Let's face it, most 18 year-olds wouldn't be caught
dead registering Republican. Not that they give the reasons why much thought;
that would require putting down their smartphones for a few moments. It's an
image thing, a posture. Republicans are for old people and stiffs. Definitely
not cool. They might as well erect a fortress that says, "Enter here and
never get another date." Obama, on the other hand, knows how to tweet, and
hangs with Bono and Jay Z!
At that crucial moment when someone first registers to
vote, this is what Republicans are up against. It is a branding problem almost
beyond repair. And once someone registers for a party, they usually stick with
it for life, so the stakes are huge.
The irony is that Republicans are far more consistent
in their support for personal liberty, something that should resonate with
libertarian-leaning youth. It doesn't, though, because the average 18 year-old
isn't intellectually equipped enough to understand why, say, deficit spending
or the 74,000-page tax code are threats to our liberty. The teachers unions
have seen to that.
Social issues,
on the other hand, are easy enough to grasp, and our schools make sure students
are up to speed on those. Here, the young lean left and the GOP seems like the
party of "no." Oh, I know, it's not really the case, especially when
you get past abortion. It's liberals who want to ban everything from trans fats
to large sodas to Happy Meal toys. But no matter, image is everything.
My humble suggestion is that the GOP rally around
lowering the drinking age. Go on offense, make the Dems say no on a social
issue for once. Let them be the wet rags. They will definitely be caught
flat-footed. The best part about this is that it's actually the right thing to
do, and consistent with conservative principles of personal liberty and
responsibility. It's one of those pleasant times when principle and expedience
come together.
The drinking age was raised nationally in 1984 to
combat drunk driving, and indeed, driving fatalities have declined since, but
they have declined among all ages. This can be attributed to stiffer penalties
and enforcement. Drivers take a much bigger legal risk when they drive drunk,
and they have responded accordingly. Does anyone think the reason is really
because teenagers are drinking less?
Younger
drinkers have switched to more concealable forms of alcohol, i.e. hard alcohol
over beer. This only makes sense; getting caught with a flask is less likely
than getting caught with a case. But the problem is that too much hard alcohol
kills, especially amongst the inexperienced. “Pre-gaming,” or drinking a
considerable amount of hard alcohol in a short period before going out has
become the norm. Collegiately, this has
led to unintended social consequences as students break down into smaller and
smaller cliques to reduce the odds of being caught. Larger, more egalitarian
social events are no longer the norm, and if anything, campus binge drinking is
a far greater problem now than before 1984.
Then there's the argument that at 18 you can take a
bullet for your country, get married, pay taxes - in short, do all the things
consistent with adulthood - but not drink. As long as we treat it like
forbidden fruit, it will be treated as such, and the thrill remains. The rest
of the world seems to have figured this out, as only seven other countries (out
of 149) have drinking ages as high as we do. We are keeping good company with
the likes of Oman, Kazakhstan, and Sri Lanka.
To be consistent with conservative principles of
decentralized authority, Republicans should advocate that the federal
government should allow each state to make up their own mind on this. Alabama
is very different culturally than, say, Maryland. But I would suggest for most
states 19 is the right number, because that draws a clear line between high
school and college.
So,
go ahead Republicans. Cut loose for once.
