Do Young People Care About the Democratic Party?

Two issues – one national and one local – that Democrats need to address to engage young people

Two weeks ago, I managed to acquire the first person outside of Dallas County to request my political consultation. My Calendly notification dinged: a gentleman whose name I didn’t recognize and who lived somewhere on the East Coast. I looked him up but found nothing concrete. I half-assumed it was a troll. Well, at least this will be a good story to tell, I thought. It did turn out to be a good story, but not for the reasons I anticipated.

A few days later for the meeting, I sat at my desk staring at the empty video conference and wondering if this mystery candidate from the East Coast would appear. To my surprise, he did. For the purposes of anonymity, let’s call him Jonathan.

Jonathan is a 29-year-old former Infantry Marine squad leader who lives in Virginia. He grew up impoverished in rural Georgia, experiencing racism as someone with black and white parents, while also undergoing the trauma of an abusive household. Opting to skip college due to the lack of affordability, he joined the Marines. There, he learned the value of service firsthand, realizing the importance of caring for his fellow citizens. He also honed his leadership skills as a squad leader, and years later, he turned that crucial part of his background into his present career as a leader in the hospitality industry. Now, he wants to help people in his community by serving in local politics.

Admirable stuff, for sure. But then I queried his voting history. He readily admitted that he has an inconsistent voting record, choosing Joe Biden in 2020 but sitting out in 2024. When I asked him why he stayed home this past November, the reason boiled down to a dearth of bold leadership from the Democratic Party, citing a deficiency of a clear vision. And therein lies the problem with the Party with respect to young people. Overall, the relationship between the Party and the youth can be described as supportive but with serious reservations.

Jonathan’s story should inspire anybody who wants to do good by others and lift them up. Our goal, then, is to create opportunities so that more young people like him hold those same ideals. But it doesn’t help that neither Democrats or Republicans have demonstrated how to actually accomplish that. That absence of focus has contributed to the unfortunate lack of youth voter engagement. In the 2024 presidential election, around 75% of voters aged 65 and older voted, constituting 28% of the electorate. On the other hand, approximately 47% of voters aged 18 to 29 cast a ballot for that election, making up 15% of the overall vote.

We Democrats, particularly us politicos and diehards, often commit the error of either dismissing young people because of their spotty voting records, or we become angry at them for their lack of loyalty to the party. Meanwhile, we ourselves regularly complain to each other about how the Democratic Party can’t seem to devise any coherent strategy, and we find satisfaction in calling out its unimaginative leaders. We cannot criticize others for sensing the same things that we know to be true about the Party. Democrats should draw their branding from Jonathan’s, and so many other young people’s, narratives. Regarding young people, the Party should primarily be driven by the recognition that they, as well as everyone else, desire belonging but are stymied by sad societal realities.

Questioning the traditional four-year degree is the national issue

On the national level, the preeminent matter for young people is the economy. However, I do believe that there lies a key distinction between what they interpret as the economy and what older people call the economy. That distinction is the first domino to fall in a long line of issues that includes crushing student debt, a declining number of jobs that offer a living wage, and affordable housing: the actual value of a four-year college degree.

For decades, Democratic and Republican politicians, and society at large, have hammered into the populace the importance of obtaining a bachelor’s degree. That piece of paper, earned by one’s hard work, perseverance, and money, proved to be the master key in unlocking doors once thought inaccessible to previous generations. Now, however, the tide has shifted.

AI is why

Perhaps the biggest reason for that shift has been the recent wave of generative AI. I should note that what we now casually dub as AI is the result of a slow and steady evolution of job displacement caused by the tech sector. Before AI, it was automation, the process of algorithms efficiently handling the seemingly less complex tasks that humans had long undertaken. Automation wreaked havoc on countless jobs over the decades, but also created new ones and the new opportunities that we enjoy today.

AI follows that same spirit but with much more devastating outcomes. It has already produced 10,000 job cuts this year alone, with a predicted workforce loss of 300 million jobs. The main difference between yesteryear’s automation and today’s AI, however, is that automation handles “unskilled tasks,” whereas AI aims directly for work done by those who have chased higher education and have achieved careers perceived as more skilled. Few of those higher-skilled workers, most notably entry-level applicants, can claim safety, with software engineers, human resources specialists, content writers, analysts, and graphic designers bearing much of the brunt. What used to be the American dream, generated in part by an arduous journey of securing a four-year degree, now seems to be slipping away from more and more young people’s hands.

