Craig Berger's blog

Some Sunday reading for you.

• The Nation profiles a young immigrant rights activist fighting for the rights of Cambodian women facing deportation.
• A 29 year old Stanford grad and sports agent pushes her clients to reach out to the communities in which they work to give back; not for financial/PR reasons, but because it's the right thing to do.
• Andrew Revkin, at the New York Times blog "Dot Earth," labels the Millennial Generation -- already Generations Y, Q, and O -- Generation E.
• In addition to launching its Ideas for Change in America, change.org is expanding by seven blogs
• The Nation counts the victories of youth activism in 2008.

In his weekly address released Saturday, President-elect Obama spoke about the need to not only solve the problems in the here and now, but also proactively and simultaneously confront the problems of the future.

Economists from across the political spectrum agree that if we don't act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double digit unemployment and the American Dream slipping further and further out of reach.

That's why we need an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that not only creates jobs in the short-term but spurs economic growth and competitiveness in the long-term. And this plan must be designed in a new way – we can't just fall into the old Washington habit of throwing money at the problem. We must make strategic investments that will serve as a down payment on our long-term economic future. We must demand vigorous oversight and strict accountability for achieving results. And we must restore fiscal responsibility and make the tough choices so that as the economy recovers, the deficit starts to come down.

After Obama expounds on the necessity of thinking long-term, he explains how his administration will be doing this.

To put people back to work today and reduce our dependence on foreign oil tomorrow, we will double renewable energy production and renovate public buildings to make them more energy efficient. To build a 21st century economy, we must engage contractors across the nation to create jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools. To save not only jobs, but money and lives, we will update and computerize our health care system to cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help reduce health care costs by billions of dollars each year. To make America, and our children, a success in this new global economy, we will build 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries. And to put more money into the pockets of hardworking families, we will provide direct tax relief to 95 percent of American workers.

One thing I took away from this week's address is the number of times Obama points out the prudence of thinking long-term on a plethora of issues.

In the middle of our $4.00/gallon summer, Sen. Obama took flak from many brainless conservatives for suggesting that we all take a look at our own lifestyles in order to make a difference in the level of energy consumption, such as making sure one's tires are filled with air to save gas. Instead of simply embracing the "Drill here, drill now" short-term gimmick, Obama showed the kind of leadership we haven't seen in at least eight years and re-framed the conversation to focus on long-term solutions.

In the middle of our economic recovery, instead of staying with what's come to be the politically safe choice of strictly worrying about the present, the Obama administration will focus on the future, re-building important infrastructure and changing spending habits.

Obama's focus on the future is refreshing, and it could be one more reason why Millennials -- who stand to inherit this mess -- voted for him by a two-thirds majority.

Here are a few more things of interest that have trickled out over the last few days.

Enjoy!

• Via Peter Levine, the Case Foundation has launched "Change Begins with Me," a campaign inviting Americans to go to the organization's website and complete the sentence, "Change begins with me..." The foundation will randomly select one participant who will win a trip to Washington D.C. for the inauguration and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service.
• From the LA Times, a nineteen-year-old Cal State Fullerton student won a Placentia City Council seat. And unlike many of the characters in youth political involvement stories this cycle, Jeremy Yamaguchi is a Republican (though he sounds like a Millennial Republican).
• A reflection on YouTube's political use this cycle -- by a YouTube employee.
• Domestic automobiles aren't appealing to Gen Y.
• Harry C. Boyte's commentary on the civic potential of public works projects, like Obama's.
• A University of Arkansas law student argues that the key to a Democratic breakthrough in the Appalachian region is the development of a "Blue/Green" populist coalition (blue collar workers and green voters), citing examples of success. Possibly a good way to bring Boomers and Millennials together?
• Last summer, Congress passed a bill extending the Higher Education Act of 1965. The Dept. of Education is now charged with executing the bill, and it's proposing regulations on how to do just that.

One of the most-discussed campaign issues is higher education and its soaring cost. The possibilities for campaign rhetoric are numerous; one can discuss the resulting squeeze on middle-class families and their budgets, the inability for institutions to provide an innovative education, or even the skyrocketing interest rates on student loans and sound fairly competent. But unfortunately, developing talking points for any/all of these problems is all the candidates will do.

