Gen Z, Democracy, and a Crisis of Faith

Elizabeth Matto, director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Institute of Politics, traces a peaceful family disagreement over voting rights into a deeper debate about whether voting is a right or a privilege. Drawing on research, teaching, and lived experience, she argues that even when voting is legally a right, structural barriers often turn it into a privilege for those with time, resources, and civic know-how. This conversation unpacks false narratives around voter access, education, patriotism, and turnout exploring how citizens with opposing politics often want informed voters but disagree on how to get there. Looking ahead, Matto offers a sobering yet hopeful take on Gen Z: disillusioned and anxious, but still hungry for democratic engagement if given tools, trust, and real opportunities to lead.

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• Follow us on Instagram

Transcript

Michael Lee: [00:00:00] When we disagree is a show about arguments, how we have them, why we have them, and their impact on our relationships and ourselves. Put a bunch of people who lean slightly liberal in a room to discuss politics and they might leave much more liberal. This has nothing to do with liberalism. Do the same with conservatives and they'll leave more conservative.

This is called group polarization. The tendency for in-group discussions to amplify initial inclinations, the social psychologist Serge Musco Vichi, discovered that homogenous groups don't moderate views. They intensify them. This phenomenon turns mild disagreements into extreme conflicts. Group polarization explains why online echo chambers become so toxic.

A face group Facebook group that starts with people mildly concerned about an issue, becomes a hotbed of extremism. A subreddit that begins with a gentle criticism evolves into pure [00:01:00] hatred. What starts as preference, becomes passion, then obsession, then radicalization. The group doesn't create extremists.

It reveals and amplifies extremism. That was always possible. Family dynamics, show group polarization in action. Siblings who ha individually have minor complaints about their parents get together and work at each other up into a genuine furor. Coworkers with slight frustrations about management become revolutionaries over drinks.

A friend group that starts with casual gossip escalates into character assassination. Understanding group polarization helps us make better collective decisions if we're mindful of it. They deliberately include diverse voices to counteract echo chamber effects. Assign someone to argue the opposite position, to take the naysayer position.

Take breaks to reflect individually before group discussions, and most importantly, recognize when group dynamics are amplifying. Rather than refining your views, sometimes the group isn't making you wiser, it's making you more extreme. [00:02:00] I'm Michael Lee, professor of Communication and Director of the Civility Initiative at the College of Charleston.

Our guest today on When We Disagree is Elizabeth Mattau. Elizabeth is the director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, and the author most recently of To Keep the Republic Thinking, talking and acting like a democratic citizen. Elizabeth, tell us an argument. 

Elizabeth Matto : So first, thanks so much for having me, Mike.

Really excited to, to have this conversation with you. I think I'll start. I the argument story I wanna offer is a disagreement that I had with a family member that was resolved peacefully. And but in many ways I think is emblematic of ongoing. Conversations, sometimes difficult conversations I find myself having with family members sometimes with the public, sometimes with students, sometimes even with myself.

I, it's rooted in a, I wrote an op-ed for the Hill plea [00:03:00] six weeks ago about the SAVE Act and the save act for those of you who aren't familiar is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. And it basically requires people to provide documentary proof of their citizenship when they're registering to vote in federal elections for a variety of reasons.

I wrote this op-ed expressing concern about the legislation. Basically arguing that it was trying to address a problem that didn't quite exist the burdens it would pose, but anyway, wrote the op-ed was pleased with it. It was published in the hill. And as I often do, I texted it to my family member, my brother-in-law who I have a lovely relationship with, and we always talk politics.

We often talk politics. Often we have differing views on politics and sent it to him just to say, thought you might be interested in reading this. He's very complimentary. And said, but don't you think that voting is a privilege? Wouldn't we wanna do everything we can to protect the vote? And so we had a couple little back.

[00:04:00] This was all via text, a couple back and forths about it. And then you get to the point like, okay, talk to you soon. See you the next holiday. So in many ways though, I thought it really represents ongoing conversations, sometimes disagreements, sometimes arguments I find myself in recently with.

Is voting a right IA privilege? What is citizenship? What's good citizenship? What's bad citizenship? So anyway, that would be the disagreement. It was a peaceful one. It helped that it was on text. Via text, yeah. But it, I think it's signifies others I've had recently. 

Michael Lee: Hard to argue with a, about political theory via text, I imagine.

True. But maybe it just keeps a lid on how specific, extensive, or time consuming the argument can really get true. 'cause it's just superficial by nature of the conversation. But true. Curious about that key word spool out for us, right? Versus privilege in your mind, what is the core of that dispute?

