Gender-based discrimination in political spaces has been an issue for years, dating back to the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and even further. However, sexism reared its ugly head the highest for the first time in the 2016 election. 

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign for president brought her lots of backlash, most of which often manifested itself in the form of one word: “bitch.” “Trump that Bitch” was a slogan often proudly displayed on everything from t-shirts to coffee mugs. The demeaning of Clinton to little more than a dog was an unfortunate side-effect of her campaign. 

And it revolved completely around her being a woman.

When viewing the 2024 presidential candidates, it is impossible to not take a look at one of the key things that divides them and their campaigns; their gender. The disgusting behaviors that plagued Clinton in her campaign have come back to haunt Harris.

Her lack of biological children is one of the things that have been held against the presidential candidate. Harris was criticized by the governor of Arkansas, who said Harris was unable to be humble due to her lack of biological children.

Claims from some conservative commentators about how Harris rose in the political sphere say she “slept her way to the top.” 

Fox News Host Jesse Watters commented that the generals in the Situation Room would “have their way with [Harris].”

Trump himself has done things such as reposting disgusting sexual remarks about Harris on his social media platform, Truth Social. 

People online continually obsess over the prices and types of clothes Harris wears while not once blinking an eye at the repeated, expensive suits and watches Trump wears. 

Clinton and Harris’s campaigns have shown not just the worst side of Republicans, but the worst side of men in the modern era. It’s an almost proud display of disrespect and hatred for people whose only crime is being a woman. 

With the constant sexist behavior towards these, and many other women in politics, it must be asked– what does this show to future generations?

Do we as a society want young children to think it’s okay to proudly display signs saying “Trump that Bitch” in their yards? Do we want the next generation to think it’s okay to demean a woman’s entire career by saying she “slept her way to the top”? 

The fear of the unknown is often a defense for people who are against these women in power, however that cannot be an excuse. There have been numerous female presidents, prime ministers, and other various chief executives across the entire world. The world kept spinning, even with these women at the helm. Women are leaders around the world, yet some Americans act as if that idea is asinine. 

Another fear of having America’s first female president is a fear of what comes next for her. How will the country react to having a woman in such a powerful position? Will the onslaught of sexism she faces only become worse as she guides the nation? Will her every movement be criticized simply because she wore the wrong pair of shoes that day?

At the end of the day, it shouldn’t matter what type of earrings she’s wearing. It shouldn’t matter that she chose to put on an expensive necklace she bought with her own money. It shouldn’t matter whether she wears dresses or suits, heels or flats, glossy or matte lips. None of it matters. 

What matters are her goals for the country. Her policies matter. Her ambition, her knowledge, all of that matters so much more than whatever she decides to wear on that particular day. They matter so much more than the fact that she is a woman.

If you’re going to criticize Harris, criticize her for things that relate to her policies. Criticize her for her platforms. But don’t criticize her for the one thing that she has no control over; her gender. Have enough respect to see her for what she is: a human being.

Commentary Writer Emma Hardesty can be reached at emma.hardesty162@topper.wku.edu. 

I believe the debate was the best major political debate I’ve seen. It was substantive and both candidates argued policy and, for the most part, avoided making personal attacks. It was refreshing to finally see candidates exercise some civility on the debate stage.

Vance and Walz sparred on a variety of topics that are important to voters including foreign policy, the environment, the economy, abortion and gun control. Both candidates provided actual policy proposals which, disappointingly, we aren’t used to in this country. Amazingly, both candidates showed up with more than “concepts of a plan.” This debate was a look into what political discourse in the United States should look like, and for that, I applaud both men. 

While both candidates performed well in this debate, Vance won decisively. Vance’s performance on Tuesday was the best debate performance I have seen. He seemed to have an answer for any question thrown at him.

He began the debate with a monologue about himself, telling voters he was raised in a middle-class family and was raised by a mother who struggled with addiction. His introduction made him much more relatable and helped him to resonate with viewers. Vance is often criticized as coming off as over-rehearsed or robotic, but throughout the debate, he seemed human in a way voters hadn’t yet seen. 