Arthur Levine, president of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation (and former president of the Teachers College, Columbia University), has suggested that, given the recent developments with the economy, the most influential policymakers and decision-makers should attend a higher education summit that picks apart these problems and actually solves them in the form of a contract.

President Obama could convene a summit, bringing together Washington, the states, and colleges and universities to triage the higher education goals he championed during the campaign — and to focus particularly on access and affordability, which are of greatest concern to the largest numbers of ordinary Americans.

Attendees for the summit should represent the full breadth of higher education — two-year and four-year and doctoral institutions, state-supported and independent — as well as the executive and legislative branches of the federal government and the key state education leaders, including governors and state higher education officers. That said, this has to be a select, influential group with the power to effect real change — no more than five per side.

These leaders should examine the real resources available to higher education, not as fat juicy pork but as basic sustenance for the key issues: access and affordability, research, economic development, and global competitiveness. The summit should be structured in three parts: first, a one-day gathering to identify key issues and priorities; second, a one-month period for a staff working group to develop and provide options; and third, a final one- or two-day meeting to reach conclusions.

The outcome of this gathering must go beyond rhetoric. The three sectors must agree to a practical, achievable contract that outlines specific roles for each sector. And all this should happen in the first 100 days of the Obama administration, before revenues are otherwise committed.

I like Levine's proposal, mainly due to the contract at the end. Levine sets up the excerpt I provided above with a detailed explanation of the depressing education policy-making cycle that usually happens in politics. Long story short: the buck gets pushed from the federal government to the state government, from the state government to institutions, and then the institutions to students. The common good, the country, and all of the stakeholders lose.

The contract allows each constituency to take ownership of the provisions and encourages the quick passage of policy and allocation of revenues that we need in order to take serious steps toward solving the gargantuan problem with higher education in our country.

Yes, these big issues are tough to solve, and perhaps there could be a heated conversation or two (or plenty more than that) during these meetings, but this is a much better formula for success than playing the blame game. Kudos to Levine for putting forth an idea that seems to mesh with Obama's philosophy. Let's see if President-elect Obama and Secretary of Education-designate Arne Duncan are paying attention.

UPDATE: Jonathan Singer at MyDD has another take on the problem with today's GOP, arguing that the party is in the middle of a dangerous cycle, with its own burgeoning regionalism serving as the nail in the coffin. Good stuff. Check it out.

While this site has carefully examined the overlap between the tendencies and characteristics of the Millennial Generation and the ascent of the Democratic Party (also the fall of the GOP), we've focused less on what impact a surge of youth activism within the GOP might do. What would a Millennial-led Republican Party look like?

The Christian Science Monitor published an article on Wednesday that chronicled the Republican youth's desire to get away from the socially conservative politics that has driven the GOP for many decades now. Millennial party activists interviewed in this article want more pragmatism and diversity -- surprise, surprise -- and they want to see this woven into a narrative that also contains traditional Republican principles: small government and low taxes. The story paints those interviewed as inspired by Obama -- not alienated -- leading to the grand project of saving the Grand Old Party.

More inspired than dejected about the meteoric rise of Barack Obama to the presidency, young Republicans, often working from state capitals in the Democratic heartland, are mounting an ideological and technological insurgency to change the course of the GOP.

Their goal is to use lessons from the historic 2008 drubbing to tie political pragmatism, diversity, and idealism to traditional conservative values like small government and low taxes. Their aim is to broaden the Republican base and ensure its relevancy as a national party. Winning that internal debate over the party’s future, though, won’t be easy.

“I think young people could play a very central role in creating a more moderate and more pragmatic Republican notion of conservatism that is about change, but about change that is more consistent with traditional Republican principles,” says Professor Michael Delli Carpini, an expert on generational differences in politics at the University of Pennsylvania. “The Republican party has to figure out what it’s going to be, and you can see that battle taking place right now … and young people can be very influential in [that debate].”

We know that intra-party battles can be a good thing, given the squabbling that went on in 2005 and 2006 within the Democratic Party and the success that we saw in the 2006 midterms and this past Election Day. And given the demographics, the GOP would certainly be smart to embrace an effort to recapture some technological -- and therefore, political -- relevancy led by youth party activists.

