Last month Karlo and Colin wrote a post following Netroots Nation that called for some reconciliation in the name of progress.

Millennials carry the spirit of the founding fathers, perhaps more closely than generations in recent times. We understand that quality interactions with our counterparts advocating in good faith are more important than building huge e-mail lists based upon tactics of fear and hate. We talk to others, on this blog, on Facebook, on Twitter, and we do it with civility - or at least we try. We interact this way because we know others are watching and that everything we do and say is on-the-record. This does not mean that we don't stick to our principles and our values and voice our opinions. What it does mean is that we know that we are having conversations with people, other than those that just agree with everything we say. We're not about burning bridges; we're about mending them and building them out into the future.

I agree with their vision as expressed here. I think the two predominant political camps in this country do spend too much time trying to find the most vulnerable aspects in the opposition's activities for their own short-term political advantage. While I would point out that not all Millennials carry the spirit Karlo and Colin describe, the prevailing view among youth today is that compromise is important. "Pragmatic idealism" is a descriptor I have seen used for the way we view politics. To engage in this approach, though, I believe we need to take a step back and rethink the way we view politics.

Obama was elected on a platform that had at its core the notion that we could disagree without being disagreeable. And I still believe that's one of the more redeeming qualities our president possesses, to be able to espouse that and enact it day to day. However, to our detriment, he does this while viewing politics as an episodic adventure, as a negative thing. I can't tell you how many times I have heard him accusing someone of "playing politics."

First, politics isn't something to be played. It's a reality. It happens all around us. My writing this blog is political. You reading it is political. You daring to think about it later today and telling someone about it (crossing fingers) is political. What I'm trying to convey is that politics is not a battle that can be joined and not joined.

In addition, politics is not inherently negative. Interestingly, in its original Greek form, the definition of politics is less loaded; with polis meaning "city state," politikos roughly translates to “of the citizen,” signaling a citizen-centered view of politics with a focus on those things concerning city or state affairs. Aristotle argues that politics consists of the interplay between people from different backgrounds and interests, holding different views, while aiming to complete a task. In other words, politics is a constant that citizens cannot ignore; in fact, acknowledging and embracing one's constant participation forms the heart of democracy.

Viewing politics this way, we can see why E.J. Dionne's column is so discerning in today's Post.

Obama's mistake is captured by that disdainful reference to "politicking." In a democracy, separating governing from "politicking" is impossible. "Politicking" is nothing less than the ongoing effort to convince free citizens of the merits of a set of ideas, policies and decisions. Voters feel better about politicians who put what they are doing in a compelling context. Citizens can endure setbacks as long as they believe the overall direction of the government's approach is right.

I suppose this is another take on the whole "Obama needs a narrative" meme that has been playing out. But I like this because I think the critique is more accurate. His attacking politics undercuts himself and what he is trying to do. This damage is then made worse by not giving any foundational rationale for what he is trying to do in the first place. Talk about giving special interests and "anything goes" politics a free pass...

Colin and Karlo were right: as long as we're fighting about character issues and other small-minded topics, we have already lost. When we are not talking about a set of ideas, policies, and decisions to be made in an honest way, we let special interests wreck everything (at which point Millennials may as well turn on some John Mayer).

It behooves all of us, including our president, to view politics as a constant, something we cannot ignore. The mixing of various views, backgrounds, and interests is always at work, and, especially now, there will always be a task to pursue. If the 2008 enthusiasm was genuine, if it meant something -- if Obama was serious about his call for citizens to step it up -- our president and all of us need to re-calibrate our views on politics. Pragmatic idealism just might have a shot then.

Originally posted on Citizen Orange.

The "DREAM Now Series: Letters to Barack Obama" is a social media campaign that launched Monday, July 19, to underscore the urgent need to pass the DREAM Act. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, S. 729, would help tens of thousands of young people, American in all but paperwork, to earn legal status, provided they graduate from U.S. high schools, have good moral character, and complete either two years of college or military service.  With broader comprehensive immigration reform stuck in partisan gridlock, the time is now for the White House and Congress to step up and pass the DREAM Act!

