Baby Boomers

I’m at the Personal Democracy Forum conference today and tomorrow. I’ll be live blogging from some sessions later in the day. In the meantime, I want to remind you to please spread the word about our new user-blogs, and post up a few links that you might have missed this weekend:

• George Carlin, champion of free speech, is dead.. That sucks.
• The always interesting Colin Delaney (who I’m sure is here in the room somewhere) injects a little realism into the discussion in these 7 Lessons from the Obama Campaign.
• Screw the Millennials. Charlie Cook thinks this election is all about white, male, Baby Boomers. (I of course disagree).
• Most voters believe McCain is too old to be President, but younger voters are more accepting of his age than older voters.
• GOP youth are trying to put together their own convention in Minneapolis/St. Paul this summer.
• Obama made the news twice this week. First for withdrawing from the campaign finance system. Act Blue weighs-in on that decision (in favor of Obama’s decision). Second, Obama came out in support of the FISA “compromise.” Greg Sargent and Glenn Greenwald weigh-in on why this was extremely disappointing.

Harpers is running an interview with Sydney Blumenthal about his new book. During the interview, they got around to discussing the youth vote.

Shorter Blumenthal: they didn't turnout historically, probably won't this year, and if they do it won't be as big a deal as everyone is making it out to be:

4. In your analysis of the transformation of the electorate that brought the Democrats victory in 2006, you focus on the youth vote and note its sharp trajectory into the Democratic camp. Do you consider this to be a stable pillar on which to build a new Democratic majority? Young voters are not only less inclined to actually vote than other age groups, they are also famously fickle in their political attitudes. Isn’t it in fact only natural that a carefree college student will embrace liberal attitudes from which a later white-collar worker with a mortgage and children may turn?

The younger generation, responding to Bush’s radicalism, is emerging as a liberal one. Its development may be part of a natural cycle as the children of a liberal generation, just as their parents were children of the New Deal generation. Bush has been the formative experience in their political education. Yet the idea that the entrance of a new generation of young people will suddenly transform American politics is by now among the oldest, most romantic and least persuasive notions of so-called “new politics.” Proposed in the aftermath of the 1968 election, many Democrats pinned their hopes on the youth vote. That generation, my own, was and still is the largest numerically and proportionally in American history. Rather than try to analyze the internal reasons why the Democratic Party had come apart in the late 1960s, theorists suggested that a new generation would rescue the Democrats as a political deus ex machina. In a 1971 book, Changing Sources of Power: American Politics in the 1970s, Frederick G. Dutton, a former aide to Robert F. Kennedy, wrote: “Voter turnout increases with education, affluence, political awareness and social influence, and those attributes are all demonstrably higher in the coming generation than in any other new voting group in history.” This idea was one of the key underlying assumptions of the George McGovern candidacy in 1972. (McGovern, alas, lost 49 states.) A 1970 book, The New Majority, by Richard Scammon and Ben Wattenberg, describing the Republican sources of power as the “unyoung, unpoor and unblack” proved more prescient.

Voters under 30 during this campaign year have had a greater impact within Democratic primaries in terms of numbers and influence than they will in the general election. The Pew poll of May 8 now shows a growing generation gap, though “modest by the standards of the 1960s.” Yet a majority of those over 50 years old, according to Pew, do not share younger voters’ view, for example, of Barack Obama as “inspiring” or even as “patriotic.”

The “new politics” promising a youth-led renaissance, the transcendence of partisanship and the withering away of social need through the greening of America ended in tears 35 years ago. It’s a dream that apparently defies its repeated deaths.

I've got to disagree with Blumenthal. First off, the Boomers were not, contrary to popular belief, a liberal generation. Their values may have differed greatly from that of their parents, but as a generation they did not vote monolithically as we're seeing young people do today. Boomers are a split generation whose members have clashed for decades. That's what the culture war is . . .

Second, he assumes that young people today - their motivations, their engagement, the size of their generation, the mood of the electorate - are the same as back in '68 and in all those other elections when young people failed to turnout. This, fortunately, is not the case. Young voters are voting largely as a single voting block - a trend whose strength will only increase during the general election when Obama picks up Clinton's supporters. Thanks to new online tools like YouTube and FaceBook and MyBarackObama.com, engagement is easier, higher, and more effective than ever. Thanks to real field campaigns by third party groups and Students for Barack Obama, young voters are being incorporated into campaigns like we haven't seen in decades - since even before 1968, when LBJ kicked the college democrats out of the party. Obama's new 50-state voter registration plan will only amplify these trends.

Millennials are also a larger generation than the Baby Boom and this year it is highly likely that their turnout will top the record 55% set in 1972. I would argue that what we've seen in the primaries thus far isn't an outsized influence from young voters, but rather just a taste of what youth participation will be in November.

The generations are very different as well. As Strauss and Howe outlined in their work, and as Winograd and Hais just elucidated in their new book, Millennial Makeover, Boomers were an idealist generation. Their involvement in politics has been largely personal (moral), and outside the system. They rebelled against their civic-minded parents. Millennials are the opposite. they are a civic generation that prizes participation within the system and community engagement. Comparing the two generations is like apples and oranges.