The problem with the GOP, though, is that it can't stand losing. And so to maybe toss the 2010/2012 election cycle to the side in order to get its house in order is unthinkable and unmentionable. As long as there is no long-term adjustment, the Republican Party will continue to pursue the white, old, Southern male -- a shrinking minority in today's political equation. And the longer the GOP remains stubborn, the more time the Democratic Party has to use its technological and demographic advantages to solidify connections to the largest generation in American history.

And let's say the GOP did adjust its strategy, becoming a more calm, mild, pragmatic party focused on doing America better. What might this look like? Well, assuming the Democratic Party has even a little bit of success while in power, the Republicans, should they be willing to make deals and exert a bit of influence on the Democratic agenda, will be largely furthering Democratic policy. Obama and the Democratic Congress would get the credit for the patient deal-making these youth GOP are advocating. Republicans would participate in the hardening of a New Deal-like Coalition that could govern America for the next half century.

What happened? The Republican Party missed the boat. It cast its lot with the Southern Strategy like it was 1968 (and 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2000, 2002, and 2004). What it failed to realize was that the "Silent" Majority in 2008 was actually made up of young, progressive Americans who were already being engaged by a diverse, technologically-advanced Democratic Party. Even if Millennials take the helm of the GOP ship, the Democrats might be too far ahead (providing we continually invest in our own youth movement) for it to make any difference.

I want to follow up on something I had written about last month now that we're a month and a half into the transition.

Barack Obama clearly subscribes to the premise of a "thick democracy," in which citizens form the center of the American political process. Citizens are expected to not only participate by casting a vote, but also by upholding other supplemental responsibilities, such as informing themselves, lobbying their representatives in Congress, (or in their state legislature or city/town council), working for a candidate who represents their views or volunteering for their local board of elections. A government based on an active citizen model also relies on people to to publicly serve through the government itself. Peter Levine wrote about the core principle of previous presidencies last month, and he addressed the incoming Obama presidency:

Barack Obama launched his campaign by addressing citizens' relationship with government and he never stopped talking about it. It even came up in his 30-minute TV ad. I thought this theme was under-reported, even though it is always the most important question about a presidential candidate, and Obama has a distinctive view.

Obama's core idea is that citizens are at the center of politics. Not private individuals, not the government, not politicians, but people working together in public, on public matters. Campaigning in New Hampshire in 2006, he said, "There's a wonderful saying by Justice Louis Brandeis once, that the most important office in a democracy is the office of citizen. ... All of us have a stake in this government, all of us have responsibilities, all of us have to step up to the plate."

"All of us have a stake in this government ... all of us have to step up to the plate." Obama's approach here, though not as obvious, takes on the form of his "team of rivals" approach to Cabinet-nominating. His rivals in this case are those Americans -- many Reagan Democrats -- who saw the bloated bureaucracy paralyze America in the 1970s. These citizens decided in 1980 that government should exist in the smallest form possible. Obama knew he needed to secure the investment of these cynics, understanding that it's much harder to criticize something when you've been a part of it. On November 4, millions of new voters took the first step in enlisting in Obama's effort. And since then, Obama's message of responsibility and the need to take ownership seems to have worked, albeit an assist from the putrid economy helped:

For those of us finishing school in the next few years, there’s no denying that the U.S. job market has slimmed down–it shed a massive quarter-million private-sector jobs in November. But there is one sector that is beginning to fatten up–and young people are starting to take notice. You can see that the federal goverment is growing by taking a look at the size of the Plum Book, an inventory of positions soon to be vacated by the Bush administration and open for hire. This year, it is about 1,000 jobs heavier than it was in 2004.

Over the past eight years, the government, neither welcoming nor respected among progressive young people, hasn’t been a very attractive prospective employer for them. Understandably, when I’ve asked my friends about where they want to work after graduation, I get the typical responses: an investment firm, a hospital, a university, a small business, etc. Only a few have said they want to be a politician, and fewer still have said they want to be a government agency employee or a committee staffer. Just like my progressive friends, I ran from government as if it were a toxic asset.

But things have changed since Obama’s election and the financial meltdown. Now, it’s private jobs that look poisonous, and public employment that smells sweet.

