In today’s New York Times, Damien Cave quotes me:

“[Young voters] were emotionally invested,” said Peter Levine, director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University. “Somehow that should have been turned into, for Democrats, a revival of progressive policy, and in a neutral way, a revival of democracy starting with young people.”

“So far, it hasn’t happened,” he added.

I agree with my own quote, but I’d broaden the picture with some additional points:

• The youth turnout rate (which CIRCLE will calculate by 10 am on November 3) will not prove that there was anything wrong with the administration’s policies and strategies. We don’t know if it will be higher or lower than the average for midterm elections, but it will probably be in the usual range. If it happens to be down from 2006, that can be explained in many ways, including economic factors.
• Some young people are engaged, perhaps more than usual for a midterm election (although that remains to be seen). And there is a robust and skillful movement of nonprofits, mostly non-partisan and mostly led by young adults, that has been working like mad to energize young people and that uses smart, tested strategies. So nobody should be saying that there is anything wrong with young people today or with youth voting organizations.
• But the US has the worst turnout of any major democracy, and the Americans who vote (regardless of age) are unrepresentative of the population. That is a serious problem that demands the attention of major institutions, which should employ creative, innovative solutions. Roughly $4 billion will be spent on this election, and very few of the people and companies behind that spending are trying to engage young people.
• The Obama Administration, to its great credit, expanded AmeriCorps and kept it strictly and truly nonpartisan. That’s great, but it doesn’t increase political participation. The administration has also done things for young people, like allow them to stay on their parents’ health insurance. And the president has tried to talk to young people, on the Daily Show and elsewhere.
• But the Obama Administration has not tried to govern with young people, even though the Obama campaign won an election with young people. The lack of creativity, innovation, and investment seems disappointing.

Cave astutely notes, “Indeed, a look back at e-mails from Organizing for America as health care legislation developed does show a general approach that did little to focus on young people. E-mails dealt with telling supporters what to say, rather than asking for input — and as a result, many young people said, they stopped reading them.” (That was also true of some of us not-so-young people.)

Young activists would have been, in general, considerably to the left of the president on health care, climate change, and Afghanistan. That means that empowering them politically would have posed a risk for the White House. If they had been asked for input, they would have said, “Single Payer!” and that wasn’t going to pass.

On the other hand, there is a political risk to not getting pressure from your left flank if you’re a Democrat. FDR said that leadership is deciding which pressure to cave to, and the lack of pressure from the left has hurt this president’s ability to lead. Besides, I think the administration could have risked a dialogue with activists. Young people are fully capable of listening.

My final point: It’s not over yet. Young people can vote on Tuesday—they have that power and that right, regardless of what polls may predict. And after the election, they can still play a powerful role in governance.