The Cool Factor and the Message

The other day, I interviewed Matt Singer of Forward Montana and Left in the West as part of the research for my book. Matt has done impressive work in Montana, a state that is seriously trending blue due to the rise of Millennials as a percentage of the electorate (17% in 2006 vs. 13% nationally). Matt and about 15 other young Montanans (?) created Forward Montana on a shoestring budget in late 2004 as part of the ".org boom" - the explosion of youth run and youth focused groups that were created during the 2003/2004 campaign cycle. With a lot of volunteer work, some smart tactics, and some new grant money, they are turning Forward Montana into a sustainable organization for Millennial Generation political activism.

During our conversation, Matt said two things that I've been chewing on for the past two days.

First he spoke about the importance of cultural outreach, or making politics cool - a tactic I'm very familiar with from my MFA days. Second, he said that its not enough to talk about issues and it's not enough to create a group whose message "leads" with youth. If you want to create an effective organization that channels the energy of Millennials (or any young voters), you addresses the issues that they care about in a broader political context and make sure that your tactics and membership building are culturally relevant and integrated into their daily lives. The example that Matt gave of such groups was The Oregon Bus Project (which I can vouch for as a pretty cool organization that I've never seen "lead" with youth rhetoric).

I think that Matt is right on about cultural outreach, and it goes back to the Fish Ladder analogy. The best way to create the biggest pool of initial applicants is to make your activities as culturally relevant as possible to your potential members. If being a member of Forward Montana means joining a FaceBook group, or going to Drinking Liberally style events, you're going to get a whole lot more members and potential activists/organizers than if your first contact with a potential member is an ask to sign a petition or man a phone bank. From there it's just a matter of moving people up the ladder from one pool to the next, and maintaining as much of the "cool factor" as possible as the asks become more intense and more political.

As for the idea that youth groups should not organize and message around their identity as youth groups - I'm not totally sure I buy that, and would welcome everyone's thoughts.

For an organization like Forward Montana, avoiding direct "of by and for" youth rhetoric in favor of tactics that appeal to youth seems like it is the right strategy. At the same time, a generational call can be a powerful thing (see: Barack Obama), and for a certain set of Macro-level groups (for example, capacity, infrastructure, and leadership building organizations like Young People For)- focusing on youth as youth also seems like the way to go. After all, their goal is to build structures and power that can enhance our role in the progressive political movement. And then of course, there are groups like Young Democrats, whose explicit mission is to carve out a space for youth in Democratic Party politics. Their basis as an "identity group" is important, as is their role. They are trying to get campaigns to focus on young voters as a valuable segment of the electorate and as a resource beyond "cheap labor" within the party. Finally (and this is why I feel biased here and want more opinions), you've got something like Future Majority. Not an organization, but an entity none the less that is trying to hold a Macro view of the whole field of progressive youth organizing and draw that bigger picture.

Probably I'm trying to fit too many eggs in one basket. This is a large cross-section of groups with vastly different purposes. What makes sense for one, does not make sense for the other. None of this makes Matt's statement any less true, but there is a tension there, and it's been brewing around in my head for the last 2 days.