In January 1998, one of the most shocking, dissected, and salient presidential scandals in American history was born. So were thousands of people who, two years from now, might be lining up to vote for the woman who found herself trapped between her husband and his mistress.
The youngest 2016 voters were born in 1998. And if generational voting patterns hold true, a sizable chunk of them will vote left, for Hillary Clinton — if she actually runs, of course.
But since supporters, super PACs, and everyone else has already decided she will, the buzz surrounding the new Vanity Fair essay by Monica Lewinsky intensified around one question: What does her reappearance mean for 2016? As my colleague Emma Roller wrote in response, “very little.”
That answer holds true for the young voters the former secretary of State will be trying to reach.
The youngest millennials, between ages 18 and 25, first learned about the Lewinsky scandal in history textbooks, not think pieces. For them as people, 1998 feels like forever ago. For them as voters who tend to lean left, the political climate of the late nineties is irrelevant. Back then, same-sex marriage was illegal in every state. So was pot. There was no recession, no Occupy.
For these young voters, the name “Monica Lewinsky” is filed away as a punchline to a joke they don’t quite understand, or recited as a line in a Beyonce song. There’s an entire generation out there who doesn’t even know who she is (and at least one young person is sad about that).
I turned eight two weeks after The Drudge Report revealed the affair. A recent immigrant, I also didn’t speak English at the time. I don’t remember my parents talking about it, nor do I remember exactly when I first heard the name “Monica Lewinsky.” Maybe high school. But I can tell you that, one day ago, as I scrolled through New York magazine’s “Where Are They Now?” roundup of important players from that era, I didn’t recognize any of the names. “Linda Tripp” vaguely rang a bell. Until this week, I knew about the blue dress, about impeachment charges, but not about the obvious — by 2014 standards — slut-shaming, Jake Tapper’s date, or what the scandal tells us about all women in American society, Monica and Hillary both.
The way young voters will learn about the whole affair today is vastly different than how people of the same age got the story in 1998 — in bits and pieces, in public denials and detailed testimonies. Now, curious millennials can read the earliest accounts, the follow-ups, Lewinsky’s own take penned 16 years later, and dozens of other takes written just this week. They will receive a fuller picture of what happened, and one that’s undoubtedly kinder to Lewinsky than the first one was.
Now, add political apathy on top of all of that. Last month, members of the millennial generation reported the lowest level of interest in any election since Harvard University’s Institute of Politics began tracking them in 2000 — especially among those who identify as Democrats. Of course, voter turnout for midterm elections is historically considerably lower compared with presidential elections. But the indifference is telling.
If millennials are “meh” about the political process and Washington scandals that don’t seem real to them, the name “Monica” won’t instantly come to mind if the name “Clinton” goes on the 2016 ballot.
What We're Following See More »
"The Justice Department inspector general referred its finding that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly misled investigators who were examining a media disclosure to the top federal prosecutor in D.C. to determine whether McCabe should be charged with a crime." The referral occurred "after the inspector general concluded McCabe had lied to investigators or his own boss, then-FBI Director James B. Comey, on four occasions, three of them under oath." The referral does "not necessarily mean McCabe will be charge with a crime ... although the report alleged that one of McCabe’s lies 'was done knowingly and intentionally.'"
A federal appeals court in Chicago "upheld a nationwide injunction against making federal grant funding contingent on cooperation with immigration enforcement." The three Republican appointees ruled that the Trump administration "exceeded its legal authority in trying to implement the new conditions without approval from Congress ... One judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, Reagan appointee Daniel Manion, said he would narrow the injunction solely to protect Chicago. However, the two other judges assigned to the case said the nationwide injunction appeared to be justified."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley "decided Thursday to delay markup" on a bill to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller until next week. But he remains steadfast in his support for a committee vote, despite Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's "pledge to kill it" if it gets to the floor.
North Korea has expressed its commitment to 'complete denuclearisation' of the Korean peninsula and is not seeking conditions, South Korean President Moon Jae-in said on Thursday. ... South Korea announced on Wednesday that it is considering how to change a decades-old armistice with North Korea into a peace agreement as it prepares for the North-South summit this month." The leaders of the respective countries are also expected to connect a phone line so they can communicate directly.
"California reached an agreement with the federal government that the state’s National Guard troops will deploy to the border to focus on fighting transnational gangs as well as drug and gun smugglers, Gov. Jerry Brown said. ... Brown said Wednesday he secured federal funding for terms similar to those outlined in last week’s proposed contract: The Guard cannot handle custody duties for anyone accused of immigration violations, build border barriers or have anything to do with immigration enforcement."