Elizabeth Matto : So I think, there's been lots of survey research pew Research Center in [00:05:00] particular is one I think about, but I, and I use it usually as a launchpad in my classroom about, is voting a right or is it a privilege? Are there certain thresholds one should meet? Should we be thinking about voting in a way that it's this sort of honorific.

Activity that one, one engages in where you have to not only meet the, the, because it is so important, because it is instrumental elemental in a democracy. It's this elevated act that requires, not just that you're a citizen, but I often feel it comes loaded with other expectations.

And I unspool that with my students about. Expectation that you're well informed, that that you've met certain, I don't know, markers of citizenship that you almost have to, you have to, you have to meet these expectations in order to have access to the ballot. Yeah.

Whereas with the right, it's just you are, you're allowed to vote. You have a constitutional right. You have met all the [00:06:00] requirements of voting. Yeah. And you should be able to vote in a way that is unnecessarily, that is not unnecessarily burdensome. That that it should be accessible. That because you are eligible, you should be able to vote.

With some ease with easy access, not prove your worthiness of voting. 

Michael Lee: Yeah. If we all have, there's eligibility requirements in this country. 

Elizabeth Matto : Absolutely. 

Michael Lee: Whether it's age or registration. And if the definition of right is that it's afforded to everybody. Regardless of circumstance or proof or meeting some certain benchmark, then yeah, aren't we already operating as if voting is a privilege because we restrict it based on legal citizenship or whether you've registered or whether you're 18 or whether you haven't committed a felony and so forth.

Elizabeth Matto : Yeah. I would say, here's where my, the, my ex my work with students is really informs my feelings about this. In that, I'm here, as you mentioned, at Rutgers University. I'm on the, the one of the [00:07:00] largest campuses, new Brunswick campus, large campus, complicated campus.

And when I began working here. I don't think I had any sense of how difficult it was as a young adult, as a college student to, to make use of your right to vote to actually access and enjoy your right to vote. I've lived in the same house for nearly 30 years. I've been registered in the same location.

I vote in the same location for the last 25, 30 years. I think I had a much better understanding of how difficult it was for students to vote, and that's just one example. That even though they met all the requirements of voting, they were of legal age they were, they had been, they'd been registered.

Successfully the boundaries or the hurdles they had to cross in order to actually make use of that vote suggested that, you weren't worthy of that of exercising this, [00:08:00] right? That you had, you, you were afforded this right. And yet if you don't have the privilege, for example of being able to register to vote online, which for years in New Jersey, you couldn't register to vote online.

And if you have classes all day, and there was an early voting for years in New Jersey, there was no early voting, so you couldn't get to the polls ahead of time. It felt as if even though you had the right to vote. The Constitution gave you the right to vote. You had satisfied all the requirements.

It was people who had more flexibility in their schedule. People who had the privilege of a really high quality civic education, for example, in high school, who knew all the ins and outs of voter registration and turnout. So yes, you may have, you may satisfy all of the fundamental requirements of being able to vote.

But it seemed in practice, like it was the lucky few. Who were able to actually make use of that. It's 

Michael Lee: such a peculiar discourse around voting now for years. Or William F. Buckley [00:09:00] wrote editorials in the fifties about kind education requirements for voting. Tacit, if not explicit, you should be able to read, you should be able to name the candidates and know who they are. Identify basic policy positions. So setting up very specific kinds of restrictions. On the left, it seems like most people to really stereotype have said We want equal and easy access across the board, both sides seem to tacitly seem to agree that we want an educated citizenry who is making decisions in the voting booth.

Just a question of whether those should be. Legally inscribed or just expected and hoped for. 

Elizabeth Matto : Yeah. And if I, it's interesting and it's not I know the I know that sort of train of thought from William F. Buckley a sort of similar argument I know George Will, has made in the past has this idea of.

When people de decry the fact that we have lower voter turnout rates than comparable democracies. In the United States, we do have much lower voter turnout rates compared to other democracies. I remember an op-ed he wrote arguing basically. Then [00:10:00] that's a good thing that suggests that if voter turnout rates if things, if conditions in the United States were particularly dire.

That would drive people to the polls so that, a modest voter turnout rate is suggestive of things are going okay. People don't feel driven to the polls. Interesting. And then, so I would argue, here, it's the political s scientist in me is, look at the data.

Who is voting and where are the gaps in voting? And there's so much research in political science academia that the idea that. We know that things such as education levels, we know that income levels, we know that these things are, one's resources, time, education. Finances heighten the likelihood that you're going to be voting on election day because it's really complicated in the United States.