Before this debate, Vance was viewed favorably by only about a third of Americans. However, I believe his performance will largely change his public perception. 

One of Vance’s best moments came when he was fact-checked by one of the moderators. When challenged, he was assertive, rebutted the point and seemed in control of the room. A point I imagined would be difficult for him to overcome was his previous criticisms of President Trump. However, when questioned about it, Vance brushed off the statements by merely saying he was wrong about Trump. While this seems like an obvious response, admitting previous errors seemed to give him an extra sense of honesty and credibility.

Before the debate, I wasn’t sure Trump had made the right pick for his running mate, and I definitely wasn’t sure about JD Vance as the future of the Republican Party. However, my concerns have been put to rest. On Tuesday, Vance proved he deserves to be at the top of the GOP’s depth chart now and for elections to come.

I now feel that  I will see a Vance Presidency during my lifetime. I’m not the only person who recognizes Vance’s success in the debate. In a poll conducted by USA Today, a majority of voters said Vance won the debate. Interestingly, they also found that over a third of voter’s opinions of the candidates were swayed by the debate.

While I believe this debate was a huge success for Vance, I want to reiterate both candidates performed well. The nation would be much better if every debate looked something like this. While Walz’s performance should be applauded, Vance proved he is the young, rising star the Republican party believed him to be.

If you are a Kentucky resident, you can register to vote here until October 7.

Commentary writer Caleb Neitzel can be reached at caleb.neitzel426@topper.wku.edu. Follow him on X at @caleb_neitzel.

If you would like to submit a reaction to a piece, Letter to the Editor or other submission, please send it to Editor-in-Chief Price Wilborn at herald.opinion@wku.edu or edwin.wilborn835@topper.wku.edu.

The debate was held in the National Constitution Center in downtown Philadelphia. Because the campaigns had agreed that the debate would have no live audience, no one was allowed in the Constitution Center except campaign officials and ABC News staff members.

A few blocks away from the Constitution Center is the Pennsylvania Convention Center, which is where all media were stationed. At 5 a.m., the morning of the debate, media was allowed inside the building. To enter the convention center, reporters were required to pass through a Secret Service security checkpoint. Here, Secret Service agents looked through everyone’s bags, and reporters had to walk through a medical detector and past bomb sniffing dogs. 

Once inside the building, media members had access to two rooms: the media filing center, and the spin room. The media filing center contained hundreds of desks, one for each approved member of the media, where reporters could sit and work on their coverage of the event. Inside the filing center were large projector screens, where journalists watched the debate.

In the room directly adjacent to the filing center was the spin room. The spin room is where each campaign sends representatives, called surrogates, to “spin” (hence the name) the media coverage in favor of their side. While it does occasionally happen, candidates typically do not come into the spin room, instead relying entirely on their surrogates to create a narrative. 

At about 3 p.m., six hours before the debate began, I got a text from a reporter with sources close to the Harris campaign saying that the campaign would be bringing in Anthony Scaramucci as their first surrogate shortly. Scaramucci was, for a short time, the director of communications for the Trump White House. However, he has in recent years advocated against Trump. Upon reading the text, I rushed to the spin room, finding a small crowd of reporters waiting for his arrival. Fifteen minutes later, Scaramucci arrived. He was immediately swarmed by reporters and gave his testimony of why he believed that Trump shouldn’t be president.

Shortly after Scaramucci’s appearance, the Trump campaign released the first few of its surrogates to the spin room. First was Congressman Byron Donalds of Florida who sat down for an interview with ABC before stepping onto the spin room floor to answer questions.

Entering the room soon after Donalds was a relatively new Trump ally, former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who did multiple interviews with news stations and spent a significant portion of the night campaigning on behalf of Trump. Kennedy ran for president during this election cycle as an Independent, campaigning largely on the popularity of his uncle, President John F. Kennedy. Last month, amid declining support, Kennedy suspended his campaign for president and endorsed former President Trump. He has since been named to Trump’s presidential transition team.

