Michael Connery's blog

The following is a guest post by Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais. Winograd and Hais are fellows of NDN and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press: 2008), named one of the 10 favorite books by the New York Times in 2008. --Mike

Seventy percent of Iranians are under thirty. These young people have twice the presence in the population of that country as America’s largest generation, Millennials (born 1982-2003), has in ours.

In the immediate aftermath of Iran's disputed presidential election, text messages became the tool for organizing post-election protests. Hundreds of thousands of tweets provided more, if not clearer, information about what was happening each day than traditional media. Opposition and government Facebook pages poured out dueling messages on the Internet. It suddenly seemed as if not only had American democratic values erupted on the barren landscape of a theocratic society, but also that young people’s technological capabilities might produce a regime change that no one anticipated. Clay Shirky announced, “This is it. This is the big one. This is the first revolution that has been catapulted onto a global stage and transformed by social media.” And the notion that this was a “Twitter Revolution” quickly became the meme for the entire series of post-election events.

But then the entrenched establishment fought back using the very same Internet- enabled technologies to isolate, spy on, and ultimately shut down the resistance. Thanks to new capabilities recently acquired from two European telecom companies—Nokia and Siemens—as part of their country’s upgrade of its mobile networks, the Iranian government was able to monitor the flow of online data in and out of sites like Twitter and Facebook, from one central location. The Iranians deployed a technology called deep packet inspection, first created to put a firewall around President Clinton’s emails in 1993, to deconstruct digitized packets of information flowing through the government’s telecom monopoly that might contain what they considered to be seditious information before reconstructing and sending it on to destinations they were also able to track and monitor. The result was a 90% degradation in the speed of Internet communications in Iran at the height of the unrest, and a previously unseen capability to determine who the government’s enemies were down to the individual IP address level.

Once again the world learned that technology does not arrive with a built-in set of values that makes it work either for good or evil. Even though Internet technology has many virtues, it is not inherently liberating or enslaving. Instead how it is used is determined by the values of those who access it. Libertarians celebrate the individual empowerment that the Internet makes possible. But even though Ron Paul supporters used the technology to take on the Republican establishment in 2008, the end result that year was the election of a group-oriented, civic-minded candidate, Barack Obama, whose campaign used the very same technology to guide millions of people to undertake a collective agenda of change that Libertarians certainly did not “believe in.”

The difference between what libertarians wanted and what Obama achieved came from the generational attitudes and beliefs of Millennials, Obama’s key supporters, not from the technology that generation was so adept at using.

One of the founders of generational theory, Neil Howe, points out that the under-30 population of Iran grew up during a religious awakening in the Islamic world that came later than America’s “cultural revolution” of the 1960s. As a result, Iranian youth resembles Generation X, Americans now in their 30s and 40s. Like our own Gen X, these young Iranians are “pragmatic, individualistic, commercial, and anti-ideological (which is why they hate Ahmadinejad so much).”

Those values make them anti-establishment in the current crisis. We are fortunate that they feel deeply enough about the potential of democracy to risk their lives to “tear down that power structure,” to paraphrase what President Ronald Reagan, Generation X’s political hero, said in a different context. But now the central task of our government must be to translate that democratic impulse into a deeper belief in Millennial generation values, such as the power of consensus, the peaceful resolution of differences and the need to find win-win solutions to our problems.

That is why the President Obama's recent Cairo speech should be the bedrock on which America continues to engage large young Muslim populations throughout the world, including Iran:

“No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy."

This statement has the potential to become a governing creed for a new generation of young Muslims. If they come to have, as President Obama does, “an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose,” then the power of 21st century technologies will be used to advance the cause of freedom in Iran, rather than suppressing it. But tweeting those words won’t make it happen. Believing in them will.

You've got to love young conservatives. Stick them in front of a computer and hilarity ensues. Whether it's gangsta raps about Ayn Rand, or this latest missive from the College Republican National Committee (emphasis mine):

From: Zach Howell, College Republicans
Date: Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Subject: Closing STORM

One year and over 200,000 members later, I'm pleased to announce that STORM, the College Republican's social activism network has successfully served its purpose and has now been closed as scheduled.

STORM proved to be a successful utility to organize our membership, coordinate the Fall 2008 field program, and keep in communication with our 200,000 members.

You can rest assured that we'll continue to keep you in the loop on upcoming projects, as well as supply you with the tools you need to be an effective activist online and on campus.

In conjunction with the completion of STORM we surveyed nearly 2,000 College Republicans to better understand what drives YOU to connect online. Here's what you told us:

85% of survey respondents told us they're connected online at least four hours a day, with almost half saying they're “always” connected. For most, this includes using the Internet on a mobile device.

