Authority

Guest-blogging at the Wardman Wire, ThunderDragon writes an interesting series of why he blogs at his age - saying that he is ‘only’ 22. As another similarly fresh-faced – and who started blogging much earlier than that – I was intrigued by his arguments.

Age and life experience are important in forming a political opinion. For example, it’s amazing how many kids supposedly support the Lib Dems. But most of them soon grow out of that. It is through living that one can develop real and intelligent opinions. I stand by my point that whilst the views of 18 year olds should not be ignored, that they should not be taken into account quite as much as those of an older person.

To me, focusing on the age or otherwise of a person seems to me to be totally redundant. I’m in America at the moment, and going round a number of the historical sites, it’s quite evident that I have a considerably greater knowledge of American history than most people. I was able to point out that Jefferson and Adams did not sign the Constitution, as they were serving as US envoys to France and Britain, respectively, in 1787. Yet those two names were the first suggested when the group I was in was asked to name signers of the Constitution. Similarly, when at the National Archives, the family in front of me (who were very thoughtful about their history, based on the comments they made on the displays) couldn’t understand why there were only 12 states with signatures on the Constitution – I was able to point out that Rhode Island had refused to send any delegates.

Then again, I should know this stuff – after all, it’s what I’m out here researching.

Now, the obvious criticism of this is that it relies on a knowledge of facts, rather than depth of thinking. In those two examples, it would certainly be a fair criticism. Anyone could remember those facts, but it isn’t necessarily indicative of critical thinking skills. Yet extrapolating from those stories, I’d have a fair bet that I could contribute more usefully to a discussion on the ‘original intent’ of the Founding Fathers than anyone else in the room.

That’s because there are two things that are important in formulating an opinion – knowledge, and an ability to think critically based on that knowledge. I’d hope that I possess plenty of the latter ability, too, but it doesn’t matter how well I am able to think if I know the square root of sod all on a subject.

The key question when evaluating someone’s argument has absolutely nothing to do with their age. It has to do about the logic of their argument, and the experience they bring to bear (the two don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand). I imagine ThunderDragon would be better able to explain the pitfalls of recent changes to the education system in Britain than a Department of Education mandarin, simply because he has intelligence, and considerably better direct experience of the operation of the system itself.

If I was looking to inform myself for an argument on cricket, I might turn to Richie Benaud for his opinion long before I turned to David Lloyd. But this has nothing to do with Richie’s more advanced years. It’s because after so many years of listening to cricket, I know that Benaud thinks before he speaks, whereas Lloyd offers inane comments based on what’s on the screen in front of him.

Turning back to politics, there are many things that people of my age or ThunderDragon’s age will be able to debate more usefully than older people. A greater appreciation for the norms of youth culture, perhaps. Or the effect of the difficulties that are faced by first-time house buyers. Because these are issues that we deal with on the coal-face, as it were. Now, that doesn’t mean we don’t have inherent biases or specific axes to grind. Any intelligent reader would make an effort to fillet these out in consideration. But age isn’t really one of them.

The ability for young people to speak in the public arena is derived not just from the fact that we exist. The ability to think critically, and the different experience that we bring to the table is vitally important. David Cameron’s opinions aren’t ill-thought out because he’s considerably younger than Gordon Brown. Nor are mine less thought out than David Cameron’s because of a similar age gap. Arguments should stand or fall based on their content and their logic. All other factors are just irrelevant flotsam.