After these appearances, it was almost time for the debate. Media members packed into the filing center to watch and campaign surrogates exited the room to attend their respective campaigns’ watch parties. When Trump and Harris took the stage, the crowd of reporters went silent. For the next 90 minutes, the candidates debated policy and took personal jabs at each other. Some moments brought laughter throughout the room while others brought gasps. When the debate was over, the general consensus among the media was that Harris had won the debate. I was told, this would mean her campaigns surrogates would not stick around as long in the spin room. With the debate now over, it was time for the action. 

Shortly after the debate, security set up a taped off perimeter. We were told that Senator JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, would be addressing the media after the debate, so we all assumed this perimeter was for him. About 15 minutes later, Vance and his Secret Service detail entered the room. He then gave his brief remarks before answering questions from the media.

As Vance was speaking, surrogates from both campaigns entered the room. One of the first to enter was Vivek Ramaswamy, a former Republican candidate for President, who many see as a rising star in the republican party. It seemed that Ramaswamy largely hit Trump campaign talking points in an effort to spin the media’s perception of the debate.

Additionally, both campaigns sent prominent governors to speak on their behalf. For the Republicans, this meant Kristi Noem, Gov. R-SD, and Doug Burgum, Gov. R-ND. For Democrats, this meant Gavin Newsom, Gov. D-CA.

Noem is the young governor from South Dakota. She was reportedly one of the candidates on Trump’s shortlist for Vice President before he ultimately selected Vance.

Doug Burgum is the Governor of North Dakota and a former Republican candidate for President. He recently opposed Trump in the Republican primary election, but has endorsed him in the general election. It is worth noting that when I had a chance to speak to Burgum, his last words in our conversation were “Go Tops.” 

Before the debate, I had heard rumors that President Trump would make an appearance in the spin room later into the night. However, I wasn’t sure of the validity of these rumors. At about 11:15 p.m., I noticed that another speaking area had been taped off but we were not informed who it was for. Shortly after I received a text saying Trump was en route to the spin room. As the news spread through the room that the former President would be addressing the media, a crowd began to form around the taped off area. At 11:30, about an hour after the end of the debate, Trump entered the room. He spoke to the media saying that he believed it was his best debate performance yet and claimed victory. He then took a few questions from reporters before sitting down for a TV interview and leaving the room. There was a surge of energy when Trump entered the room as everyone rushed to take pictures and ask questions of him.

Trump spoke to the media for about seven minutes before leaving for his interview. By the time he had left, so too had most of the Democratic surrogates. As previously mentioned, I was told that the Democratic surrogates would leave earlier because of Harris’s strong performance in the debate. Many Republican surrogates stayed until the room closed at 1:00 a.m. This, along with President Trump’s appearance, indicates that they likely believe their candidate lost the debate, or at least that it was close. 

As the night began to come to a close, it was interesting to see the cross-partisan interactions increase. Many mainstream Republicans and Democrats began to speak and seemed to have a friendly relationship with each other. It’s an excellent reminder that public figures who appear to be enemies may be good friends in private. 

This can serve as a reminder for the need to reach across the aisle. It seems as though oftentimes, voters are left hating each other, even when the figureheads they support don’t. 

This historic night will certainly have a huge impact on the future of the country. Discourse such as in what occurred in the debate is what makes our democracy unique and strong.

Commentary Writer Caleb Neitzel can be reached at caleb.netizel426@topper.wku.edu.

One issue that is always a major factor in election cycles, but has reached a new level of significance this year, is abortion. Two years ago, the United States Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, returning the decision to each state. Three of the six total votes to overturn were from Trump-appointed justices. Early in the debate, Trump boasted he helped to end Roe v. Wade. He said he believed the issue should be left up to states to decide for themselves. Trump later attacked Harris and the Democratic party and said its policy on abortion is radical, and even went so far as to say that Democrats support “abortion” after birth. However, the former President did say that if given the option, he would not support a total abortion ban. Recently, Trump told the media he believed the proposed ban after six weeks is not enough time.

In the spin room, Republican Governor Kristi Noem told the Herald that Trump’s position has not changed and that he has always viewed abortion as a state rights issue.