Dear Mr. President,

My name is Carlos and I'm a 23 year old undocumented immigrant from Caracas, Venezuela.  I want to legalize my immigration status in this country through the passage of DREAM Act this year.  For too long have I lived in the U.S. without papers.  It has been over 20 years, now.  I want to legalize my immigration status in order to fulfill my dreams of becoming a young professional in architecture.

There are obstacles in my daily life that make it extraordinarily difficult to pursue a career in architecture.  Fortunately, because of my determination to continue my studies after graduating high school in 2005, I'm currently a student in Miami Dade College.  It has not been without great difficulty.  For many years it felt as if all the potential I developed in high school was for nothing.

I am the perfect example of other students in similar situations whose voices have been silenced by the fact that we are not truly accounted for.  We are afraid of speaking up because doing so might affect our immigration status in this country and possibly even lead to deportation.  I myself felt this way for several years, but after dealing with my status for so long, I now consider it a duty to speak up for myself and for other youth in my shoes.

I remember that dark and cold feeling of shame, fear and hopelessness.
 
After the death of my mother--the person I was closest to in my life--I'd constantly ask myself what is to come of me?  Where is my life going?  If it wasn't for her strength and desire to see me succeed, I would not have devoted myself to this cause in her memory.  If it wasn't for her love--her incredible affection transcending my existence--I would not have been able to conquer the fear of being undocumented. My love of humanity has manifested itself through the fight for immigrant rights.
 
That's why I was one of four undocumented youth that participated on a 1500 mile walk from Miami, FL to Washington D.C. known as the Trail of Dreams.

I encourage you to present this letter U.S. Congress, Mr. President, so that the voice of one undocumented immigrant echoes the voice of millions.  I hope that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus can have the vision to push for the DREAM Act this year.  It would be be a dream for so many families, fathers and mothers just like mine, to see their children on the path towards legalization and professional degrees.

I consider it a colossal loss for society that young Americans, such as myself, find it extremely difficult to continue our studies after high school graduation.  We are unable to work legally, unable to join the Armed Forces, unable to legally obtain a driving license, and unable to apply or receive most scholarships. Economically supporting our families under these circumstances is impossible.

Our legalization would greatly contribute to our communities and make this country a better place.  As young professionals we would open businesses, create jobs, pay taxes, and play a much stronger role rehabilitating the economy, just like any other hardworking U.S. citizen.

Please give us the opportunity to contribute to the only country we know as our home, Mr. President.  Please step up and help us pass the DREAM Act, this year. 

Sincerely,
Carlos A. Roa, Jr.

The "DREAM Now" letter series is inspired by a similar campaign started by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  The letters are produced by Kyle de Beausset at Citizen Orange with the assistance of America's Voice.  Every Monday and Wednesday DREAM-eligible youth will publish letters to the President, and each Friday there will be a DREAM Now recap. 

1. Sign the DREAM Act Petition
2. Join the DREAM Act Facebook Cause
3. Send a fax in support of the DREAM Act
4. Call your Senator and ask them to pass the DREAM Act now.
5. Email kyle at citizenorange dot com to get more involved

Below is a list of previous entries in the DREAM Now Series:

Mohammad Abdollahi (19 July 2010)
Yahaira Carrillo (21 July 2010)
Weekly Recap - Tell Harry Reid You Want the DREAM Act Now (23 July 2010)
Wendy (26 July 2010)
Matias Ramos (28 July 2010)
Weekly Recap - The CHC Has To Stand With Migrant Youth Not Against Us (30 July 2010)
Tania Unzueta (2 August 2010)
Marlen Moreno (4 August 2010)
Weekly Recap - The Ghost of Virgil Goode Possesses the Republican Party (9 August 2010)
David Cho (9 August 2010)
Ivan Nikolov (11 August 2010)
Yves Gomes (16 August 2010)
Selvin Arevalo (18 August 2010)
Weekly Recap - Latino, LGBT, Migrant Youth, and Progressive Bloggers Lead For the DREAM Act (20 August 2010)

The "DREAM Now Series: Letters to Barack Obama" is a social media campaign that launched Monday, July 19, to underscore the urgent need to pass the DREAM Act. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, S. 729, would help tens of thousands of young people, American in all but paperwork, to earn legal status, provided they graduate from U.S. high schools, have good moral character, and complete either two years of college or military service.  With broader comprehensive immigration reform stuck in partisan gridlock, the time is now for the White House and Congress to step up and pass the DREAM Act!