Almost 95% of College Republicans have accounts on Facebook, and a vast majority are active on multiple social networks. In addition, about three quarters of respondents spend at least one hour a day on social networking sites.

When asked what features you would like to see on a future College Republican network, the most popular responses included a job posting board, event sharing, integration with Facebook, and talking points on hot-button issues.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

Sincerely,

Zach Howell
National Chairman
College Republicans

Riiiiiiight. Their proprietary social network was so "successful" that they decided to dismantle it. Because after the 2008 election, there would never be any need to quickly and efficiently organize "200,000" College Republicans. I know conservatives are fond of declaring the End of History, I didn't realize there was also an End of Organizing as well.

Or maybe things didn't go "as scheduled." Maybe this is in response to the fact that the system cost upwards of $300,000 and never actually worked, eliciting ridicule from the rank and file College Republicans. Maybe it's because so few people used the system that they got punked trying to run a contest during the RNC. Or maybe it's because if the system actually worked and was sustainable, they wouldn't be able to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in welfare to conservative web development firms.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. There's nothing to be alarmed about here folks, everything is proceeding according to plan. This is our regularly scheduled programming.

Conservatives have a lot of work to do if they want to climb out of their demographic hole. Something tells me that Millennials aren't going to want to be involved in an organization that lies to its membership.

Thanks to great work by Oregon Bus Project founder-turned state legislator Jefferson Smith (and other legislators), online voter registration is about to become a reality in Oregon:

Online Voter Registration Approved by Senate

Online registration plan is simple, secure and has proven successful

SALEM – The Senate today voted in favor of HB 2386, which would allow Oregonians to register to vote online. Online voter registration creates a new avenue to register that is simple, hassle-free and, above all, secure.

"Oregonians pay bills online, check bank accounts online, rent movies online, pay taxes online. We can change our address with the US Postal Service and DMV online. With this bill, we will move our voter registration system into the 21st century by allowing people to register to vote online,” said Representative Ben Cannon (D-Portland), who is the Chief Co-Sponsor of the bill along with Representative Jefferson Smith (D-Portland). "This bill takes a significant step toward a secure, hassle-free system of voter registration."

House Bill 2386 would allow eligible voters with valid Oregon Driver Licenses or ID cards to register to vote online through a secure connection on the Secretary of State website. A registrant’s signature from DMV will be used to match against the signature on the ballot. A registrant would first have to indicate under penalty of law that they are a citizen and that they are at least 17 years old, just like on the current form.

“HB 2386 represents a lot of work by folks who are passionate about access to democracy,” said Representative Jefferson Smith (D-Portland). “This bill’s passage is a milestone in Oregon’s voter access movement. We believe that democracy works better if more people do it.”

HB 2386 would model Oregon’s online voter registration system on those of Washington and Arizona, where the programs have proven extremely popular. In 2003, the first year of Arizona's Online Voter Registration program, 25% of all new voter registrations were done online. In 2007, that percentage jumped to 72%. After Washington implemented online voter registration, 1,634 online applications were recorded in the first three days and 38% of all Washington voter registrations in 2008 were done online.

“Oregon needs laws that make registering to vote accessible and easy for every eligible voter,” said Secretary of State Kate Brown. “This is simple, stable and will bring more voters, especially younger voters, into the process of shaping Oregon’s future.”

HB 2386 is headed back to the House for concurrence on Senate amendments. It will then head to the Governor for his signature.

Now we need to see movement on more reforms that can make voter registration and participation painless, like automatic registration or election day registration.

• After helping to orchestrate a DDOS attack on Iranian state media, Matthew Burton ponders the ethics of weaponizing the social web.
• Peter Levine announces that on July 24th, Tufts University will sponsor a conference to assess the Obama Administration's civic engagement agenda.
• Bozeman, MT is now requiring that city job applicants submit their social network usernames and logins to comply with background checks. WTF?
• We all know young people vote. WireTap wonders if they can advocate and mobilize?
• The White House wants your ideas on how technology can increase participation in government.
• Has the Iranian elections opened a generational fissure?
• Win or lose, Bloomberg News wonders if the Iranian protests are the beginnings of a movement that will outlast Ahmadinejad.
• US News thinks Republicans still have a chance with the youth vote.
• Writing for The Hill, Markos Moulitsas sees an "empathy gap" standing in the way of that chance.