Just look at all the applications the Obama administration is receiving. Granted, any change in administration is bound to bring in new blood, but this time it is different, no doubt. As of this week, the Obama transition web site, change.gov, has received 331,000 job applications for about 3,000 positions. Compare this to the mere 44,000 political job requests Bush received before he took office in 2001, and the 125,000 Clinton received before he entered the White House in 1993.

Obama's new "core principle" found within his approaching presidency combined with the slumping private sector means that we're going to see a kind of participatory politics Millennial activists like us can only dream of. The next few years (and hopefully decades) will see Americans engaged in rebuilding efforts, sometimes literally through projects like Habitat for Humanity and other service opportunities, and sometimes figuratively, by running for office and staffing local, state, and federal government. This new spirit of civic activism meets its match in the Millennial Generation, which is coming of age at just the right time to lead it.

If the media's looking for a story, they'd be well-served to ignore this Blagojevich mess. The story of the next few decades is found in the approaching perfect storm that's poised to transform our politics, government, and civic health.

This sure is nice. From the Times earlier this week:

Barack Obama is calling for a national day of service to take place on Jan. 19, the federal holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday and the day preceding Mr. Obama’s inauguration as president.

[...]

The Presidential Inaugural Committee is putting the wheels for the project in motion with calls and e-mails to national service organizations. The committee is reaching out to organizations of all sizes and ideologies, including faith-based groups, unions and businesses as well as political groups — from Moveon.org on the left to Focus on the Family on the right — to motivate their members to participate.

“While government has an important role to play in helping rekindle our economy and addressing the problems of a distressed nation, President-elect Obama believes each of us, as Americans, have a responsibility to do what we can for our communities and fellow citizens,” said the e-mail, which was signed by the five co-chairmen of the committee.

The e-mail also suggested that the day of service would be the beginning of a larger effort.

“Unlike past calls to service, President-elect Obama will ask Americans to do more than just offer a single day of service to their cities, towns and neighborhoods,” the e-mail said. “He will ask all of us to make an ongoing commitment to our communities. Never has it been more important to come together in shared purpose to tackle the common challenges we face.”

It's encouraging to see Obama put actions behind his rhetoric, and it gives us a sneak preview of the consequences of putting a community organizer in the White House.

I'm interested to see if we might be able to incorporate some kind of Twitter dimension behind this effort. For example, those that are able to serve and bring a mobile device with a data plan can tweet their experiences for others to see. Talk about visualizing the movement -- the "ripples of hope" Kennedy talked about would be on a computer screen.

W: "All I can report is it is a size ten."

Since August, when I started writing here, I have regularly commented on the lack of technological proficiency exhibited by the McCain campaign. Apparently, the technological bungling hasn't stopped.

Sarah Lai Stirland's October piece in Wired magazine, describing how the Obama campaign leveraged its technological advantage, also highlighted the technological ineptness of the McCain campaign.

Like Obama, the RNC and the McCain campaign offer supporters their own set of social networking tools. But volunteers in Florida say they generally don't use the sites. Harout Samra, chairman of the Florida College Republicans, notes that McCain launched his services — McCainSpace and McCain Nation — relatively late in the campaign, and Samra and his fellow organizers had already gotten used to relying on Facebook and Storm, the College Republicans' social networking tool.

"Some of it is just repetitive, without adding much value," says Samra, a 25-year-old University of Miami law student. "I really don't have time to learn how to use something new."

Even McCain supporters readily acknowledge Obama's superior online organizing.

"I will just say that they've done a great job reaching out to young people," says 20-year-old Justin York, Central Florida chairman of Students for McCain. "I do have a lot of respect for whoever cooked up their operation, because it's an impressive machine that they have built among young people.... We don't have anything nearly as advanced as the Obama campaign."

It's a sentiment expressed by McCain supporters in other demographics.

"I'm afraid we're not that sophisticated," says Judy Wise, a retiree in Plant City. Wise is a lifelong Republican who volunteers three full days of her week for the McCain campaign. She manages McCain's Plant City office, where volunteers use the RNC's Voter Vault for phone banks, but not for neighborhood canvasses.

"It would be nice to know who the undecideds are," she says. "You don't want to waste your time on those people who are already voting for McCain, or those who have already made their minds up on Barack Obama."

