The best: the choice of this generation

Perhaps it was The Who’s influence, or perhaps I just read too many Google News articles about… Perhaps it was The Who’s influence, or perhaps I just read too many Google News articles about the 18-to-24-year-old demographic, but whatever it was, I started thinking about my generation.

We’ve been called a lot of things: media-savvy, ignorant, idealistic, jaded, industrious; we’ve even been called slackers, as if our predecessor, Generation X, didn’t ride one of the biggest economic booms ever.

Mostly, we’ve just been called leaderless. We are a generation lacking a unified voice, but more importantly, we are a generation lacking someone (or some cause) around which to rally, and then speak.

Usually, when we kids get too demanding, someone pulls out that John Kennedy quote about asking not what our country can do for us, as if Kennedy’s intent wasn’t to galvanize a generation, but rather to silence dissent.

And for all that we, as college students, as Americans, are doing for our country — getting an education, voting, questioning, collating mass-mailings for presidential candidates — it’s time to start asking what our country can do for us.

With the Democratic Party’s future presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., here today, gracing Bigelow Boulevard, this seems like a good starting point.

Our generation has, too often, been forced to choose the lesser of two evils. During the 2000 election, most felt that there was really no true difference between the candidates, and picked the most palatable candidate, not necessarily the one they supported, but the one they (and I say they and not we, because I was too young to vote) thought would be the most innocuous. Given a list of compromisers — compassionate conservatives, centrist liberals — they checked the box that they disagreed with the least.

And they got Bush, who is by no means a centrist or “a uniter not a divider.”

Perhaps the problem with picking the lesser of two evils is that this “lesser” evil proved to be, in fact, rather conniving.

And now, again, we are picking the lesser of two evils, Kerry instead of Bush, and thereby not getting what we want.

But Kerry, who has the credibility to take a stand on such issues, needs to get off the fence and speak out on Iraq, just as he has on the economy. Former presidential candidate Howard Dean may not be the best example to follow, but Kerry should think about taking a page from his book. At least Dean had the hubris to say what he meant.

Instead, some of us are stuck picking again, not who we want, but, rather, not who we don’t want, because Kerry won’t take a firm stand. Like the Rolling Stones said, we can’t always get but we want. But, as Tracy Bonham answered, we can’t always not get what we don’t want — and we have to settle for not getting what we didn’t want, rather than getting what we did. Sure, I’m happy every day that I don’t get malaria, but I’m happier when I do get, say, a paycheck.

Getting what I want, out of politics at least, sounds like youthful optimism, soon to be crushed by the ominous “real world,” if such a thing exists. But isn’t youthful optimism the privilege of youth?

The fact is that we, as a generation, want many things, among the least of which is, for example, an affordable education. I pick this topic because it’s already become an issue. During a visit to the University of Rhode Island, Kerry stated his support for various tuition assistance programs, including exchanging public service for tuition aid, according to the University of Connecticut’s student newspaper, The Daily Campus.

Perhaps this is just a tactic to win our votes. Cynicism aside, though candidates should expect such cynicism — we’re smart consumers, in addition to being media-savvy — it’s one that will work. Too many of us are held in lien by the government, especially since President Bush’s tuition assistance policies so closely resemble his environmental ones — hack, slash, and pray that no one notices.

We have noticed. Despoiling the Pell Grant system is easier to spot than, say, buried toxic waste in Utah.

So as savvy consumers and media critics, we get that candidates are trying to court us, to woo our votes away from their opponents.

But leadership is more than a tuition grant program, however appealing. It’s about not waffling or condescending. It’s about standing up in a time where both sides of the Congressional aisle are firmly seated.

Kerry should stand up, damn it. Stand up on Iraq, on economic outsourcing, on abortion, on anything. Stand and be counted, and we just might stand with you.

At 20, I shouldn’t have to pick the lesser of two evils. I should have a candidate who stands for most of what I believe, who has an agenda, rather than just a few pandering catchphrases. “I’m a uniter, not a divider.” What does that even mean?

If that’s not possible, I’ll compromise and vote for anyone but the Teflon cowboy. But before I give up my bubbly, youthful optimism, here’s one last plea: John Kerry, it’s time not to ask what we can do for you, but for you to ask yourself what you can do for our country.

E-mail Sydney Bergman at sbergman@pittnews.com.