Shorter me: This isn't 1968, '72, or '84. Millennials are different than their Boomer and Xer predecessors. Blumenthal's ideas are equally out of date.

Written by: Future Majority Editors and Contributors

It gets tiring correcting our elders since they "know what's best for us" and it is really hard not being completely sarcastic in this response.

Hill.com published a story titled "Running Idol Style" which describes yet another out of touch story and ridiculous attempt by Hollywood and Washington insiders to persuade young people to vote.

Maybe they didn't get the memo, but young people are voting and it is not because of gimmicks. Young people are voting in record numbers, and voting for Democrats overwhelmingly, because there is real money being invested in programs that work and politicians as well as youth groups are doing the unfathomable, asking for our generation's vote.

When young people are treated as real voters who can help a candidate win, they turn out to vote. Just ask Montana Senator Jon Tester, Arizona Representative Harry Mitchell or Connecticut Representative Joe Courtney. They all won with the youth vote.

Donors are finally giving to youth voting programs and investing in candidates who target young people. The increase in youth voting is not because of a reality show, it's because young people are taking responsibility for our generation and creating innovative programs to get our peers to the polls (as a side note to the American Idol bitters, this was already attempted in 2004 by Showtime and didn't really go anywhere so you might want to take a look at the show "American Candidate" before dumping millions).

The creators of the show M. Allen Wilson and Akili West say they came up with the idea for their Idol-like show titled "Voice Your Choice America" because young people are not excited about politics and "candidates don't connect with the youth of America."

Oh really?

In a recent poll conducted by Celinda Lake, a respected pollster and strategist who looks at the numbers and trends rather than sitting in a room blaming young people for not voting, reported that over 58% of young people are paying close attention to the Presidential races (we might add that is more than the 53% of adults that are paying attention according to a Pew poll). This is an increase of 23 points from 2004. Eligible young voters will reach 50 million by the 2008 cycle and we are voting for Democrats overwhelmingly (56% Democratic to 36% Republican).

So while I know Wilson wants the show to engage and "entertain" us, we are not interested.

We want candidates to talk to us about what they are going to do about Iraq, we want to hear real solutions to the fact that young people under 35 are the largest group of the uninsured and we want to know that if we do straddle ourselves with the huge debt of going to college that there will actually be jobs that can support our growing families. We get enough entertainment with the American Idol try out sessions.

If you are a Baby Boomer who "hates on us" for organizing online instead of the streets, or a Washington Insider who removes us from walk and mail lists because you still think we don't vote or an Entertainment Exec who wants to engage us, you may want to check out some real ways to get young people to vote. You can read up on youth groups' tactics like Pledge Cards and Trick or Vote activities on a blog all about youth voting, www.futuremajority.com.

Even better, if you really want to help us systematically change elections and increase the number of folks engaged in politics than put your money behind things like national same-day registration (which increases young voter participation by at least 12%), full public financing at all levels, independent non-partisan redistricting and Electoral College reform. We would dare say that not only would more young people vote, more people of all ages would vote. We even bet that more young people and regular folks would run for office as well so the halls of Congress can look more like America than the men's bathroom at a country club.

We don't need a reality show to find the next political version of Kelly Clarkson, we simply want politicians to pay attention to us and ask us for our vote.

I'm a little behind on this, but it's worth noting that a number of high-profile blogs have responded to the Tom Friedman "Generation Q" column we posted on a few weeks ago (here and here). I wanted to call attention to these pieces for those who have might not have seen them, as well as respond to them as I don't agree 100% with all of their assessments.

First up is Georgia10, a front pager at Daily Kos, whose response, A Generation in Waiting calls out Freidman for singling out youth without turning his admonishing eye back onto the current apathy of his own generation on issues such as the war, global warming, or any number of problems. Georgia also hones in on the idea that Milennials view government as a joke, an ineffective institution that inspires cynicism, not action.

I can't say that I agree with that. All polling - from PEW or the Harvard Institute of Politics - indicates that we are optimistic and actually have a steadfast belief in the power of ourselves and our government to effect change. I think it might be more accurate to suggest that we have no faith in the current actors who occupy positions of power. It's the people - Friedman's own generation - that we are mistrustful and cynical about, not the institutions themselves, which we actually view as potentially powerful vehicles for change.

Generation Overwhelmed, a piece in the American Prospect by Courtney Martin, drew the most attention this week, with responses posted by Millennial commentators Ezra Klein and others. Martin smartly picks up on what I think is one of the main faults with Friedman's column - the old ways of effecting political change (marching in the streets, chaining ourselves to bulldozers (thanks Al Gore!) are no longer effective. Nor do they fit the moment. Nicholas Handler suggested much the same thing in his New York Times essay, and I'll quote Martin here because I think she hits the nail perfectly on the head:

Many of us have protested, but we -- by and large -- felt like we were imitating an earlier generation, playing dress-up in our parents' old hippie clothes. I marched against the war and my president called it a focus group. The worst part was that I did feel inert while doing it. In the 21st century, a bunch of people marching down the street, complimenting one another on their original slogans and pretty protest signs, feels like self-flagellation, not real and true social change.

