Much has been made of the increase in voter participation among young people in 2020. But the act of casting a ballot represents just one method of civic engagement, and young people significantly increased their participation in other political activities last year.
New data released Tuesday by Tufts University's Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement found that nearly three times as many people ages 18 to 24 said in late 2020 that they have donated to a political campaign or registered others to vote, as compared to 2018. And the percent of young people who volunteered for a political campaign more than doubled in the same time frame.
CIRCLE'S research team provided The Fulcrum with data comparing six forms of civic engagement for 18-24-year olds. The data is based on post-election polls, and the questions did not specify specific time frames for the engagements, meaning respondents could consider pre-2020 participation.
In addition to the big jumps in volunteering for campaigns, donating to campaigns and registering voters, the youth cohort showed modest increases in their efforts to convince others to vote and discussing political issues with friends.
Source: CIRCLE at Tufts University
One additional engagement, attending a march or demonstration, was compared to data from 2016. Four years ago, 10 percent of young people said they did so. The rate skyrocketed to 31 percent in 2020 — not surprising in a year of protests over racial injustice.
"The 2020 election cycle further cemented the younger generation's capacity to organize and effect change, often based on their shared commitment to racial and environmental justice," said CIRCLE Director Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg.
The most recent data suggests that while young people on both ends of the political spectrum are inclined to find some way to engage in politics, Democrats are generally more positive about the role of their age group. Among people ages 18 to 29, nearly 90 percent of those who voted for Joe Biden said their generation should participate in decision making, has a responsibility to do so or has the power to effect change. Among those who voted for Donald Trump, those percentages were in the mid-70s.
"Now that the elections are behind us, young people are poised to seize their power to make change on issues they care about and to strengthen our democracy. They know that their continued engagement is needed now more than ever," said Alan Solomont, dean of Tisch College, which houses the CIRCLE program at Tufts.
The 2020 survey was conducted by Gallup for CIRCLE. In 2016 and 2018, the program used the polling firm GfK.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.