[Note from Kyle de Beausset: Selvin wrote this letter right before he got into a minor car accident on April 9, 2010.  He was set to get his high school diploma in June but has been in detention ever since.  I have chosen reproduce Selvin's letter as I found it in his empty room, rather than polish his slight grammatical errors, to allow his character to shine through.]

Dear President Barack Obama,

From the bottom of my heart, I plead to my God that you and your entire family receive blessings from the highest God while you are reading this letter.  I admire and thank you for the great labor that you are fulfilling as a president in this big nation.  My name is Selvin Ovidio Arevalo.  I came to this country when I was 15 years old.  I came from Guatemala to this country to fulfill my dreams because I always have believed that this is a country of many opportunities for those whom want to succeed.

Since I came to this country, I have been going to school to learn and enhance my English.   Three years ago, I enrolled with Adult Education in Portland, ME, for my high school diploma.  Finally, in this June 2010, I shall have my high school diploma.  I am already enrolled in college transition.  I wish that at the end of this yar, I can go to college, but what concern me about is getting financial aid.  I cannot qualify for any financial aid because I am not legal in this country.  The reason that I write you is to plead you for a solution to my problem.  I have been a Christian since I was a kid.  For eight years, I have been praying to my God to touch the heart of the leaders of this country to provide me legalization.  I think that I have three important reasons for why I want to be legal in this country.  First reason: I want to go to college and have a degree of computer science and more.  Second: I am one of the leaders of a Christian church in Portland, Maine.  I am the treasurer of the church, a musician; I play instruments in the chorus of my church, and a youth leader.  Third: I have not seen my family (parents, sisters, and brother) for eight years.  I have shed tears for them, but I am waiting until a legalization to go to see them.

I appreciate and thank you for spending your time reading this letter.  Once again, I plead you for a solution to my problem.  My faith is great; I believe that one day I am going to be legal in this country.  Then my dreams will become true.  Once again, thank you for your good will and I hope you have a wonderful time.  May the peace of God be with you forever and ever!

Sincerely,
Selvin Arevalo Ovidio

How you can help Selvin:

Right now, the focus should still be on stopping the deportation of Ivan Nikolov, but if you would like to stay up to date on Selvin's case you can:

1. "Like" his Facebook page
2. Join the Facebook group "We Are Selvin"
3. Follow Citizen Orange for more updates

The "DREAM Now" letter series is inspired by a similar campaign started by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  The letters are produced by Kyle de Beausset at Citizen Orange with the assistance of America's Voice.  Every Monday and Wednesday DREAM-eligible youth will publish letters to the President, and each Friday there will be a DREAM Now recap. 

1. Sign the DREAM Act Petition
2. Join the DREAM Act Facebook Cause
3. Send a fax in support of the DREAM Act
4. Call your Senator and ask them to pass the DREAM Act now.
5. Email kyle at citizenorange dot com to get more involved

Below is a list of previous entries in the DREAM Now Series:

Mohammad Abdollahi (19 July 2010)
Yahaira Carrillo (21 July 2010)
Weekly Recap - Tell Harry Reid You Want the DREAM Act Now (23 July 2010)
Wendy (26 July 2010)
Matias Ramos (28 July 2010)
Weekly Recap - The CHC Has To Stand With Migrant Youth Not Against Us (30 July 2010)
Tania Unzueta (2 August 2010)
Marlen Moreno (4 August 2010)
Weekly Recap - The Ghost of Virgil Goode Possesses the Republican Party (9 August 2010)
David Cho (9 August 2010)
Ivan Nikolov (11 August 2010)
Yves Gomes (16 August 2010)

Thomas Goldstein and Thomas Bates, Executive Director of the Washington Bus and Vice President for Civic Engagement at Rock the Vote respectively, penned an op-ed published in today's Seattle Times. Goldstein and Bates took aim at the idea that youth's "low" turnout in midterm elections relative to older age groups ultimately means a smaller impact on the results.

