world we inherit… [and] our work is guided by the sense that we may be the last generation in this experiment with living.” For Hayden and his peers, only the student activist could understand the urgency of nuclear war or the “permeating and victimizing fact of human degradation.” The youth of America, therefore, needed to mobilize itself; action could not wait. 

However, we shouldn’t misread the ’60s. It’s easy to assume that only the political entrepreneurs of the New Left were active during this time or that liberalism was the one ideology that could spellbind young activists. But that’s not true. The Right was alive and banding together under the wide net of “movement conservatism.” Into the Republican fold came libertarians, traditionalists, and anti-communists. Their ranks were broadly drawn, inclusive of elite columnists like William Buckley Jr. and regular white Americans on the grassroots. 

These young conservatives challenged the moderate Northeastern establishment that had dominated the party. For years, the party’s liberal wing checked conservative hardliners like Robert Taft and rallied behind moderates like Thomas Dewey and former President Dwight Eisenhower. But in 1968, in a classic “time for choosing,” the hard right won out: Stalwart conservative Barry Goldwater was nominated for the Presidency. 

Then it’s true, the times were “a-changing,” but change does not always mean a shift to the left. When a frustrated and politicized youth demands change, there is no rule that boxes them into the planks of one political platform. Many expected Generation Z to vote solidly Democratic, but it shifted towards the right in 2024. Yet this doesn’t mean young people today are card-carrying conservatives. Consider the phenomenon of those who voted for both Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders and President Donald Trump, or the testimony of Zohran Mamdani supporters who say they liked Trump. 

Youth populism is an ideology in of itself — at the heart of this ideology is the promise of hope and an end to iniquity. Perhaps the actual result is always a demagogic disaster, or perhaps it can redeem liberal democracy from its worst excesses. In any case, the movement behind the ideology provides a sense of purpose and dignity to society’s most disaffected youths. This feeling, legitimate or not, can come from both the left and the right, and even from something more syncretic and unique.

There are similar parallels in Futurism, an artistic movement from early 20th-century Italy. The themes of Futurism were change, dynamism, modernity, and an embrace of industrialization. Core to the movement was a celebration of youth and vitality, though this led its leaders to very different paths. Some maintained political neutrality, but an infamous many were attracted to the dynamic nationalism of Benito Mussolini, the leader of Italian fascism. Thus, youthhood, even as a cultural symbol, is contested and ideologically syncretic. 

This does not mean that all calls for change are indistinguishable or that every populist ideology resonates equally. Moreover, not all populists love each other; after all, much still separates Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani from Vice President JD Vance and Senator Josh Hawley. What the universality of populism does show, however, is that mobilized youth politics is a multivocal force.

We can see that all around the world today. In 2020, a tidal wave of Gen Z protests rocked autocratic governments in South Asia, challenging the corrupt status quo through movements reminiscent of the Arab Spring. In France, a 30-year old has taken charge of the leading far-right party, and he appears poised to become president. The leader of Chile is the youngest president in the country, and he ran on a populist left-wing message. Many more examples abound.

Most Amherst students are also youths entering the political world. Here, there is often a tendency to demand younger leadership and provocative change. I agree with those demands, but I caution against overgeneralizations of what “youth” and “change” imply. The times are a-changing, though in ways we cannot expect.