It's a complicated system In the United States, one of the reasons the US has lower voter turnout rates than comparable democracies is that more [00:11:00] often than not, the burden is on the individual to get themselves registered to vote. We know that's changing across the country. More and more are, more and more states are offering automatic voter registration, but, if it's that complicated to navigate, which it is in the United States, and if we know that there's data suggesting gaps in voting, comp, due to education levels. Again, it goes back to are we privileging some rather than others? When it comes to access to the ballot I would say to your point about Buckley, I've had students often argue and I push them of course, 'cause that's my job as a faculty member is to say, you shouldn't. There's there, there are problems with people going into the polls. There should be an expectation that you are well informed and there should be some sort of threshold of information that one should have. I certainly don't disagree with that. I do want voters to be well informed.

I also know your ability to do so varies. Like in New Jersey, sometimes it's very [00:12:00] difficult to get information about who's on the ballot, who these candidates are. So is it enough to know, my life was better off when this candidate, when this president was president than it is now. Is that enough information for a voter?

Michael Lee: Yeah, it does. It seems that this is such a peculiar debate 'cause it's such a false dichotomy on absolutely. A few levels, versus privilege. Even the people who say it's a right would I assume, say, you should be sober. Yeah, in the voting booth that three year olds shouldn't be around to vote.

That we would hope, if not require that you know who these people are. True. And frankly, many of us who vote, especially at the on the down ballot, for local dog catcher and such, having the slightest idea, especially absolutely not partisan election, who the names are. We're just basically picking horses at the Kentucky Derby because one has a fun name.

And whatever name biases we're bringing into the booth. And so that limits against the rights argument, right? But then a lot of the people who say it's a privilege would also extend it really broadly to lots of groups. And so they veer back to [00:13:00] the privilege side. And so they they seem to collapse in on each other.

And then the second one is for years and years, the kind of lore amongst the left was, the more people who vote from the more demographics, the better chance we'll win. And so maybe there's a moral and ideological case for. Left types to want more people voting, and so that's why they pushed it.

But it also seemed like there was a kind of rooting interest there. If we can just expand this game, maybe we'll win more elections and the right, of course the long lore is well make the dirty up the election and make it more restrictive to vote and we can win these kind of defensive kinds of elections.

Then the 2024 election seems to have exploded that, at least the early returns that I've seen, and I'm not a, yeah. Political scientists of voting, but followed it pretty closely. It does seem like a lot of people from a lot of different interest groups voted a fairly high turnout election for us. And then, it flipped the narrative of more people voting leads to left wins on its head.

Elizabeth Matto : Yeah, and it's, expanding or constricting the voting pool offers all sorts of uncertainty, [00:14:00] right? And so I think it's a red flag for both Republicans and Democrats. It makes it more difficult. Esp, esp. And again, I'm speaking a lot about 18-year-old, 18 to 22 year olds.

'cause that's an area I focus on. It's really difficult. Yeah. When you are not certain, if someone doesn't have a voting history, you don't know how likely they are they gonna be a stable, reliable voter? Who are they voting for? And so there's their concerns when it comes to just, opening up the voting pool.

You lose control of what you have known. What's been interesting too, and you bring up, the one thing I think the, in the most recent election, 2024. Campaigns are so sophisticated now, and they're so sophisticated at microtargeting and being able to really target particular voters.

And even if the voting pool is expanding, I think campaigns are adept and the Trump presidency was a good example of really reaching out. To 18 to 25-year-old young men. And really with great success. And [00:15:00] so I think there is that uncertainty for sure.

I think to even broaden it a little bit, I feel sometimes this conversation about. And I don't wanna get us on a tangent. It almost is reflective of how do we think of patriotism? Different conceptualizations of patriotism. And what does patriotism look like? It almost is similar to this argument.

I always love, I'm a still a big Tocqueville fan and I'm sort. Saddened when I know that students don't read. Tocqueville as much as I certainly didn't what I did in undergrad, but he talks a lot about, I should a lot. There is this conversation that he has in his book, democracy in America, and for people who don't re remember the Tocqueville story, Tocqueville was French Aristocrat who traveled the United States in 1820s.

And interestingly was here looking at the penal system throughout the United States, but found himself really reflecting on. Democracy. And what was it about American democracy? Republican forms of government, in particular lowercase, are Republican forms of government that made them [00:16:00] stable. And one thing he points out to points out is he looks at this reflection on what does patriotism mean and the different definitions of patriotism.

