For Mature Audiences Only

American Thinker ^ | July 21, 2009 | Randy Fardal

[neverdem]

Almost four decades ago, the 26^th Amendment lowered the US voting age to 18.  At the time, most neurologists believed that the human brain was fully developed by about age 12, so allowing Americans to vote at 18 seemed like a safe move.

But parents of teenagers knew that was nonsense, and new research is confirming those parental observations.  Since the voting age was lowered in 1971, scientific advancements such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allowed researchers to get detailed three-dimensional images of developing brains.

Although human brains typically reach their adult size by age 12, they are far from being mature.  MRI analysis now shows that the planning and decision-making part of the brain -- the dorsal-lateral prefrontal cortex -- typically isn't fully developed until we are about 25 years old.  Car rental companies already guessed that was the case simply by studying accident statistics: Most don't rent cars to anyone under 25.

Discoveries in brain science appear to be influencing lawmakers and judges.  Some state legislatures have cited the research in banning the use of cell phones by teenage drivers.  Supreme Court justices were given briefs on teenage brain development as they prepared to ban juvenile death penalties.  If the Supreme Court thinks 17-year old brains aren't even capable of deciding not to commit premeditated murder, could slightly older brains be wise enough to handle far more complex decisions such as voting?

Nature and Nurture

Normal adolescent brains go through synaptic pruning as they mature.  Until our early 20s, gray matter thins slightly.  Meanwhile, white matter thickens -- sometimes up to age 40.  White matter is comprised of myelin sheaths that encase axons and let them transmit data up to a hundred times faster.  Consequently, our brains become more efficient at doing specialized things.  That must be what allowed Ted Williams to count the stitches on a fastball or Milton Friedman to realize instantly that a debate opponent was attempting to invoke the Broken Window Fallacy.

But how does the brain decide that things like baseball or economics are special?  The leading theory is that the pruning process is "neural Darwinism" -- use it or lose it.  Our brains learn which connections are important and gradually eliminate the rest, allowing us to think and behave like responsible adults.  Therefore, nurture appears to be quite influential in intellectual maturity, since nature alone doesn't control the physical configuration of our brains.

If our increasingly maternal society coddles its children, could we be stunting their intellectual growth?  Perhaps our overprotected children's brains are not maturing properly if the "adult" neural links are little used and the "childish" ones continue to experience rush-hour traffic.

A Psychology Today story says coddling can lead to "endless adolescence":

Using the classic benchmarks of adulthood, 65 percent of males had reached adulthood by the age of 30 in 1960.  By contrast, in 2000, only 31 percent had.  Among women, 77 percent met the benchmarks of adulthood by age 30 in 1960.  By 2000, the number had fallen to 46 percent.

If America really has become a nation of adolescent adults, and 40 is the new 20 intellectually, then restoring the minimum voting age to 21 would mitigate only a small portion of the harm they do to our political system.  Besides, we'd just be dealing with the symptoms of childish thinking, rather than curing it.

Contrast today's voters with Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation".  That group was forced by a prolonged economic depression and a deadly war to grow up quickly.  Following World War II, the Greatest Generation took adult jobs, such as engineer, scientist, and entrepreneur.  They became community leaders that solved problems, not community activists that exploited problems for selfish gains.  Under their leadership, America simultaneously fought domestic Neo-Marxists and government censorship while making freedom and prosperity available to all.

America still has great engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs.  But today's culture seems to have far more admiration for those whose professions involve things that children typically do in a schoolyard: playing basketball, singing, dancing, telling jokes, or pretending to be a pirate.  Obama supporters might ask him about his bowling prowess or what gifts he will bestow upon them, but he gets no serious questions about the economics and physics of pending global warming legislation.

Eventually it will dawn on them

Most Leftist voters can be given scientific evidence that carbon dioxide levels lag global temperature levels by centuries and they still embrace the illogical belief that carbon dioxide fluctuations affect temperature.  It must be the same brain malfunction that leads a child to conclude that a rooster's crowing makes the sun rise.

