millennials

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.

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.

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.

To follow up on this weekend's post regarding the GOP's dire long-term political future, here's a gem from former senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), defending Gen. Stanley McChrystal:

"Obama is detached from the American experience. He just doesn't identify with the average American because of his own background. Indonesia and Hawaii," said Santorum. "His view is from the viewpoint of academics and the halls of the Ivy league schools that he went to and it's not a love of this country and an understanding of the basic values and wants and desires of its people. And as a result of that, he doesn't connect with people at that level."

No word on what Santorum defines as the "average American experience."

Santorum's not on his own here. As the GOP continues to be hostile to the diversity that forms the heart of the American story (either implicitly or explicitly), it is rejecting the citizenship and cultural heritage of wide swaths of the Millennial generation's experiences with this country.

UPDATE: More craziness: John Boehner's turn.

"They're snuffing out the America that I grew up in," Boehner said. "Right now, we've got more Americans engaged in their government than at any time in our history. There's a political rebellion brewing, and I don't think we've seen anything like it since 1776."

DemfromCT over at DailyKos has an interesting interview with Ruy Teixeira, an expert on political demographics and a Senior Fellow at both The Century Foundation and Center for American Progress and author of the recently published working paper titled, Demographic Change and the Future of the Parties.

While you should go check it out in its entirety, here are the main points, which should be very familiar to faithful Future Majority readers.

• The Republican base is shrinking. The white, working class vote, a demographic that you hear all the "smart" television personalities talk about, is vanishing before our eyes, notes Teixeira. We heard a lot about this particular voting bloc in the 2008 Democratic primary, especially in the Ohio, Texas, and Mississippi contests. Yet, those states, like everywhere else, are seeing the size of this group diminish.
  

  In Texas, the white working class share is down 17 points, with minorities up 9 points and white college graduates up 7 points. In Ohio the share of white working-class voters fell by 15 points between 1988 and 2008 while white college graduates rose by 8 points and minorities by 6 points. Even a state like Mississippi has seen a huge drop in the white working class vote since 1988 (down 21 points).

• Millennials continue to decidedly identify with the Democratic Party. Though we continue to battle the "conventional wisdom" that youth always become more conservative with time, Teixeria corrects this, pointing to multiple studies that show partisan loyalty increases with age. And why would Millennials be attracted to the GOP anyway? In supporting the oppressive Arizona immigration law, continuing to treat gay people as if they are not human, and acting as if government has no redeeming value, it is almost as if the Republican Party is running away from our generation (you know, like Mark Kirk).
• To continue to build a long-term political advantage while championing good policy, the Democrats need to provide an alternative to Arizona's SB 1070, getting behind comprehensive immigration reform. Polling shows that the Arizona legislation is popular, but so is a description of a fairer comprehensive reform, in which the federal government strengthens border security and investigates employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. These undocumented workers currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government, have criminal background checks, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for U.S. citizenship (84 percent of those supporting the Arizona law support this alternative). For the Democrats to put forth a strong alternative to the GOP-backed position, they would be strengthening their attachments with already friendly Latino voters, and they also would be enhancing their stature as a party that can solve our larger problems.

The writing is on the wall. Despite the gloomy outlook for the midterms at this point, there are quite a few promising long-term trends for the party. Yet, in order for these to mean anything, we must go all out, institutionalizing peer-to-peer registration efforts. Luckily the DNC recently unleashed their voter registration strategy for the midterms, which significantly targets young voters and minority voters, a large chunk of the President's and the Democrats' base.

And while we face some short-term stress in 2010 while looking at some friendly long-term trends, the GOP is in the opposite situation. While the Tea Party continues to drum up conservative resistance to Obama and the Democrats (occasionally attracting attention for racist behavior), they are moving in the wrong direction of where they need to be to have any influence on the Millennial vote in the long-term. With Millennials forming about 40 percent of the electorate (and 44 percent of the generation identifying as a minority) in 2020, they form the anchor of this country's electoral future; meanwhile, the GOP can't seem to break away from the Tea Party, which actively resists a move toward the center.

For further reading, check out Teixeira's white paper (linked above) and read the reviews by Tom Schaller for FiveThirtyEight.com and Ed Kilgore at the Democratic Strategist.

USA Today/Gallup released results of a poll this morning showing support for health care reform remains steady among Americans – 49 percent to 46 percent, an increase of 4 percent since April -- while support among young Americans (18-29 years old) has increased.

From the poll:

Say Congress passing Affordable Care Act was a Good Thing:

• 57 percent of young adults age 18 to 29 – up 7 percent since April; 40 percent disagree
• 51 percent of Americans age 50 to 64 – up 7 percent since April; 44 percent disagree
• 49 percent of Americans age 30 to 49; 43 percent disagree.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein concludes that "it does seem we're looking at a trend…it does show support rising and opposition falling."

And the Republicans want to repeal this? Bad move.

Tim Egan wrote an interesting blog post last night at the New York Times, describing that the Millennials are exactly what this country needs after all it's been through. Surprisingly, with all the recent focus on how Millennials lack empathy or how they are narcissistic, Egan wasn't being sarcastic.

After going through the myriad reasons for why Millennial tendencies, characteristics, and attitudes match up well against the contemporary issues plaguing our nation (the BP oil spill and drilling policy, Arizona's SB 1070 and immigration policy, and gay men and women being allowed to serve in the military), Egan concludes, in my favorite part of the post, that Obama needs to ask Millennials to flex their political/activist muscles and get involved.

“This is the most diverse generation in history,” said Heather Smith, the president of Rock the Vote, a nonpartisan youth political advocacy group. “They’re also optimistic, and don’t participate in all the fear-mongering.”

Obama could rouse this generation to help save the oil-choked gulf, much the way Franklin Roosevelt did with his youthful Civilian Conservation Corps. While still holding BP accountable, the president could set up a millennial corps of workers, calling on their sense of service, their desire for change, their youthful belief in restoration.

Now some of this language is a little bit romantic for even me, one who identifies as one of the most fervently liberal Millennials. But the spirit of Egan's words rings true. If Obama is so good at turning crises into defining moments, he'll realize that he has an army of young people ready to make change, and he'll mobilize them. Once the leak is stopped and controlled, it'd be a great sight to see young people from all over the country taking ownership -- along with BP -- of the crisis by flocking to the Gulf Coast and restoring it.