And one he argues is is called instinctive patriotism, that. That sort of reverential type of patriotism that's rooted in your belief in just customs you feel a loyalty to where you were born. This seems simplistic, a waving the flag, sort of patriotism, often rooted in symbolism.

Then he also argues there's a deeper kind of patriotism that he noted in the United States in the early 18 hundreds that what he argued is more fruitful, more lasting that's more thoughtful in nature, that often is more willing to complain, willing to criticize, but also more.

Engaged. So much of my work here is about civic engagement and encouraging people to participate in politics. That often, real patriotism is about really linking your personal wellbeing [00:17:00] with the wellbeing of the country. And often that comes from really being deeply rooted in the workings of government.

I don't know if this is a fair comparison or not, but I often in these. Arguments I find myself in disagreements. Not unlike this one about is voting a right or a privilege? It often comes to what does patriotism look like or what is, how do we know when someone is patriotic or not? 

Michael Lee: This is what 

Elizabeth Matto : and are, again, back to false dichotomies.

You can't, the, it is a, an unfair dichotomy. 

Michael Lee: Since we've talked a lot about these and Tocqueville and false dichotomies and of course kinda young people and young voters and their their participation, their joining, whether they're joining up and acting in groups and participating in a civic way.

I'm curious, and this will be our last question and speculate about where this goes. There was so much discourse ahead of the 24 elections stemming from the 20 election that especially amongst the left, that young people are gonna save us. The young people are gonna come along and they are just so civically minded.

They're [00:18:00] so community oriented. They're driven by these social values that are really atypical from the rest of the country. They're brother and sister's keeper kind of people. Yeah. 

Elizabeth Matto : Yeah. 

Michael Lee: And then that seems not to have borne out in any of the data that I have seen from the 24 election.

And some of the data from Jonathan Het and others suggests that this is a generation kind of young. Gen Z and older gen alphas are motivated more by anxiety, painting with a broad brush than any previous generation we have on record and then motivated by money. By making lots of money saying that making lots of money is really more important than other generations have answered that question at higher percentages.

And so we have these two kind of competing ideas. We have this allegedly woke generation who's gonna save the left, and then now we have a generation that does not seem to be voting as such. Where do you see as an expert in these voting patterns? Where do you see the youth vote, quote unquote? Yeah, going in future elections.

Elizabeth Matto : I feel as if we, [00:19:00] there was a window of opportunity that is still there, but it's closing in that especially Gen Z, millennials began the trend of having a more sort of public spirited. Cohort of people often looked at, nine 11 being the sort of marker beginning of millennials where there's this sense of community mind mindedness.

Caring about the public, caring about solving problems. Certainly with Gen Z often you look at the March for Our Lives movement as one indicator. Focusing that public mindedness on politics and voting in particular. You have seen periods upticks of voting. And I think it has been met by frustration.

It has been met with disillusionment. I think I would, if there is concern, if there is a over amplified emphasis on money, that's because they are shouldering tremendous. They are looking ahead to shouldering tremendous [00:20:00] burdens that previous generations haven't had to shoulder. This is a generation that is inheriting.

So many problems from previous generations, many of them financial, will there be a social security system for young adults? How will they pay for student loan debt? How will they ever own a home? Will they ever get married? Will they ever have a savings? So it doesn't, it's not surprising to me that there is both a focus on just financial stability and wellbeing.

And a sense of disillusionment. With the way government is functioning. So that's not unique to the United States. We are seeing disillusion with democratic systems around the globe. And it is gr a great cause for concern. And here is where you're a fellow academic. This is where I think education is so critically important in K to 12, but in higher education recognizing the shortcomings.

Of democracy recognizing the shortcomings of of [00:21:00] democratic processes, institutions, but basically arguing it's the best game in town. It is the, there is a good reason to believe in democracy and to support democracy, but. It's not genetic, it's not automatic student. Our children, our grandchildren, will not have gotten the same education that previous generations have gotten, will not have gotten the civic education that previous generations have gotten.

So I would say, I think there is, there's reason for. Concern about young adults willingness, propensity, skillset. However, I think there is still a hunger and a drive if we not only give them the skillset, give them the tools, but give them the opportunity. Give them the opportunity to run for office to be successful, run running for office.

To lead movements. So to step aside a little bit, also, I think there's a little bit of stepping aside and making room for young adults, but also equipping them. [00:22:00] Elizabeth Mattau, thank you so much for being on this episode of what we usually call when we disagree, but turned into Get off my lawn.

Thank you for having me, Mike.

Michael Lee: When we Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee. Recording and sound engineering by Jesse k and Lance Laidlaw. Reach out to us at When We disagree@gmail.com.