However, immature brains do a lot of learning from trial and error.  That probably is why coddling retards their development.  Sometimes it takes a car wreck to get adolescent adults to drive safely, and Mr. Obama is turning the economy into a financial car wreck.  Polling trends show that voters are starting to realize that Mr. Obama is driving the economy like a drunken maniac.  That's why he hit the accelerator in his Leftist grab for money and power: he knows the authorities are on the way. ("There's no time to read the bill; just pass it so I can sign it")

But if Mr. Obama's policies are losing support, why is he personally still popular?  It is because immature people commonly identify with a charismatic pop figure.  Consequently, any criticism of that pop figure seems to his fans as criticism of them.  In their adolescent minds, Obama voters simply are defending themselves.

It's darkest just before the dawn

If coddling has produced a nation of gullible adolescent adults, is America headed into a societal death spiral of irrational Leftist policies and another Dark Ages?  Probably not, for these reasons:

• The human brain continues to develop, even if coddling has retarded its maturation. Both Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan matured from being idealistic young Leftists to brilliant conservatives. Virtually no one "wises up" and becomes a Leftist

• Groupies can be fickle. In a poll taken near the November election, many Obama voters agreed with the statement "My vote is a reflection on me". They clearly identified with Mr. Obama. But their psychological attachment will fade as the Obama worshippers grow up and develop their own identities

• Leftism is self-destructive. It is an economic parasite that, if unchecked, kills its host, as it did to the Soviet Union. Europeans had an economic near-death experience and now are moving right. Mr. Obama's manic leftward rush actually might accelerate his demise by crippling the American economy in eight months, rather than eight years. As in Europe, a backlash will follow

• We now live in a global economy. If the Left does manage to cripple free enterprise and drive the country into bankruptcy, wealthy Chinese, Arabian, Russian, and Indian entrepreneurs will buy up America's distressed assets, eliminate labor unions, and restore jobs and profitability

• America has a high "breakup value". In a doomsday scenario, the country would be reorganized into two nations, just as is being proposed for Israel. Leftists might migrate to a nation of settlements in the Northeast, with all the corruption and squalor of Cold War East Berlin. The rest of America then would be liberated to flourish in freedom and prosperity

Beat them at their own game

If American Leftists and conservatives were competing in private industry, analysts would say that the conservatives have better products and the Leftists have better marketing.  Fortunately, organizations that have both usually win in the long run -- even in a nation of gullible consumers and voters.

Former VP candidate Sarah Palin certainly is a good marketer and she also might have a good product.  Many voters hope to learn more about her leadership skills and her knowledge of economics, science, and foreign policy to gain a better understanding of what she actually is pitching.  Some believe they already have enough information to support her in a presidential run.  A few worry that she is a conservative version of Mr. Obama: form without substance.

Regardless of Palin's knowledge and wisdom, Leftist leaders are keenly aware of the marketing threat she poses, as demonstrated by their apoplectic attacks on her.  It effectively is an endorsement of Palin from the world's best political marketers.

Perhaps Palin will not run for office again, but if any charismatic, knowledgeable Reagan/Thatcher protégés campaign for House or Senate seats next year, most of them will win.  That's why turncoats like Colin Powell will attempt to dissuade them from running.  By then, the economy probably will have recovered from its car wreck, but even the mentally adolescent voters will be a bit wiser because they'll still have scars from that disastrous joyride they took with the Democrats.

[El Gato]

I just told my wife, with a Doctorate in Education, about this information. She said, yea, I’ve only known about that for 15 years or so. (She got her doctorate, 20 years ago, after spending about 10 years in the classroom, and a couple of years writing educational materials.).

[mountainbunny]

I would make an exception to the law if a 17 year old was in the military, yes.

Otherwise: you’d be simultaneously arguing that the soldier is mature enough to serve and die at 17, but not old enough to cast a ballot... and how can that be true?

[mountainbunny]

I think there should be a higher minimum age for all offices, from the presidency on down. Not so much because of brain maturity, but because if you can't get into politics until you are 40 years old you have to have a life before you become a politician.

That sounds like an excellent idea. Wow. The implications are staggering.

[Tainan]

“Endless Adolescence”...perfect description

[Tainan]

If he could only remember his name....IMO, one of the best albums ever made. "Cowboy Movie" alone seals the deal.

(I know the actual title is slightly different)

[wardaddy]

Cowboy Movie was a great song.

I can remember when Long Time Gone was an anthem for my generation
*we were naive

[neverdem]

An early indicator of the onset of senility is registering as a Democrat which can be corrected if caught in time.