“President Trump was clear the whole time when Roe v. Wade was overturned, that he wanted the people to decide,” Noem said.

In her response during the debate, Harris claimed that Trump had flip-flopped on abortion, and urged women that Trump cannot be trusted to preserve reproductive rights for women. Harris also said that as President, if a bill codifying Roe v. Wade made it to her desk, she would sign it. Such a bill would restore the nationwide abortion access once provided. 

Another topic young people find important is the regulation of firearms. Unfortunately, mass shootings have become a seemingly inescapable part of life in the United States. Our generation has seen gun violence on display throughout our lives. For this reason, many young voters have decided they will support laws regulating firearms.

During the debate, Trump said that if Harris was elected, she would take Americans’ guns away. However, Harris pushed back on this claim by saying that she is a gun owner herself, and that such an action would not take place. During her 2020 Presidential campaign, Harris said that she supported the implementation of a mandatory buyback program for “assault weapons.” It is unclear whether her policies have shifted on the issue.

Lastly, the issue that is possibly the most important to young voters is the economy. For Americans who are not yet fiscally established, a strong economy could make life much easier. Trump said that, if elected, he would implement tariffs on countries such as China and Russia in an attempt to increase domestic production. Harris rebutted and said that such tariffs would only make products more expensive for Americans. She later said that having Trump in office would impart a “sales tax” on Americans, making their goods more expensive. Trump then criticized the Biden-Harris administration for the high rates of inflation lately present in the economy.

Overall, there is a lot for young voters to take from this debate. This election will be one of the most consequential in history and there’s a lot at stake for all voters, but especially young Americans. 

If you are a Kentucky resident, you can register to vote here.

Commentary writer Caleb Neitzel can be reached at caleb.neitzel426@topper.wku.edu. Follow him on X at @caleb_neitzel.

After Biden’s withdrawal, the Democratic Party was quick to rally behind Harris and she has begun to outpoll her opponent, former President Donald Trump. It appears in an attempt to hold on to this sugar high, the Harris campaign has avoided intense questioning at all costs. Democrats likely fear that Harris’s early success has been somewhat of a honeymoon phase which will fade with time; after all, she had the lowest approval rating of any modern vice president.

Facing pressure, Harris agreed to an interview on CNN with Dana Bash. It appears this may have been a mistake. The interview was set up to be as advantageous for Harris as possible. It was on a friendly network, was pre-recorded, and Harris was flanked by her running mate, Tim Walz. On paper, this interview should have been easy. 

Early in the interview, Harris was asked if she supported a ban on fracking. She responded by saying that in her 2020 presidential campaign, she opposed a fracking ban. When Bash then recalled Harris’ promise to ban fracking during her 2020 campaign, Harris doubled down on her mistruth, claiming that she did not support such a ban in 2020. This is another effort by Harris to distance herself from the far-left policies she supported in the past in an attempt to gain the votes of moderates.

Later in the interview, Walz, who is the current Governor of Minnesota, was questioned about his claims that he had carried weapons in a war zone. When confronted with the information that he had never been deployed during his time in the military, Walz first avoided the question, saying he was proud of his time in the military. When Bash asked the question again, Walz blamed the claim on his grammar not being correct. Maybe Walz just misspoke when making this claim, but it certainly is not a good look.

When she was asked her thoughts on President Trump’s claims about her racial identity, Harris seemed rattled. After dismissing the question, Harris began to laugh awkwardly. If she can’t handle these jabs from Trump any better, she will struggle on the campaign trail.

Eventually, Harris was asked about the elephant in the room. She and many others had spent months telling the American people that Joe Biden was healthy and fit to run the country. After his debate with Trump showed that this was clearly not true, Biden was replaced. When asked if she regretted telling Americans this falsehood, Harris said she was not. This will likely become a larger talking point as the election goes on as many Americans feel that they were lied to by Harris and the rest of the Biden campaign.

