WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - Fact of Life: A Decrease in Voting? - with Special Guest

Episode Date: February 28, 2024

Join Mattingly Watson and guest host Hinson Peed as they discuss the concerning decrease in young adults voting heading into the 2024 election.

Hey, Chloe, how's the 2024 presidential election going? Um, Chloe isn't here right now, Maddie Grace. Politics, culture, faith, and so much more. This is Fact of Life with Chloe Noler and Maddingley Watson on Radio Free Hillsdale, 101.7 FM. Welcome back to Fact of Life. As I'm sure you can tell, we are missing a very important half of our podcast today. Chloe is currently competing at regionals with her mock trial team, which is awesome. And all of our thoughts and prayers are with her while they're competing there. But very luckily, we have an amazing guest host here today, filling in for Chloe while she's away.

Hinson, thank you so much for joining me. Thank you for having me. I'm excited to be here. So today, we are going to dig deep into, as I'm sure you can tell, from our little intro, the presidential election coming up, and specifically how people our age are handling it. It's a little bit different from the years past, and we have some interesting statistics that we want to get into.

So we are very excited. Yeah, Axios has just released a poll this past December that says that just 49% of 18 to 29-year-olds, people our age are planning to vote, especially in an election as big as the presidential election in such a time where we have so much political discourse, so many big issues happening. That's a really staggering number, a really concerning number. No, absolutely. And like Henson was saying, I mean, it's crazy because this is a presidential election.

You would think that the turnout would be huge. and even looking back on the, they did a similar study in the fall of 2019, and there were 57% of 18 to 29 year olds that said they were definitely going to vote. And so that dropped like 8%, which is really crazy. And so we're kind of looking at some of the reasons why with that. And I think looking in the same statistics, Axios also asks some of. questions about five of the really big kind of topics and, like, policies going on right now. So the Israel, Hamas War, climate change, gun violence, Ukraine, and, like, crime and public safety. And something really interesting with that is that in every single one of those categories,

some more than others, but in every single one, the majority of the 2,000 people they surveyed, said that they did not trust either Biden or Trump to do to accomplish those things or handle them well. And now, obviously, neither Biden or Trump have officially received the nomination from their parties yet. So we can't for sure say that they will be the ones that we'll be voting on in November. Looking at the polls, both of them are leading. Yeah, and I think part of the reason we see such a decline in young people going out to vote is just that. Even though we're in the midst of a primary season, we started this election, this primary season in the Republican Party with 10, 12 candidates and we're now still a little six months, eight months away from the election. We're down to two.

And I think that's part of the reason we see so many young adults deciding not to vote is because they feel like the votes already been cast for them. They're only given two options, neither of which they like. they're not given a chance to actually say, here's someone who has this policy that I really like. Here's someone who I can trust. They're just given two options. And young people aren't inclined to choose between two things. A lot of what they're seeing, whether it be from the news, but especially I think a lot of people our age get a lot of what they're receiving from like social media. There's a lot of negativity.

And even especially I think because a lot of these. I think at least, I know I've seen a few democratic politicians getting into social media usage, but I think, like, really the first one who really got into it was Vivekara Swami, who's since dropped out. But he, especially towards the, like the second half of this campaign really got into social media and things like that. But I think not only from the candidates themselves, but the different media sources support, like not supporting them, but, you know, putting out what they're saying. It there's such a highlight on the negative. Right, right. And I think we're really lacking is a discussion on what should happen. These are really big issues.

The Israel-Hamas war, the Ukraine war. None of this is stuff we want to continue. But we're not talking about how to stop it. We're talking about what we shouldn't do. We shouldn't send money. Money is the big thing we're talking about with both of these wars. And at the end of the day, money isn't what stops the wars. We're not talking about how to end this.

We're talking about little aspects of this. Well, what's interesting is I like how you pointed out, oh, we're not talking about how to end this because Hinson and I and a few other friends, we were a part of this program a few months ago that we went into with themes be super informative. And while we were there, the whole weekend was, you know, talking about the Israel-Hamas war. and it was, you know, we got a lot of information, some we agreed with, some we didn't, which is always like the best way to get information, you know, get all sides of it. But then at the end of it, the people in charge told us, they said, you know, we're really, like, we're not looking to end this war. We're not looking to end.

And at the end, the solution they had for us was just to support one side of it and strongly um strongly criticize and go against the other side of it and it didn't matter of okay what result they didn't they weren't looking for results they admitted to us they didn't want results

but they were like this is your moral obligation right and especially nowadays we've seen all of this activism this protest young people want to do something there is this yearning I think maybe a century ago a few decades ago, young people weren't as active in doing something.