LOL!

[fr_freak]

Otherwise: you’d be simultaneously arguing that the soldier is mature enough to serve and die at 17, but not old enough to cast a ballot... and how can that be true?

First, I originally suggested veterans, not active duty. This should mean anyone who has done one full term of service. If they are active again afterward, they qualify.

Next, it is perfectly reasonable to say that a 17 year old is mature enough to fight at 17 but not to vote, because they are two entirely different things. If there is one thing 17 year olds know how to do, it is fight. But how many of them have the wisdom and experience to understand which way the country should go on an issue? Hell, even the US military doesn't put its trust into a 17 year old enlistee right away. He starts out as a private (depending on the branch) and basically does whatever he is told to do. He doesn't get to go around helping to make decisions until he has earned his stripes. The country is the same way, but on a grander scale.

[GeronL]

Excellent article after all the psycholoical stuff...

[GeronL]

“Virtually no one ‘wises up’ and becomes a Leftist”

Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords come to mind.

That's more like senility

[mountainbunny]

Next, it is perfectly reasonable to say that a 17 year old is mature enough to fight at 17 but not to vote, because they are two entirely different things. If there is one thing 17 year olds know how to do, it is fight. But how many of them have the wisdom and experience to understand which way the country should go on an issue?

The wisdom comes when it comes time to decide whether or not to serve and possibly die. If the 17 year old (substitute 18 year old, per the article), is too childish to understand voting, then I would argue that they are too immature and childish to comprehend the weight of their decision to join in the first place.

Being physically capable of fighting is one thing. Being mentally capable is another. Soldiers need both. If they have both, let them vote.

[fr_freak]

Being physically capable of fighting is one thing. Being mentally capable is another. Soldiers need both. If they have both, let them vote.

Yes, and very few of them arrive at basic training with both capabilities. The military takes them, shocks them for months and drills them daily just to get them to where they are soldier enough to do their jobs. Then, afterward, if God forbid they should go into combat, that's when they REALLY learn to fight. It does not happen the moment you make the decision to sign up. It happens months or years later. That is why veterans: yes, newbies: no.

[misanthrope]

Marking to read more later.

[FreedomPoster]

I’d modify that to taxpayers and veterans. See my tagline.

[FreedomPoster]

They didn’t become Leftistss, they just embraced truth in labeling.

[timm22]

I think you might be misunderstanding my point. The issue isn't whether 18 year olds are capable of fighting, or whether they will mature after having served in the military. The key question is whether an 18 year old is mature enough to decide to sign up for the military in the first place.

In our society we do not accord minors the same rights as adults. We restrict their ability to purchase firearms, to view adult material, and to hold public office. We enact laws that make it illegal for minors to have sex with adults, even if it is consensual. We do this is because we recognize that minors, for the most part, do not have the capability to responsibly and intelligently exercise those rights.

We exempt minors from many responsibilities as well. Minors are often sentenced differently than adults or even exempted from punishment entirely (if they are young enough). Courts usually will not enforce a contract against a minor if the minor chooses to repudiate the contract, even if the minor was capable of performing. The reason we give them such light treatment on these responsibilities is the same reason we do not accord them the same rights as adults. We recognize that it would be unfair to hold someone to these social obligations when they are too immature and too inexperienced to know what they really entail.

Of all the "contracts" a person can enter, probably the most serious is an enlistment contract. At a minimum, that decision amounts to signing away most of one's freedom for several years and undergoing changes that will stay with the enlistee for the rest of his life. If he is deployed to a combat zone, he will see humanity at its worse. He may have to make very hard moral choices that will haunt him for the rest of his life. In the worst case scenario, a person's decision to enlist could lead to a gruesome early death.

We allow most 18 year olds to make that decision on their own. And this is before they've done any "growing up" in basic training.

The decision to enlist is a lot more important than the decision to buy a car or to take out a mortgage. If we only enforce those contracts against competent adults, then surely we could only enforce an enlistment contract against a competent adult as well.

Right now, if someone makes the oath of enlistment at age 18, they are legally obligated to fulfill it. In other words, the law says that an 18 year old is competent enough to make what may be the most important decision of their life.

If we say that any random 18 year old is competent enough to be held to an oath of enlistment, with all the serious risks and consequences involved, how can we say he is not competent enough to vote?