Overall, republicans must feel good about what happened Thursday night. Harris, who had been the mysterious, new candidate was finally thrust into the spotlight. Throughout the interview, Harris struggled to answer difficult questions. She and her running mate’s seemingly likable characters were called into question when confronted about various mistruths. Harris had the lowest approval rating of any vice president in modern history for a reason: when she speaks, Americans don’t like what they hear. The goal of Republicans for the short time left in this presidential election cycle should be to force Harris into the spotlight while keeping Trump out of it. In other words, make the election a referendum on Harris, not Trump, because quite frankly, their approval ratings show that Americans don’t like either of them.

While I don’t think this interview will have a huge effect on the polls, it does give a glimpse of what the presidential debate may look like. On Sept. 10, Harris and Trump will face off in their first presidential debate. This is Trump’s chance to turn the tide of the election, and if Harris can fend off his attacks, she will probably win. 

Commentary Writer Caleb Neitzel can be reached at caleb.neitzel426@topper.wku.edu. Follow him on X @caleb_neitzel

Kentucky State House District 20

The current incumbent and Democratic nominee for the Kentucky House of Representatives 20th District is WKU history professor Patti Minter. Minter has held the seat since 2019. She serves on the House Committees for State Government, Judiciary and Veterans, Military Affairs, and Public Protection. Minter has been a professor at WKU for 28 years.

The Republican nominee for the seat is Kevin Jackson. According to his campaign website, Jackson “is a lifelong resident of Warren County. He spent 32 years as a teacher, guidance counselor, administrator, and coach in the Warren, Edmonson, and Barren County school systems.” Currently, Jackson is a financial consultant for Studle Financial Services in Bowling Green, as well as a member of the Warren County School Board, the vice chairman of the BG-WC Community Education Board of Directors and serves as a member of the Bowling Green Area Chamber of Commerce. Jackson is a graduate of WKU.

Minter believes in increasing funding for public education, ensuring state workers have adequate pensions, expanding access to affordable health care, making higher education more affordable, working for more rights to unionize and modernizing drug policies in Kentucky.

Jackson, if elected, hopes to put people back to work, “move the economy in the right direction and away from policies causing inflation, supply chain issues and rising gas prices,” improve Bowling Green’s infrastructure, continue supporting first responders and law enforcement, continue supporting all levels of public education and move Kentucky away from government dependence.

Minter comes off as the more serious candidate. Of course, this is in part due to her having held the seat since 2019. She has the experience of running multiple times before, as well as having the support of the Kentucky Democratic Party. She has a record to run on – one of bipartisanship cooperation and experience.

Of course, Jackson does not have this. He does have a respectable record of public service. For over three decades he served in various positions in Bowling Green and surrounding communities. He continues to serve the community through the Chamber of Commerce and the Warren County Board of Education.

When it comes to the 20th district seat, however, Minter goes more in-depth about her policy positions. Where she explains why she believes in the issues she cares about, Jackson gives one sentence explanations of his platform positions. Jackson hits all of the Republican talking points, but Minter goes deeper.

Through her website and canvassing events, she makes an effort to connect with voters. She shows a genuine desire to work with and for the citizens of Bowling Green, one that Jackson struggles to show.

Kentucky’s Second Congressional District

Bowling Green is part of Kentucky’s Second Congressional District, helping to elect a member of the United States House of Representatives. The incumbent, Republican Brett Guthrie, has held this seat since winning election in 2008. Guthrie serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as that committee’s Health Subcommittee.

Prior to election to the U.S. House of Representatives, Guthrie served in the U.S. Army as an Artillery Officer at Fort Campbell. Upon his honorable discharge, he went to earn a Master’s Degree from Yale and worked in Bowling Green as Vice President of Trace Die Cast.

On the issues, Guthrie hits each of the Republican checkboxes. He is pro-life, received an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, and works to increase border security, “stop Biden’s inflationary agenda,” fight the drug epidemic in Kentucky, protect Medicare and social security, and continue supporting the police.

Guthrie’s opponent and the Democratic nominee for the seat is Hank Linderman. A musician born in Florida and raised in Louisville, Linderman moved west in 1983 to pursue his musical career. Linderman moved back to Grayson County, Kentucky, twelve years ago. In this time, Linderman has run for Second Congressional District seat twice before: once in 2018 and once in 2020. 