It isn't exactly news that young people tend to vote at lower rates than older voters. The more interesting story is that even if young people turn out at lower rates, they can dramatically affect the election landscape and outcomes. That happened most visibly in the 2008 presidential election, but also in certain nonpresidential elections closer to home.

The approval of Referendum 71, the election of a young mayor in Tacoma, and two victorious young City Council candidates in Spokane are all evidence of the efficacy of targeting young voters. Moreover, the highest turnout in the state in 2009 was in the 43rd Legislative District, which has the greatest concentration of young voters.

Even with mounting evidence, too many campaigns write off young voters, and this tired habit has made the prophecy of low turnout a self-fulfilling one. It almost reads as a new definition of madness: Time and time again, campaigns don't invest time and resources into young people, and then are surprised when they don't mail in their ballots.

[...]

Luckily, we're doing something about it. Forward-looking organizations and campaigns have tested methods to engage young people and have committed resources to make them reliable voters. And we're seeing results: For the past three major election cycles — yes, even pre-Obama — the turnout of young people has steadily increased.

We know what works: Make sure young people are registered to vote, give them relevant information in an engaging way, and run campaigns that connect with their values.

The point both are making is that, blessed with size, the effect of even a subtle increase in the Millennial voting rate can be worth a few points in various midterm elections -- enough to tip those races in different directions.

As we move forward into the meat of the 21st Century, these younger people, increasingly becoming adults, are going to need to be pursued in a different way than past voters. This calls for aggressive engagement, complete with the "relevant information" Goldstein and Gates mention above, as well as managing campaigns that reflect youth's values.

Though he tries to act like he's playing the role of peacemaking conciliator, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat eventually reveals his true feelings:

By global standards, [Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the mosque] may be the model of a “moderate Muslim.” But global standards and American standards are different. For Muslim Americans to integrate fully into our national life, they’ll need leaders who don’t describe America as “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 (as Rauf did shortly after the 2001 attacks), or duck questions about whether groups like Hamas count as terrorist organizations (as Rauf did in a radio interview in June). And they’ll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.

Douthat makes the same error that most other observers are making in failing to see the wide spectrum of beliefs in Islam. Yes, there are those (al-Qaeda) who couch their hatred of America in the religion (just like there are Christians who use their faith to justify their hatred of our government). But there are also Muslims -- in fact, the large majority of those in the United States -- who worship peacefully, just like other the Judeo-Christian worship communities Douthat taps earlier in his piece.

I wouldn't like to be told as a Christian that I could not buy a property in Wichita, Kansas because Scott Roeder, a Christian zealot, killed a doctor who performed abortions. Same goes for Atlanta, Georgia, when Eric Rudolph bombed the Olympic Park during the ceremonies in 1996, to "to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand." But because Christianity is the privileged religion in Douthat's second America, we simply understand that Roeder and Rudolph are right-wing nut jobs that do not represent the wide majority of Christians. The same doesn't go for Muslims.

The arms race. A time in our Nation's history when we were on edge. We were racing to the top, to be the world super power and make sure we defeated the USSR. The times were hard, some sloppy policy was made, and our Nation was all over the political spectrum. Since we've learned these lessons, we now know better. In today's current political climate we have our very own arms race. This time instead of racing to the top to fight against another Nation we are fighting against ourselves. The right and the left are all pissed off while the middle stands and stares. We have generated such polarized language that all it does is to turn-off people from politics and aggravate those who are in it.

Our current political climate tears us between either "taking back America" or "Change". It puts our leaders in a battle of endless litigation, of pass then repeal. Take a look at choice, healthcare, gay marriage or any other issue you hear about. During the Bush years the Democrats were always set on getting back into power and now during the Obama years the right is doing the same. Both the Tea Party movement and the Netroots were born out of anger, frustration, and a call for something different. How is it that both the right and the left are so mad and frustrated about what is going on that they are calling for uprising from their respective sides?

FACT: The middle of the political spectrum makes or breaks policy.

We know it's hard to hear. Sometimes we like to disagree with it and get wrapped up in the fighting for our beliefs, but it's true.