Via the Stimulist, I just learned about the launch of All For Good, a "CraigsList for service." I've been hearing that term thrown around for at least a year now, and the results so far are reasonably impressive. Here's a search of what's happening my my local neighborhood right now:

The site is only an Alpha release at the moment, so it seems they are taking an iterative approach to building it out. This should be interesting to follow.

Coming right on the heels the the Obama Administraiton's launch of a summer of service, the timing of All for Good couldn't be better:

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, in a video message, President Obama unveiled United We Serve, an extended call to service challenging all Americans to help lay a new foundation for growth in this country by engaging in sustained, meaningful community service. The initiative will be led by the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency dedicated to fostering service in communities across the country. Since his Inauguration, the President has called on all Americans to serve their communities and be a part of building a better future for our country.

The United We Serve summer initiative begins on June 22nd and runs through the National Day of Service and Remembrance on September 11th. The National Day of Service and Remembrance was created by the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which President Obama signed in April to help encourage and facilitate community service across the country. During this summer, the President is renewing his call to all Americans to identify needs in their communities, engage in meaningful service to create change – and stay engaged with those projects long after September. The President’s call focuses on four key areas where everyone can have a continuing impact in their community: education, health, energy and the environment and community renewal. To create new service projects, to find service projects in their communities and to share stories about projects that are making a difference, Americans can visit the Corporation’s website, www.serve.gov .

We haven't said anything much (see Craig's post here) here about the Iranian election, and the use of Twitter to organize protests and evade government censorship of what is happening in Iran. That's our bad, because there is definitely a generational component to this. Millennials in Iran (if there is such a thing, maybe better to say our Iranian contemporaries or peers), are a big part of the opposition, and university dormitories are being stormed by state militia. The political actions and the tactics of Iranian youth are well within the scope of this blog.

That said, I don't know that I could say anything that hasn't already been written - and written well - by others. So here's a reading list of some of the best reporting and information resources I've located on the topic:

• Jon Taplin has a great, short post outlining how this differs from other student uprisings in Iran during the past decade.
• Via Boing Boing, I found this fantastic compilation of traditional and social media resources covering the protests.
• Today's New York Times has the latest, and best, traditional media update on the situation.
• Mashable! has a great primer on how to follow developments in Iran on social media.
• Deanna Zandt talks about the significance of Twitter influencing mainstream media coverage of the Iranian election.
• Alison Fine recognizes the power of Twitter, but also cautions about its limits.
• Nancy Scola at Tech President has done invaluable work looking at the role of Twitter in the Iranian elections, writing about everything from State Department intervention in a Twitter maintenance update, to the role of geolocation for tracking sources and cracking down on opposition bloggers.

A new report out of Southern Illinois University, delivered at the Harvard Political Networks Conference, attempts to quantify the use and effectiveness of Facebook support pages in the 2008 House elections: Explaining Facebook Support in the Congressional Election Cycle.

The report is a useful, if incomplete look at the factors behind congressional campaign support on Facebook during the 2008 cycle. It looks primarily at the advantages/disadvantages of money, incumbancy and district demographics. Where it fails short (and the authors readily admit there is much more research to be done on this issue) is in how campaigns actually used Facebook to organize - via the "Events" function, cleaning up young voter lists, etc. The effectiveness of those types of activities strikes me as much more useful data for campaigns staffers looking ahead to 2010.

That said, here's a look at some of their findings:

• "Only 8% of Americans reported using social networks to learn about campaigns during the 2008 election cycle."
• "The Facebook community is skewed in favor of college educated, more affluent, white, urban and younger citizens. The closer a congressional district resembles this profile, the larger the pool is from which to draw potential Facebook supporters."
• The candidate with the most Facebook supporters tends to win the election, but this does not mean Facebook support is predictive. The community is too demographically skewed for this to be considered an accurate measure.
• 79% of Democratic House Candidates had a Facebook Supporter page in 2008, compared to just 66% of Republican House Candidates.
• Facebook was decidedly NOT a tool of insurgents in 2008. "Fully 93.2% of incumbents had Politicians’ Pages, while only 70.8% of candidates for open seats did so, and the percentage for challengers drops to 48.9%."
• Incumbency and money (more media exposure) were factors in the number of supporters a candidate had on Facebook. Incumbents typically had over 165 more supporters than challengers.
• On average, Democratic candidates had 120 more supporters than Republicans.
• More college educated voters in a district tend to increase the number of Facebook supporters in a race, while a greater percentage of young people generally decreases the number of Facebook supporters for incumbents. (To be perfectly honest, this is SUPER counterintuitive and the authors do a terrible job of explaining what this means or how they come to this conclusion.)
• More activity on the page (from the candidate or from supporters) tends to increase the number of total supporters. Wall posts and videos are the most effective forms of activity for expanding a support base. Fan photos had little effect in growing a support base.
• The average congressional campaign grew its FaceBook fanbase at a rate of 4 - 6% per month.