They might have had a voice, but they weren't actively wanting to participate in politics. And now more than ever, young people want to participate in politics. But they can't really participate in these high-level discussions about money and alliances and weaponry and all of this, this strategy. There's nothing they can really do about it because the media isn't presenting factual, straight facts to us for us to critically think and come up with our own opinions and our own solutions

we're just being presented opinions and editorials so there's really this inability for young people to really do anything substantial to contribute and I think that's why they don't trust either of these candidates is because they haven't really seen from them

what they're actually planning to do it's all editorial and opinion, this person is wrong, this person is right, here's the moral high ground. But what are you actually going to do on some of these really big issues? Exactly. And I like how you mentioned, like, the protesting and stuff. Henson and I were actually in a conversation earlier about how there's this phrase like, make your voice heard, that just like floats around a lot.

You know, there's different alterations of how it's said, but, you know, the concept of make your voice heard. And when you say that, especially to people of R.A., I think just people in general now, the first thought is activism, protesting, which isn't a bad thing. You know, protesting isn't necessarily bad, not like fundamentally. But when people want to, they think that all they can do is protest. And it's just so interesting to me, looking at the almost 250 years of being a country, at the very beginning of it, going all the way back to like the constitutional convention, the continental

Congress, like all of those organ, like people at the beginning, a lot of them, not all, but a lot of the men that were involved with that were around the ages of 18 to 29. Like, that was a pretty solid range. Not all of them, but a good amount of them. And if you would have said, like, make your voice heard to them, their immediate reaction would have been, like, okay, like, let's go talk policy. Like, let's talk what we can do. What can we do to make this the best constitutional republic and protect our natural?

rights. Like, they would have, like, gotten knee-deep into the policy of it and done what they could. But nowadays, you can make your voice heard. And it's, oh, go out and protest, which is great. People know how many people want to do it. I mean, it gets you on the news when people find out about it. There's obvious, there are benefits to it. But there aren't really, like, there are long-term benefits, usually. Right. It's not voting. If you really, I can guarantee you, I mean, I don't have an actual stat on this. I'm just guessing, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. I can guarantee you. more than 49% of 18 to 29 year olds feel strongly about these issues. So I think it's perfect that you talk about the founding era because when we talked about making

our voice heard, we have the Federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers, which are really exhaustive and long. And they really are a perfect example of what it means to really make your voice heard. And that is to have this political discourse that is so fundamental to who we are as Americans. You know, at the Constitutional Convention, the windows were nailed shut. And I think it's a perfect example. Not that protesting and activism don't have any impact, but it's really depending upon if it's being watched. And in some cases, if political activism is not being watched, it doesn't have as good of an effect as simple political discourse.

Just talking about the issues, talking about what can be done, I think is incredibly important to politics. American politics. Absolutely. And if you all are just now tuning in, this is fact of life on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. I'm Maddingley Watson, and today Hinsonpede is filling in for Chloe as we're talking about the election coming up. But I want to go back to what you said, kind of about the Federalist papers. I like how you pull that in because, I mean, really reading all of them, and I haven't read all of them, but the ones I've read are absolutely phenomenal. They're these great, like, intellectual work. So they obviously put time in. And yes, they would be like, I don't think that stance is right because of these reasons.

But if you compare those to what would you even equate those two nowadays? Like people complaining on Twitter. Like what even is the, but there's so much. Those were policy debates. Those were policy arguments. And now, I mean, these are almost personal attacks half the time. And it's just such a different, a different atmosphere for it. But what I think is interesting, too, is these men, obviously, I think a lot of people nowadays would think, oh, they had less access to education because they're from 250 years ago and they didn't have these great institutions we have now.

But a lot of these men, whether it was from a university or they were self-studied, they, I mean, there was no barring them from knowledge because they were in the 1829 range. It wasn't, oh, they're young, they don't know anything. But instead these men devoted themselves to study. And not just the study of one thing either. This was still back before the progressive movement decided to switch around education. When people studied more of a liberal arts type education where, yeah, you might focus on one thing, but you're understanding every aspect, kind of like how we study here at Hillsdale, you study every aspect of education and how it all were. together and that's how they knew they had those critical thinking skills but they also understood the policy they were talking about whether it involved like it involved different things they all

knew a little bit about them and can understand that i think now partially why people there's all these big issues people just don't know what they're talking about with them they don't they have they have this new progressive education where they may know a whole lot about women's studies but but know nothing about anything else. Like, you don't know anything because all you studied was women in college. Like, that's weird. Right. And I think I love how you make the point that the founders and these people in our early republic knew the policies.

I think nowadays when we talk about some of these big issues, it's all from the perspective of the moral argument. What is right? What is wrong? And we talk about, especially with like you're creating war, should we support them? Should we not support them? especially with Israel Hamas. It's a moral argument. We don't understand the facts.

We don't understand the economic implications of this. We don't understand the culture and the history of either of these places and the geopolitics that play in a really important role in these things. And I think the founders, there definitely was a moral argument, but they also debated the nitty-gritty. you know, Alexander Hamilton didn't propose a moral argument to the National Bank.