Linderman’s platform consists of three major points: a “Contract for Rural and Working America,” fighting inequality in America, and the N∅PE button campaign. The Contract for Rural and Working America is a wide-ranging pledge made by Linderman to take on issues like restoring healthcare, encouraging farming by individuals and families, instating a living wage, creating infrastructure for rural broadband, and legalizing cannabis.

Linderman hopes to tackle inequality in the United States by “improving schooling, improving our social safety net, and investing in our people as an investment in our Nation.” He also hopes to make the economy work for all.

N∅PE stands for “No Plastics in my Environment.” The N∅PE campaign was started by Linderman’s campaign as a way for Kentuckians to show those around you that you do not wish to use single-use plastics. 

Linderman faces the same problems Kevin Jackson faces in the 20th state house district. Linderman does not come off as a serious candidate. While the Second Congressional includes larger towns and cities like Bowling Green, Owensboro, and Elizabethtown, it also includes a large portion of rural central Kentuckians.

If Linderman – or any Democrat – hopes to win in the Second Congressional District, they must run on more moderate platforms. Linderman’s includes increasing resources available to small farmers and the creation of a Secretary of Rural Affairs, but it does not move closer to the middle.

Linderman’s proposals are all worth it. They focus on securing a future for all Kentuckians, young and old. The fact is, however, that these proposals are those that Kentuckians are not ready for. In order to be taken seriously and win, Linderman and Democrats must speak to Kentuckians and work to bridge the gap.

United States Senate

The largest-profile race on the ballot in November is the contest between Rand Paul and Charles Booker for one of Kentucky’s two U.S. Senate seats.

The incumbent is Republican Rand Paul. Paul has served in the Senate since his election in 2010. Paul moved to Bowling Green in 1993, serving the community as an ophthalmologist. While operating his clinic, he founded the Southern Kentucky Lions Eye Clinic. Paul serves on four Senate committees: Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

Since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, Paul has been one of the former president’s most vocal supporters. As such, Paul furthers Trump’s ideas and platforms. Paul is about putting America first, protecting second amendment rights, ensuring parents have a choice in sending their children to quality schools, ensuring the right to abortion is not codified, lowering government spending and ensuring peace through strength.

Paul’s Democratic opponent is Charles Booker. Booker was born, raised and currently lives in the West End of Louisville. He graduated from the Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville and served in the Kentucky State HOuse of Representatives for one term from 2018 to 2020.

Booker gained statewide recognition by running for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in 2020. Booker lost the primary to Amy McGrath by just under three percentage points. After losing the primary, Booker created the grassroots organization Hood to the Holler. According to Booker’s campaign website, this is an “organization to build on the values that have animated [Booker’s] whole life, and break down barriers between Kentuckians and their government.”

The foundation of Booker’s platform is what he calls the Kentucky New Deal. During his March 2022 visit to WKU, Booker said that the Kentucky New Deal “is looking at us taking ownership of our sustainable future.”

The Booker campaign website claims the Kentucky New Deal “will be the largest investment in the people of Kentucky that we’ve ever seen, ending poverty, delivering quality healthcare to everyone in our Commonwealth, and fixing our crumbling infrastructure.”

Booker has not found himself in the same position that Jackson and Linderman find themselves in. Booker has proven to be surprisingly competitive against Rand Paul in this election. Booker is further left than Amy McGrath was against Mitch McConnell in 2020, yet he has a greater chance at winning. 

Booker has toured the state the entire time he has been campaigning. He has spoken with those in big cities like Louisville and Lexington as well as Kentuckians in the most rural parts of Eastern Kentucky. At each stop, Booker has found support.

Booker’s travel around the state and his continuing efforts to reach out to and speak directly with all the people of Kentucky gives hope. Hope that change is possible. Hope that the deep divides in Kentucky can be bridged.

Charles Booker can bring actual change. His platform is further left, but it still protects the rights, freedoms and ideals of those on the other side of the aisle. He represents a younger, changing Kentucky electorate, one that is ready for a change.

