Is it fair to rate someone's political knowledge based on their age?

["Cool Guy" Jensen]

I'm one of the last people in the world who can say that I know all there is to know about politics. However, at a very young age (about 4 or 5), I became interested in the U.S. Presidents. I made it a goal of mine to first know all the names, then their amount of years in office, and whatever else I could learn. That did not happen until I was around 7 or 8 years old. Now, I know all the presidents, their terms, the first lady, some of their vice presidents, their political party, and some of the things they did during their presidencies.

Despite the fact that I may or may not know about U.S. Presidential trivia. And I have a pretty good idea of how good or bad each president was, is it really appropriate to say that a person's political knowledge cannot be strong enough because of young age?

I mean, I've only been alive during the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama, but I try to learn as much as I can about them along with the rest of the presidents. Is the only way for someone to really believe your political knowledge is if you are experienced and witness everything firsthand?

 

[FromTheSouth]

There is a difference between knowing politics and Presidential trivia. It is admirable that you know this information, I know that I don't, however, understanding politics is a different ball game.

An understanding of politics is based on policy, record, and ramifications of decisions. You need to know how blocks of people vote, and what statements test well to those blocks. Politics goes well beyond the policy. Politics involves deal making.

I'm not sure that age is the most qualifying of factors, however, a certain amount of experience can help in understanding how a certain policy initiative will play out. For instance, I remember President Clinton's failures in national healthcare, and see the same thing happening in the current round. I can predict how each side will react. I understand that Clinton didn't have a favorable congress behind him, as Obama does. I also understand that the Dixiecrats who are blocking the initiative are born of the same Dixiecrats who tried to block civil rights amendments.

Often times a politicians vote does not echo his beliefs, but whether or not his vote will endanger his seat in future elections. The argument is whether or not this is what a congressman should worry about. I feel that a congressman's first responsibility is to his constituency, and if he can't get his electorate on board, then he should vote down the initiative. Others feel that a congressman should always vote for the good of the nation. This kind of utilitarian conflict forms the basis of politics. A balance must be struck between the good of everyone and the good of your own. This is why amendments get tacked on to bills. Bill A might not benefit my constituency, but you can get my vote if we tack on a tax cut or entitlement that will. Unfortunately, this sometimes leads to overspending and pork barrel projects, many of which can be considered a necessary evil when legislating.

These are the features of politics that some younger people cannot completely understand. This is why the young need more experience in life before they can fully grasp the need for an initiative. National healthcare seems like a good idea, but I am at an age where I pay for my own insurance, and know that a national initiative will likely raise my premiums. This is why age and experience get in the way of politics. This is why those who are 20 vote Democrat and those who are 40 vote Republican, to paraphrase Winston Churchill.