That said, I didn't wholly agree with her thesis and conclusions. Rather than Generation Quiet, she labels us Generation Overwhelmed. We are indeed overwhelmed, but that does not lead to paralysis and inaction as she suggest. She gives too little credit to the "lifestyle choices" of her friends and colleagues. When Millennials pursue careers in socially responsible business, pursue Green architecture, work in the public sector, start nonprofits, run for office, these are all forms of action, all more suited to our current environment. Martin also leaves out the increasing civic engagement of our generation, which is participating in politics at a greater rate and in greater numbers than ever. That too is significant and can lead to change.

It's not that we're paralyzed. It's that our form of activism looks completely different from what the past 40 years has taught us activism should look like. Obviously there is no one defining issue as there was back in Friedman's youth, and those choices are overwhelming. But that doesn't cause us to freeze up, it causes us to zoom in and focus on one problem - sweatshops, climate change, poverty - we specialize and either create new institutions where none exist (see everything I've ever written about youth politics), or to quickly work our way into existing institutions and try to instill in them our values.

It's also important to point out that there are no shortages of young people protesting. Between the Iraq War protests, climate change activism like Step It Up, Students Against Sweatshops, the One Campaign, the WTO in Seattle - more students have been marching in the streets in the last 10 years than ever did during Friedman's time. It's just that the media and political establishment - Friedman and his generation - don't care.

Finally, Chris Bowers weighed in with the most cynical piece of the bunch: The Ultimate Frustration of Political Activism. Bower's piece isn't wholly focused on Millennials (he's skeptical of any criticism that uses such a broad brush category as a "generation"). Instead, he uses his own experience over the past 4 years to illustrate how entrepreneurial activism of the kind I reference above ultimately serves the purposes of those you are looking to displace more than it does your own goals:

Your life doesn't improve, but their's does. And then, when its all over, first they condemn you, and then they ask you why you aren't more politically active. While that makes me want to pick up my pitchfork and torch and engage in as many intra-party struggles as possible, I can understand why for many it would cause them to instead wonder what was on television, or to simply transfer their activism to volunteer social justice work and lifestyle choices. Really, what is the point of continuing to do their dirty work for them?

I can't say that he's wrong - given his examples - but I have to chalk that up to the fact that the type of change he (and we, really) are engaging in is not revolutionary. The balance of power does not flip immediately, and it will be years before positions of power are occupied by those who truly agree with Bowers, the Netroots, or Millennials generally. Until then, yes, those in power do reap the benefits of our actions and small changes to the system. However I don't really see that as a discouraging factor on a macro level across a whole generation of activists. If he's right, we'll see a downturn in activism over time, if not, we'll keep pushing for change in spite of these conditions.

Pretty interesting chart from Business Week marking out who's doing what online. Regular readers will know that I take issue with how they break down the generations, and it seems a little arbitrary to draw such distinctions between "creators" and "joiners." There's a middle ground in there which Fred Stutzman has identified as the "in-between spaces" - twitter, ma.gnolia, del.icio.us,Tumblr - activities that are not quite blogging, but are more participatory and creative than simply joining a social network and browsing your friends' profiles.

In relation to politics, the breakdowns in the "creators" category is interesting. BlogAds surveys show the political blogosphere to be much older. The majority of young "creators" in this graphic are engaging in non-political content creation - gossip blogs, music blogs, etc. Yet we also know that they are volunteering and participating in politics more and more through other venues - voting, on the ground engagement, social networks. I've already written about how I think progressive youth organizing could stand to benefit from greater integration with the local and national blogospheres. I wonder when and if we'll start to see more crossover there.

During my interview with Tobin Van Ostern, of Students for Obama, I made reference to hearing "some political commentary" talking about Barack's strategy as renouncement of Boomer politics. Just to contextualize that (and because I think its a fascinating topic), I got that from a recent episode of Radio Open Source.

From the promo for the show:

Obama’s post-boomer status could become his cardinal trait as he uses it to distinguish himself from his running mates — particularly Empress Boomer Hillary Clinton. All you need to do is replay the elections of boomers past to be reminded that the debating, the stumping, and the campaigning were inevitably stuck in the foxholes of Vietnam and the fraternities of Ivy League campuses. Obama, too young to have dodged the draft, fresh enough that drugs don’t seem to be an issue, is exempt from the accusations that have forever dogged Clinton, Bush, Gore and Kerry.

During this hour we’ll ask the question: how will Obama’s post-boomer status play out on the campaign trail? Will he be able to sustain his cool while other candidates self-immolate? How does a boomer’s approach to politics differ from that of a post-boomer or even a pre-boomer, such as John McCain? What would it mean for the political landscape to have a post-boomer occupy the Oval Office?

What’s your generation? How do your values and approach to politics differ from that of your parents? Or your children? Do you see the boomer presidencies of Bill Clinton and George Bush as distinctly divisive and polarizing? Or do you think harping on generational divides is a way of over-simplifying politics and human behavior? What are your dreams for the next administration?

It's a great show. If you aren't listening to it, I highly recommend it. It's daily listening for me. Subscribe to the podcast - if that's your thing - here.