It's our opinion that Millennials voted for Barack Obama not so much because he is a Democrat or a liberal or a progressive, but because he gave us the hope of a new kind of politics - one where we don't tear each other down but build our nation up together. Millennials are frustrated that the Congress, the oldest in average age in American history, continues the highly partisan governing from the Bush Administration. We voted not for policy change but for a fundamental change to the approach to governing and politics.

Older generations were fighters. They fought wars, they fought for civil rights and women's rights, the fought for their generation and their country. "Fighting" for one's values and beliefs was a constant theme at this year's Netroots Nation. The "Netroots", spawned from the Daily Kos army, has that fighting spirit. They came of age again under the Bush Administration and remembered the fight that they and their parents fought.

Looking at older generations and comparing them to our generation raises one main question. Are Millennials fighters? We fight in wars but don't have the draft. We support the guarantee of equal rights for the LGBT community and all other oppressed communities, but in a different way in which the struggle for civil rights was fought. As Tim Wise reminded us during his Netroots Nation keynote speech, the majority - whichever way you cut it - will always try to retain it's upper-hand. It's human nature. It's that understanding of human nature that led the leaders of our nation to protect minority rights at the individual-level and at the state-level. But majority rights are protected, too. That is the wonder and effectiveness of American federalism, which is itself rooted in finding compromise and in taking the slow-paced approach to change.

What does a nation without negotiation look like? It's ugly. No one is happy and the entire country is pulled in different directions. The country would be plagued with martial law and civil wars. This is not our country. Our country has a long standing tradition of compromise. We were founded on the idea of protecting everyone's beliefs and creating the fairest possible system we could.

If we keep up the fighting mentality then we fail to bring in the hearts and the minds of the people. We open the doors for special interests to flood the political world with money and bad policy advocates. Policy-making requires moderation and negotiation; the cornerstones of democracy and American federalism. A nation as diverse as ours must take careful and deliberate steps in governing. But shocks to the systems are sometimes important. That was the case during the civil rights era, for example. The federal government recognized that individual rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and must be protected. For the most part our Nation recognizes the importance of equal rights and the protection of those rights. There are still examples were this isn't true, but it's being worked on. The reason a shock to the system was needed in the past was because the issue was ignored. We now live in such a connected age that no single issue can be ignored because anyone, anywhere can make it public. Voters make or break politicians.

Millennials carry the spirit of the founding fathers, perhaps more closely than generations in recent times. We understand that quality interactions with our counterparts advocating in good faith are more important than building huge e-mail lists based upon tactics of fear and hate. We talk to others, on this blog, on Facebook, on Twitter, and we do it with civility - or at least we try. We interact this way because we know others are watching and that everything we do and say is on-the-record. This does not mean that we don't stick to our principles and our values and voice our opinions. What it does mean is that we know that we are having conversations with people, other than those that just agree with everything we say. We're not about burning bridges; we're about mending them and building them out into the future.

There isn't a good example in recent memory of what it's like to engage in quality conversation with our friends on the other side of the aisle. But, we all know that working together is the right thing to do. It's the reason that politicians and candidates harp on their bi-partisan successes because they know that Americans are all about teamwork, in life, in sports and in politics. Our generation might not have a clear vision of how working with conservatives and Republicans will turn out, but we know that fighting against them will only entrench their views more, and vice versa. Barack Obama said, "If you're walking down the right path and you're willing to keep walking, eventually you'll make progress." We're pretty sure he meant that we walk down that path together and not alone.

This post was a collaboration between Karlo Marcelo and Colin Curtis.

Colin - @colincurtisks

To belabor a point made previously on this blog - deficit hawks are jeopardizing not only the nascent economic recovery but the economic prospects of young people. Don’t take my word for it. There’s a growing chorus of journalists and political commentators across the political spectrum weighing in on the deficit hysteria consuming Washington.

The NYTimes runs a piece today aptly titled “American Dream is Elusive for a New Generation ”. The article profiles the travails of a 24 year old recent college grad struggling to find desirable work and living back at home with his parents.

