Freedom and Passion

Young people have a lot of passion. It is something to respect about them and most of the time, encourage. It is an indication of an altruistic nature that should be nurtured; they know that there is injustice in the world and have a burning desire to do something about it and protect the interests of the least advantaged. But they are often not so sure who to blame. I mean, if they could find a Nazi, they’d burn him, but it seems that you have only to present something under a banner of idealized relations for a group of university students to rally behind it. The nature of our democratic society tries to maximize individual freedom so long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others, and a certain level of well-being is guaranteed for the disadvantaged, but the young are perfectly willing to abandon this fundamental freedom when some other ideal is presented in opposition.
For example, you’re not going to find a group of students defending your freedom to smoke whenever you please. Rather the activists tend to flock to the banner of defending society’s youth from the danger of tobacco. There is a strong sense that tobacco companies (now a dirty word) are “preying” on the impressionable psyche of the young, and taking advantage of their insecurity. However, activist groups exploit the same feature; the paid advertisements and organized rallies are not reactions to a perceived injustice, but a method of convincing the young that an injustice is present and using their passion to defend the special interests of a very select group. While you may not appreciate someone smoking beside you, you shouldn’t need a commercial to convince you of it; but the most recent anti-smoking campaign tries to equate kissing a smoker with kissing someone who has just thrown up. If you really don’t like it, then why would someone need to make you aware of the problem?
In democracy, there’s always a balance between what’s right for the people, and what the people believe is right. When the government thinks it knows what’s best, we get the “culture of entitlement” instantiated by the Liberal party. When the fluctuating and transient opinions of voters is the exclusive determining factor in the formation of government policy, important opportunities for improvement can be left in the hands of popular prejudice (which seems to be the problem with introducing a private health care sector). Recently someone related to me an encounter between an (Albertan) MP and a young protester. The MP noticed a large group holding signs protesting amendments to the health care system (i.e. any privatization). Intrigued, he approached a young female protester to ask what specifically she found objectionable about the proposed reforms. Rather than an offering an informative opinion, her major complaint was that tuitions were too high… When pressed, she repeated some common political catchphrases (“I’m not going to let Ralph destroy public health care”). Disappointed, the MP criticized the U of A student, saying he expected more from someone educated and apparently impassioned.
We should recognize that part of youthful idealism should be encouraged; it does indicate a certain intuitive morality. But sometimes this idealism extends past its sense of commitment to justice and begins to look like nothing more than fashionable hype. Someone who is truly committed to fighting injustice must pursue understanding if they intend to make a real difference and not just join up with whoever happens to appeal to their fleeting whims. Of course criticizing youthful idealists as a group will only appeal to their rebellious nature and make the bad stuff, worse.