It was practical. And I think it's really important that we do talk about the moral issue and the moral argument, but that there's also some practicability in what we're saying because it's not just about right or wrong. It's about how we execute that right and wrong

and what the effects are. Well, I would almost say, too, that the moral argument nowadays is more an emotional argument disguised as a moral argument. Because like you said, there was a big moral argument with the founders. Like they based really everything they did off of morals. But the difference is the moral argument to the founders is how are we going to protect people's ability to exercise their natural rights? Like how are we going to protect their equality of rights?

Because that's the equality to found. understood is how the quality of natural rights but nowadays the moral argument so to speak is more it is so emotional it's there's no basis behind it I mean a true moral argument has basis behind it um has facts and things to present behind it and reasoning and these oftentimes are just what Instagram post is the most emotionally appealing to you I mean or what what like person you find triggering on Instagram said something and you're like, oh, I automatically disagree with that. Like if you see a conservative host say something and you know you don't like that person,

most people are just going to automatically not like what they would say. And honestly, vice versa. If it's a liberal host, if they say something, a lot of people are just not going to like what they say because that person said it. But the thing is, is like, you're not going to disagree with most people 100% of the time. And I think it's so emotional and there's no research. done behind it or anything like that. Yeah, and I think we're talking about this a little bit at the beginning, but I think the

polarization of our political system has a lot to do back to this 49% of young people are planning to vote. And I think just like we're presented with Biden and Trump as the sole two options in the upcoming election, were also only presented with really two sides to the argument, the Democrat side and the Republican side. There's not a plethora. There's not a lot of discourse. There's not a lot of solutions proposed.

It's we have one side, we have the other. And naturally, in this environment, whatever one side says, the other 100% goes against it. There's not a discussion about finding a middle ground, finding all of these different solutions and arguing which one is best. We instantly are polarized and go to each. either end of the argument. And there's nothing, nothing about the in between. I feel like the majority of people aren't polarized on everything. And it's, it's crazy because I believe it was Washington's farewell address, I think, where he warned against a two-party system. Yeah. I mean, I know he said it. I'm 99% sure it was a farewell address. But he warned against a two-party system. And we very quickly fell into one,

which is crazy but also i mean i think the big thing too about this election is people on feel a little like tired of it i think because this is now going into our like i mean we've had trump around for eight years um this is biden for four years and like obviously they've been around for a lot longer, but as far as, like, presidentially. Well, Biden ran before that, but, you know, 2016 was really Trump and Hillary. But they've, they've seen now both of these men in office. They've had a time, and, I mean, both of these men have done things in office. They've both enacted things. And, I don't know. I guess people, there's, for one reason or another, don't like either of them. But then it's like, how do you even get there? Like, I like going back to what Hinson was saying at the

beginning of the episode, I just don't think that a lot of 18, 29-year-olds feel like they have a choice. And like, oh, I'm going to go vote. Is that actually going to do anything? And, you know, I mean, yes, like, when there's 49% of people voting, 51% could literally all 49% of these people could vote for one candidate. But if the other 51% decide to show up and vote and vote for the other candidate, that 51% would win.

Like, that's insane, but we're not following that anymore. But I don't know. I mean, Hinson, what do you think there is a way for us? I mean, I don't think so for this election. But in general, you know, as we're four years comes again or two years, I mean, the only elections out there are not presidential elections, guys, go vote in your local elections. But do you think there's a way to fix this trend? And if so, how do we do it?

Yeah. I think there is an opportunity to get more young people out to vote. I think it comes down to engaging with them in a way that allows them to understand what is going on, understand the solutions, and understand your argument. We don't see a lot of argumentation anymore. We see positions, but we don't see argumentation. And when we do see argumentation, it's often in the form of bitter, very, very aggressive debate.

And I think if we really want to see young people get out to vote, we need to engage with them on an eye-to-eye level. I remember I'm a part of an organization, and we talk about when you're engaging with little kids, young men, it's important to get down on their level. So you often see the father get down on one knee and look his son in the eye. And I think we need to see that in the political arena as well.

We need to see them get down, simplify the argument, simplify. The fact of the matter is there are pros and cons to every decision. There's not one absolutely right decision. It's not a rulebook. There's not a guidebook. There are pros and cons to each. And I think we need to see people get down eye to eye and say, hey, here's the options I'm presented. here's why I think we should do this.

What do you think? And I think we should present young people with the facts and get their input. We shouldn't try to drag them into our side. We shouldn't try to drag them to support our position. We should base our position on what they think. Not solely take their position, but let them make their own decision, let them form their own position, and then take that into account when we make her own.

Mm-hmm. No, I think absolutely. As always, I'm Maddingley Watson. And I am not Chloe Noler. And this is Fact of Life. The Fact of Life podcast can be found at at Fact of Life podcast on Instagram or at Fact of Life pod on Twitter. Reach out to the host at Fact of Life Podcast at gmail.com or send a message on Instagram or

Twitter. Listen to the fact of life anywhere you get your podcasts, especially right here on Radio Prehillsdale, 101.7 FM. Thank you so much for tuning in, and we'll see you next time on the fact of life.