As the passage below highlights, young people attempting to navigate their way into and through this job market are facing historic headwinds.What's striking is that young people display a persistent sense of optimism, a belief that better days are ahead. But that unrelenting optimism may change in the future, and it depends on what type of economic recovery takes place. The story 30, 40 or even 50 years from now may be that of a generation whose economic possibilities were constrained by this Great Recession.

“I don’t think I fully understood the severity of the situation I had graduated into,” he said, speaking in effect for an age group — the so-called millennials, 18 to 29 — whose unemployment rate of nearly 14 percent approaches the levels of that group in the Great Depression. And then he veered into the optimism that, polls show, is persistently, perhaps perversely, characteristic of millennials today. “I am absolutely certain that my job hunt will eventually pay off,” he said.

For young adults, the prospects in the workplace, even for the college-educated, have rarely been so bleak. Apart from the 14 percent who are unemployed and seeking work, as Scott Nicholson is, 23 percent are not even seeking a job, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The total, 37 percent, is the highest in more than three decades and a rate reminiscent of the 1930s.

Calls for increased government spending have for the most part been articulated from the left. Yet it appears that the dismal job numbers last month have caused some conservative deficit hawks to recognize the value in additional fiscal spending. Economist Mom runs this snippet taken from an open letter to Scott Brown in the Boston Globe

…take it from David Walker, former US comptroller general and now, as president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a leading deficit hawk. “While the current deficits are large, they don’t represent the real threat to the future of the country,’’ he said. “The real threat is the medium-to-longer term structural deficits that will be here after the economy has recovered.’’…

No fiscal falcon with a proper balance of economic and fiscal priorities is going to fault you for supporting that extended aid.
“As a deficit hawk, I wouldn’t worry about extending unemployment benefits,’’ said Bob Bixby, president of the Concord Coalition. “It is not going to add to the long-term structural deficit, and it does address a serious need. I just feel like unemployment benefits wandered onto the wrong street corner at the wrong time, and now they are getting mugged.’’

And here, Matt Mills a traditional deficit hawk makes an argument for increased fiscal spending via The Washington Post

I come before you, in other words, a deficit hawk to the core. But it is the height of economic folly -- and socially dangerous, in my view -- to elevate deficit reduction as a goal today over boosting jobs and growth. Especially when there are ways to goose the economy while at the same time legislating changes that move us toward fiscal sanity once we're past this stagnation.

Even NYTimes columnist David Brooks tepidly endorses extending unemployment benefits in his most recent column, albeit while making an argument against a second stimulus.

It goes without saying but deficits and the debt matter. Yet the additional measures in spending that most are now advocating for have no serious bearing on our real long-term budget problems.

These are not arguments made in the abstract, the Senate’s failure to extend unemployment benefits have real human tragedies behind them (calls into the National Suicide hotline have increased). States will be forced to lay off hundreds of thousands of employees if Congress doesn’t extend additional aid.

What will Congress or more specifically the Senate do once it returns from its holiday recess? Only time will tell. We can only hope that the convergence across the political spectrum for additional fiscal spending outside of the halls of Congress informs the action within it.

Yesterday, Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, of NDN fame, presented the findings of an online poll they conducted from June 1-7. The report, "The Changing Coalitions of 21st Century America," explores how the parties are adapting to rapidly changing demographics in America.

The data affirms what we have been noting for some time now.

While most Americans continue to favor activist government focused on promoting economic equality, those components of the electorate that identify most strongly with the Democratic Party are much more likely to want to see that approach reflected in legislation on such issues as health care, education, and off shore drilling. In addition, while both party's coalitions want action on the economy and financial reform, only major groups within the GOP coalition are strongly concerned with reducing government spending and the federal debt. These deeply felt differences are likely to be reflected in the 2010 midterm elections campaigns and on Capitol Hill in the years ahead.

Democrats retain a clear lead in both party identification and the congressional generic ballot that is virtually unchanged from the lead they held in the project's first survey conducted in February 2010. The core groups of the Democratic Party's new coalition - Millennials, African-Americans, Hispanics - remain solidly Democratic in both their partisan identifications and vote intentions, but the current lack of political intensity among these Democratic groups give Republicans an opening to make gains in 2010.

In short: the Democratic coalition has the demographic trends in their favor, but whether or not they can effectively mobilize these voters in a hostile environment is the big question.