Go Vote!

No matter your views on any of the above candidates, or any candidate that will be on the ballot in November, it is important to have your voice heard. Democracy cannot function without you.

Voter turnout in midterm elections has historically been 50-60% lower than in a presidential election year. Americans believe that the most important election is that of the president. While this is true in some cases, the majority of laws and decisions that govern them are passed in state legislatures, enforced by state executives and upheld by state judiciaries.

These elections define at a minimum the next two years, but can change the tide for decades to come. If you do not vote, your voice is not represented. One cannot complain about those in office if they did not participate in the democratic process.

Voting, no matter your registered party, is one of the most important things you can do. Please, ensure your voice is heard.

Commentary writer Price Wilborn can be reached at edwin.wilborn835@topper.wku.edu. Follow him on Twitter @pricewilborn

I imagine you have figured out where this is going – this does not have to be imagined. This nation is the United States of America.

According to World Population Review, the average age in the United States is 38.5 years old. The state with the oldest median population is Maine at 44.8. The youngest is Utah at 31.1. Kentucky’s median age is 39 years old and Tennessee’s is 38.8. In contrast, the US House of Representatives has a median age of 58.4 years old. The Senate has an even older average age of 64.3.

The longest currently serving senator is Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Leahy has served since 1975. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa is not far behind, having served since 1981. The two longest currently serving members of the House of Representatives – Hal Rogers of Kentucky and Chris Smith of New Jersey – have each served for 41 years.

In the past two presidential elections, the youngest candidate has been Hillary Clinton, who was 69 years old in 2016. The past two presidents we have had – Donald Trump and Joe Biden – have each been the oldest president ever elected up to that point. President Biden was 78 when he took the Oath of Office last year. To put that in perspective, King Charles III is the oldest person to ever ascend to the throne in the United Kingdom, yet he is still five years younger than the current president.

Why have I just thrown all of these numbers at you? For one simple reason: it’s past time for a new generation to take up governing. Those that have been in office for decades increasingly grow out of touch with younger generations while trying to champion issues that people my age care about.

In his inaugural address in 1961, President John F. Kennedy declared that “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.” Kennedy represented something that his predecessor Dwight Eisenhower did not – youth, vigor and determination. Kennedy was, and still is, the youngest man ever elected president.

It is once again time for the torch to be passed; from old, out of touch men and women that are afraid of change and giving up the levers of power to young people who have a stake in the future, that care about the future and will be more representative of the American population.

This is not to say that there are no young people in office today. Republican Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina is the youngest member of Congress at 26 years old. Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not far behind, at 31.

There should be more, though. There should be more in the House, in the Senate and in the White House.

In 2020, there were many young people vying for the nomination. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was 39 years old. Pete Buttigieg of Indiana was 38. Beto O’Rourke was 47 and Eric Swalwell of California was 39.

Several of these young people went on to win or seek other elected office or were appointed to others. Swalwell won his reelection campaign for US House of Representatives in 2020. Buttigieg currently serves as secretary of the US Department of Transportation. O’Rourke is currently running a competitive race for the governorship of Texas.

Young people are present in politics, but they are few in number. Of this small number, even fewer are taken seriously when seeking higher elected office. This needs to change.

Many will argue that experience is needed to serve in national elected office, especially if one wishes to be president. I disagree. Nothing can prepare anyone for the life a US senator, representative or president leads. The only way they can feel comfortable in the office is having time in the office.

It is true that in the history of the United States, there have been only five presidents who have never held elected office before taking the Oath of Office: Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower and Donald Trump.

Still, nowhere in the US Constitution is it listed as a requirement for a president to have experience. Americans must be 35 years old, born in the United States and live in the nation for at least 14 years. That’s it. Those are the only requirements.

Generations older than Gen Z and Millennials have told each of these generations that they are too young, that they have no idea what they are talking about or that they need to wait until their time comes. The truth is, that we aren’t too young, we do know what we are talking about and that our time is now. In fact, it’s past time.