• A new iPhone app could help charity fundraising.
• A Twitter maintenance update that would have shut down efforts by Iranian protesters was rescheduled after an uprising among the Twitterati.
• Kos explores the GOP's "empathy" problem with Millennials.
• The 80 Million Strong National Summit gets some press.
• The GW School of Political Management wonders if politics is "recession proof." To find out, they video-interview a number of experts.
• Can a young republican candidate jump start his parties efforts courting Millennials?
• The Economist finally catches on (and becomes the gazillionth news outlet to make The Who reference), noting that The Kids Are All Left.
• Republican strategist Mike Murphy looks at the demographic trends and foretells an ice age for the GOP.

I've written many times about HeadCount, the voter registration organization that originated within the jam band scene (disclosure: I'm on the advisory board). I think they've put together an amazing, national organization that accomplishes real political work without sacrificing the vibe of a small, tight-knit community. If you've ever been to a HeadCount show, you know there's a real connection between the fans, the music and the politics.

Over the last four years, they've built this community with far fewer resources than other political nonprofits, and they've expanded beyond their roots in the jam band scene. Now, they're morphing once again.

Yesterday, HeadCount relaunched their website and announced that they're expanding beyond their core work - voter registration - and into the realm of issue advocacy:

Building on the momentum of registering more than 100,000 voters last year, HeadCount has launched a new campaign called “What’s Your Issue?” that encourages fans of live music to take the next steps beyond voting to become more informed, active citizens. Anyone who answers a brief issue survey – either at a concert or online at www.HeadCount.org – will be entered in a drawing to win two free VIP tickets to Outside Lands Music Festival, held in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park August 28-30, 2009, plus round-trip airfare for two on Southwest Airlines from anywhere in the U.S.

The campaign will visit concert tour stops this summer by Dave Matthews Band, Phish, The Fray and NINJA (Nine Inch Nails and Janes Addiction). Festivals such as Bonnaroo, ROTHBURY, High Sierra Music Festival, All Good Music Festival, Camp Bisco and Gathering of the Vibes will also host the “What’s Your Issue?” campaign. [...]

HeadCount continues to offer voter information and registration services at its concert tables and at www.HeadCount.org. The organization also provides a wide range of resources that facilitate civic participation. The HeadCount blog (www.HeadCount.org/blog) is a one-stop online community updated daily with news on “Music, Politics and Everything In Between.” HeadCount street teams are partnering with local nonprofit organizations, such as Save the Bay, and creating joint volunteer outings. HeadCount makes it easy to write to members of Congress, with pre-printed letters available at concerts and online at www.HeadCount.org. It’s all part of an effort to give music fans the tools to be involved, active citizens, while creating a real community of fans who are bound by shared ideals.

The “What’s Your Issue?” survey serves as the gateway to the HeadCount community. It lists six issues that, according to a recent online poll, are particularly important to fans of live music. They are:

• Food and Farm Policy
• Health Care Reform
• Personal Liberty
• Gulf Coast Recovery
• Human Rights
• Sustainability and Conservation

Once someone identifies the issue most important to them, they are sent a link to an area of HeadCount.org devoted to that issue. Users will find a blog, background information, artist interviews and links to related websites. Most important, they’ll also find a “Take Action” area that enables them to volunteer for a related organization or email their Congressional representatives.

This is a great organization and a great campaign. And their new website is super clean and a cut well above their previous site. As usual, I can't recommend HeadCount highly enough. Go check them out.

Free Exchange on Campus has just released an incredibly useful primer on the history, tactics, funding of the "academic freedom movement" (read: conservative astroturf): Manufactured Controversey. Some of the bigger players in this "movement" are well known around these parts - David Horowitz, Young Americas Foundation, Leadership Institute, etc.

The report offers a detailed summary on who these players are, how they are funded, and what tactics they have employed in the past. It also offers basic advice on the best ways to respond should they appear on your campus.

This report is very timely. I've been hearing rumors from people I trust that the Leadership Institute is planning a new project along these lines called Campus Reform. The website is a mess at the moment - really more of a joke than anything else - but I've heard that they are planning on sinking some serious coin into building out a huge website capable of supporting and aggregating the work of hundreds of chapters. The purpose, of course, will be to target specific professors and course syllabi. Best get ready now to fight that back once it launches.