Response to the rise of AI

How has the Democratic Party responded to this? In short, they really haven’t. They should, however, begin having the difficult discussion of whether it is even necessary to pursue a four-year college degree. This will anger many institutions along the way, including, obviously, the state-run universities charging overpriced tuition rates and handing out degrees proving less valuable by the year. But if the Party asserts that it is genuinely “for the people,” it must face this problem head-on. It must clearly outline the history of the tech sector vis-a-vis the rest of the workforce since World War II, acting carefully not to exaggerate claims that tech is inherently evil, while seeking and pushing for alternatives to a pricey four-year degree for those who wish for alternatives.

Setting off that national conversation of the ever-decreasing virtues of a four-year education represents a golden opportunity for Democrats to unquestionably separate themselves from the Republican Party as the one that courageously stands with younger people and their futures. Will they? As with so many other daring positions that progressives plead Democrats to adopt, it’s doubtful, at least for now. We shouldn’t expect anyone on the national level to outright call a four-year college education a scam – as well they shouldn’t because many meaningful and well-paying careers require it – but the Party needs to think and act quickly to address the growing crisis caused by AI.

Urbanism is the local issue

Society cannot reasonably achieve any big goal without first airing it out nationally. At the local level, though, meaningful action occurs. If the national Democratic party is busy trying to remove barriers, the local parties are busy trying to build community. Young people, especially in the age of social media and dating apps, have drifted further away from each other emotionally. One way we can help remedy that is through organizing for local urbanist policies.

Strict zoning laws in cities across the nation have contributed to urban sprawl, in turn promoting that feeling of disconnect among young people. Instead of living in reasonably priced and dense communities in the city, and walking or biking to take advantage of that rich ecosystem’s many amenities and public spaces, young people are finding themselves scrambling to find affordable housing in suburbs that essentially force them to drive their single-occupancy vehicles almost everywhere. The chances of making new friends and having random fun encounters slowly disappear, and the risk of loneliness swells.

Urbanism is not just good policy, but it’s also good politics

Not only should Democrats take on zoning at the local level as a matter of policy, they should do so as a matter of politics. Grassroots urbanist groups routinely attract young people to their meetings and volunteer opportunities. Here in Dallas, organizations like Dallas Urbanists, Dallas Neighbors for Housing, Dallas Bicycle Coalition, and the Dallas Area Transit Alliance have formed an alliance, continually engaging young people and older people alike by plainly describing problems and actively working on solutions, many of which include lobbying local governments. As a result, these groups have injected hope into Dallasites who care about urbanism and improving their communities.

Absent from these sorts of gatherings and lobbying efforts, however, are leaders from the local Democratic Party. That may not be the case for every local party across the country, but I suspect that most don’t bother engaging with urbanist activists. Lack of knowledge about issues regarding urbanism plays a role in their absence, but honestly, most local parties couldn’t be bothered to care. Too many of these leaders wait for instructions from the state and national parties, both of whom don’t directly deal with items like housing and transit, and act almost exclusively on those state and national matters.

But imagine if, say, the Chair or Executive Director of your local party joined your community leaders in making a statement at City Hall to dismantle minimum parking requirements? What would happen if in one of your local party’s many newsletters, they spotlight a local activist or organization campaigning for comprehensive public transportation? What would it mean for people in the community if they heard your local Democratic leader speak at one of their events, or even see them volunteer by knocking on people’s doors to advocate for better bike lanes? These leaders must step up and become more involved in their communities, obviously in general, but also for a greater urbanist cause. Not doing so reveals the actual priorities of the Party when it comes to our communities.

A more hopeful sense of togetherness

These two issues – college education and urbanism – might seem unrelated, but they are two sides of the same coin. We continue to witness the demise of social togetherness, and while blaming obvious culprits like social media and watching too much Netflix may offer easy and glib explanations, it doesn’t solve the problem. Social isolation for young people stems from a lack of financial opportunity and a lack of community. Financial opportunities vanish with the scarcity of money and meaningful jobs, and community vanishes when physical barriers impede young people from gathering. And if the Democratic Party were to systematically address just these two issues, they’d be much more ahead with young people. And let’s just say, Jonathan would more happily vote for them.