The United States needs to be reinvigorated. Our face to the world is a 78 year old president, an 82 year old speaker of the House, a 71 year old Senate majority leader and an 80 year old Senate minority (that last one is Kentucky’s own Mitch McConnell).

Domestically, we look tired. We look like a nation that has well passed our prime because of the tired, old policies we have and the old politicians who will not let go.

Globally, we look weak. We look like a nation that does not have things together because we cannot keep up with the times.

It’s time for this to change, and it is the younger generations that will be on the frontlines.

And we are ready.

Commentary writer Price Wilborn can be reached at edwin.wilborn835@topper.wku.edu. Follow him on Twitter @pricewilborn.

In America, there is no age restriction for being the victim of a school shooting, for having one’s rights stolen away, or for having to disproportionately deal with the effects of climate change. With so many issues presenting unique challenges to the youngest generations, additional representation is a necessity. In order to achieve true equity in America, the voting age should be lowered to 16.

At 16-years-old, the Federal Government has deemed young people fit for work — subsequently, this is the age at which many young people pay taxes. Though, the same government deems this age unfit for democratic participation.

Currently, as students, we face the impending threat of the actions of rogue legislators and bear the brunt of an increasingly inflated economy. As young people, we make up the majority of the workforce earning minimum wage — making us the most vulnerable to increased prices.

2022 has presented unique challenges to our nation — almost all of which have disproportionately impacted young people. This past Supreme Court term has been detrimental to the rights and freedoms of students — ranging from government support for private religious schools to the preferential treatment of religious language at school-sponsored events.

On May 24, 2022, 19 school children were killed in a violent massacre at Uvalde, Texas. Recently, it was revealed that 400 officers failed to act on stopping the gunman — all 0f whom are employed by a government in which those of us under the age of 18 have no say.

The most profound issues of our time are the ones that impact young people – the only group with no representation in our government.

While some argue that young people who are under the age of 18 lack the responsibility or maturity to cast a ballot, the current electorate encompasses some irresponsible factions – including the one that stormed the capitol in a violent insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

Young people have become increasingly present in decision making bodies – especially when it comes to education and student voice. According to the National Association of State Boards of Education, there are at least 33 student representatives on state educational boards all across the country – Mississippi, Kentucky, Delaware, Virginia, Idaho, California, Arizona, and Michigan.

If students possess the competency to make decisions about education, don’t they also possess the competency to make decisions about our democracy?

The data is overwhelming. In addition to educational board membership, young people all across the country are taking agency and getting engaged in democratic processes – including voting.

Tufts’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE) recently cited data that concludes that states with facilitative election laws clearly have higher youth voter participation rates – in other words, our laws are clearly a factor in young people’s civic engagement.

The notion that this move is unnecessary because of low voter participation rates amongst young people is unfair. In fact, this idea provides an even greater reason for lowering the minimum voting age. 

Not only will our nation’s citizens have their voices heard, it will almost certainly increase voter participation in the 18–24 demographic as well. While our nation’s youngest citizens have already made progress in increasing turnout, this move would only stand to catalyze this progress further. 

One may think that mandated civic education classes or expanded voter registration could help with voter turnout amongst young people – researchers at Stanford disagree. In fact, in a 2018 study, they found that lowering the voting age was the only remedy to low voter turnout amongst young people.

They found that lowering the voting age would mean that young people could “vote in an election prior to leaving their communities.” And that they could develop “the voting habit at a time when they can more easily overcome the barriers to voting. This makes them more likely to continue voting in the future.”

Recent assaults on our democracy have ensured that my generation will have fewer rights than our predecessors. If our government seeks to build meaningful equity in our young population they will give the right to vote to a younger population — just as they did nearly a half-century ago.

The most dire scenes that our country witnesses are all being shouldered by our nation’s youngest population. It’s time to do better for them. Refusing to give 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote is stripping them of the voice they have earned. 

When younger generations of America become present in deciding its future, our country will realize the more equitable democracy we all deserve. After all, young people are not just the future.

Commentary writer Zachary Clifton can be reached at zachary.clifton586@topper.wku.edu.