"We've probably called every Republican in Orange County at least twice," says the College Republicans' York. "Some people tell us politely that they've been called, but others shout: 'This is the third time I've been called, and if you call again, I'm going to change my vote!'"

And so we all know what happened on November 4th. On the shoulders of millions of online supporters and donors -- many of which were recruited and welcomed thanks to the Obama's extensive technological outreach -- Obama routed McCain to become the 44th President-elect of the United States of America. After the election, whether it was a matter of not knowing how to do it or sheer laziness, the information on campaign aides' Blackberries remained on the devices -- including the personal contact information of a plethora of reporters, political operatives, politicians, and others. And the Blackberries were sold in a firesale.

An enterprising DC television reporter named Tisha Thompson picked a couple up, and a story was born.

When we charged them up in the newsroom, we found one of the $20 Blackberry phones contained more than 50 phone numbers for people connected with the McCain-Palin campaign, as well as hundreds of emails from early September until a few days after election night.

We traced the Blackberry back to a staffer who worked for “Citizens for McCain,” a group of democrats who threw their support behind the Republican nominee. The emails contain an insider’s look at how grassroots operations work, full of scheduling questions and rallying cries for support.

(Given the success -- or lack thereof -- of the McCain campaign and incidents like this, anyone thinking of using these devices to see how grassroots operations really work might want to reevaluate that thought.)

“Somebody made a mistake,” one owner told us. “People’s numbers and addresses were supposed to be erased.”

“They should have wiped that stuff out,” another said. But he added, “Given the way the campaign was run, this is not a surprise.”

We called the McCain-Palin campaign, who says, “it was an unfortunate staff error and procedures are being put in place to ensure all information is secure.”

This story is a funny one, but getting serious for one second, it's a very good thing Barack Obama won. Apparently not only did McCain not understand technology, but his staff -- the people that likely would have gone to the White House with him -- apparently didn't have any technological appreciation or common sense either. It's just one more nugget to remind us to count our blessings and appreciate our competent campaign.

With the economy in a serious slump, state systems of higher education are on the chopping block again, as governors and state legislatures trim the "fat." Private schools have seen large chunks of their endowments vanish. Who is the biggest loser? Students. As endowments and costs are slashed, tuition rates and fees for incoming students increase.

Citing the strains on lower- and middle-class families who are trying to send sons and daughters to college, a coalition of higher education and consumer advocacy groups sent a letter Thursday to Speaker Pelosi arguing for some assistance for students in the upcoming stimulus package. Campus Progress, the U.S. PIRGs, and the Project on Student Debt were all involved in this effort. The letter proposed some actions Congress could take in the new stimulus bill to help college students:

• Raise the maximum Pell Grant to $7,000
• Increase funding for the Federal Work-Study Program by 25 percent.
• Improve access to Parent PLUS loans.
• Provide a limited “emergency access” student loan pool for colleges that commit to providing adequate need-based aid.

While there are those families too poor to realistically consider college right now who we should never forget, these lower- to middle-class prospective students should absolutely be remembered as Congress prepares to draft this legislation.

As the last point in the proposal indicates, one way to honor the blue-collar student is to substantially decrease merit-based aid in favor of need-based aid. Ben Miller, at Higher Ed Watch, explains why:

Every single public college contacted for a recent survey by the National Association for College Admission Counseling said it provided non-need based assistance, or "merit aid." The same survey found that merit aid made up 41.9 percent of public institutional funds, only slightly less than the 46.6 percent devoted to need-based institutional aid. This is troubling because "merit aid" is not targeted at low-income students, and is instead used to compete for the best (and sometimes the wealthiest) students to boost prestige and fundraising. Schools should not be allowed to continue to spend their limited financial aid budgets on non-needy students when low- and moderate-income students are being asked to shoulder ever-larger tuition burdens.

Miller's post as a whole is instructive. Too often institutions of higher education pass on their financial troubles, in the form of tuition increases and student fee hikes, to the students. Perhaps the institutions could look at possible cuts they could be making from within and examine opportunities for streamlining instead of erecting barriers to a college education, a critical piece of the American Dream for many families.

Congress could help my incorporating most, if not all, of this proposal into the new economic stimulus legislation.

(h/t to Pedro de la Torre at pushback)