Morley and Mike's presentation can be found here and the executive summary is here.

I start this post hoping that most of us can agree that contemporary political discourse is problematic. The oversized egos of television and radio commentators and news personalities, accompanied by the narcissistic and moralistic tone of most politicians, leaves us with lots of posturing and little change.

Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter in the Bush administration and a current columnist in the Washington Post, decided to wade into this topic in his latest piece. Gerson sees discourse breaking down into two parties: the Ugly Party and the Grown-Up Party. In differentiating the two, Gerson rightly attributes all dialogue which wishes death upon people or likens them to a disease to the Ugly Party. For instance, Ann Coulter's lamentation that the terrorists did not also hit the New York Times building, or that Mike Malloy, a radio talk show host, stating that he believed Glenn Beck should blow his brains out. I have no problem with Gerson's scolding here -- we need more of it.

I do have a problem with his alternative, however. Gerson explains the Grown-Up Party:

The alternative to the Ugly Party is the Grown-Up Party -- less edgy and less hip. It is sometimes depicted on the left and on the right as an all-powerful media establishment, stifling creativity, freedom and dissent. The Grown-Up Party, in my experience, is more like a seminar at the Aspen Institute -- presentation by David Broder, responses from E.J. Dionne Jr. and David Brooks -- on the electoral implications of the energy debate. I am more comfortable in this party for a few reasons: because it is more responsible, more reliable and less likely to wish its opponents would die.

Sounds nice, right? My problem is that Gerson's explanation of the Grown-Up Party is too regressive for my taste. If we are trying to engage youth in politics, especially optimistic Millennials, we certainly should be doing what we can to rid the political environment of divisive rhetoric (as well as produce a title less insulting to youth democrats -- little "d"). But we should not be doing it at the expense of access and opportunities for participation.

Gerson's "seminar" places the experts at the center of the discourse suggesting that they should be controlling this country's political discussion, not its citizens. Gerson anticipates this criticism, noting this approach's reputation as "stifling creativity, freedom and dissent." Unfortunately, Gerson does little to soothe these concerns.

While I appreciate Gerson's critique of the status quo and his call for a better political environment, I regret his admitted lack of creativity in constructing an alternative. This Grown Up Party, in throwing the proverbial baby (New Media) out with the proverbial bathwater (an indecent discourse), also squanders opportunities, to use Gerson's language. Today's youth are coming of age with heaps of learned technological experience, and while many online communities have extremists, just like offline communities do, the Internet can be used productively and responsibly and should not simply be dismissed.

I propose a hybrid of Gerson's approach and the status quo. Yes, our culture is poisonous, with dangerous rhetoric flowing into our discourse. The resulting animosity begets more nasty language and leads to personal attacks that immediately shut down productive policy discussion and the free exchange of thoughts and ideas. Instead of attacking New Media, perhaps we educate young adults. Using deliberation in high school classrooms, for example, teaches students civic knowledge, critical thinking, and communication skills. This pedagogy could replace the boring overhead projector and transparencies many of us experienced in social studies courses. Maybe we simultaneously empower young adults, ensuring they understand that politics is not merely a negative, episodic adventure, but an ongoing marathon in which they can easily participate.

Dualistic thinking is dangerous, and employing it in this context threatens our ability to fully capitalize on the opportunities present in our citizenship. We need healthy rhetoric in our political discourse, but we need it to accompany expanded participation in the conversation, not eschew it.

As the President prepares to speak to the nation Thursday regarding the need for comprehensive immigration reform, NAFSA: Association of International Educators has launched a campaign called "Reaching for a DREAM: Support a Path of Hope for Undocumented Students."

The campaign calls on as many people as possible to contact Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and ask her to make "deferred action" the formal policy for DREAM Act-eligible international students. If "deferred action," now only instituted on an ad hoc basis, was to become formal policy, students would be able to stay in the United States to pursue their studies without fear of deportation while Congress debates the DREAM Act.

At Connecting Our World, NAFSA's online community in support of international education, advocates can send a message directly to the Secretary, tweet about the campaign, and share their story with the community.

Props to NAFSA for launching this campaign. Here's to hoping that Congress gets this thing done.