Books

The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory

Those of us in the progressive youth movement have been talking about the importance of young voter outreach for a long time now. We tried to drive home the point that young voters are not apathetic, but disengaged due to that self-fulfilling prophecy of traditional campaign 'wisdom.' Youth political organizations kept succeeding, increasing youth turnout in 2004 and 2006. David Plouffe, David Axelrod, and Barack Obama eschewed tradition by deciding from the beginning that organizing young voters to expand the electorate would be the key to victory.

"One of [Paul] Tewes's ideas was to make sure we were working every community, no matter how small. African American, Latino, high school kids, Republicans--we had staff assigned to all of the demographics, months ahead of our competition." The Obama campaign began by working hard to turn out the potential voters that traditional campaigns write off. While critics of the youth vote claim that 2008 was a fluke and just about Obama, it is clear that the campaign worked hard to organize youth that had never been asked for their vote by a campaign. The campaign knew that they "would win Iowa only on the backs of independents, Republicans, young voters, and new registrants--a scary proposition, to say the least."

The campaign was able to look at the election through the lens of a young voter. "At least 95 percent of our six thousand employees were under the age of thirty, most under the age of twenty-five." While it is not uncommon for a lot of campaign staff to be young, what was exceptional about the Obama campaign was the respect for them and the willingness to trust their instincts on what was happening on the ground.

We adjusted accordingly, adding more media and Internet advertising geared exclusively to younger voters; we prepared to do a lot more instructional and informative work with our supporters so they knew how to caucus, while trying not to spook them; and we redoubled our efforts to attract support from conventional caucus Democrats so our newbies in certain precincts were matched with some grizzled veterans.

The campaign invested in "advertising specifically geared toward women, seniors, and younger voters, African Americans and Latinos." The messaging of the youth advertising reflected an understanding of the generation: "spots for those under thirty were very aspirational, a call to action, focusing on issues like Iraq and the environment, and calling on younger voters to get involved in shaping the future." Young voters, used to being ignored, were finally being engaged by a campaign with the same effort and respect showed to seniors.

The Obama campaign conceived of and executed a strategy to expand the electorate by registering and turning out young voters and other traditionally underrepresented demographics. Here are a few passages from The Audacity to Win on how this strategy became a winning one:

As the returns came in we could see the traces of our strategy's design: by registering over one hundred thousand new voters, producing strong turnout among African Americans and young voters, and winning college-educated whites thanks to our stand against the gas tax, we had made ourselves unbeatable in North Carolina.

We registered many thousands of new voters in both states, and these voters participated at high rates, defying the conventional view that new registrants turn out in very low numbers. A strong showing from African Americans and younger voters might put both these states in play in the general election.

If we did not register enough African Americans and young voters in North Carolina and then turn them out on Election Day, we could not win. Facing a traditional electorate meant we shouldn't even bother with a state like North Carolina, no matter how much money we spent.

By focusing their attention on young voters and actually spending resources on research, the campaign learned new things about new and young voters. An example was when their numbers showed that they were not meeting their initial goals for youth early voting:

First, many young voters were so excited by this election that they couldn't envision doing anything besides voting for Barack Obama in person at the polling location. When we raised with them the possibility of long lines, or the potential to free themselves up to volunteer, they simply wouldn't budge. This was a big moment for them and they felt it would seem bigger if they voted at the polls. In any case, they were still dead-set on participating, which relieved us.

The second lesson was that there was still some confusion about who was eligible to vote early and how it worked. Armed with these findings, we made sure our communications to younger voters included even more remedial information about the nuts and bolts of early voting. Soon enough, their numbers began to climb. In many states we lowered our expectations for the under-twenty-five early vote (but not for overall turnout), and we eventually hit those numbers in most battlegrounds.

Republicans have spent a lot of effort in previous campaigns spreading misinformation to young voters about such things as early voting, residency, and registration. By putting in the effort to combat that misinformation, the campaign was able to empower and turn out voters who were unsure of the sometimes complex election laws.

As we now know, this strategy of reaching out to young voters paid off, despite the naysayers from the media and the old school political establishment:

Our base--African Americans, sporadic-voting Democrats, and younger voters--was turning out in larger numbers than McCain's base in most states.

The share of the electorate over sixty-five actually dropped between 2004 and 2008, not because fewer older voters turned out but because younger ones showed up in droves.

Because the Obama campaign was committed to putting effort and resources in registering and turning out young voters, treating them with the same respect as other demographics, they were able to build on the work done by youth organizations since 2000 to culminate with those voters carrying Obama to victory and the presidency. However, culminate may not be the appropriate word. The work in further expanding the electorate by turning out young voters to elect Democrats is far from over. There is more potential for the Millennial generation to not only expand the electorate in an election, but to fundamentally alter the country for the better.

I'll leave you with David Plouffe's words on our generation:

I left the campaign extraordinarily confident about the future of the country, because of the talent and drive of the young men and women who made our victory possible. Certainly, we would not have won the primary or the general without a surging youth turnout in any number of states, Iowa most importantly. But their impact on the election goes beyond casting ballots. Most of our staff was under thirty, many of them were under twenty-five, as were a sizable chunk of our most active volunteers. As I witnessed, sometimes in awe, their performance and desire to look beyond themselves and contribute to a better world (and they have a distinctly global outlook) it gave me extreme comfort to know that in the not so distant future they will be taking the reins and leading our companies, campaigns, and institutions. For my generation, the rocking chair beckons--these kids are that good. I can't wait to experience their leadership and vision in the years to come.

An interesting finding from the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA):

- Since 2002, 18 to 24 year olds have seen the biggest increase (nine percent) in literary reading, and the most rapid rate of increase (21 percent)

- This jump in young adults reversed a 20 percent rate of decline in the 2002 survey, the steepest rate of decline since the NEA survey began.

- Reading is an important indicator of positive individual and social behavior patterns. Previous NEA research has shown that literary readers volunteer, attend arts and sports events, do outdoor activities, and exercise at higher rates than non-readers.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that Millennials are readers, given what we know about their civic disposition.

I'm guessing it probably doesn't hurt to have an intellectual as a president again either, especially given our last president's reading prowess.

Since I've been traveling so much, I've taken the opportunity afforded by long plane flights to revitalize my reading habits. So far I've read and reviewed Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody, and David Kinnaman's UnChristian. I've been enjoying this chance to read again. It's a good habit that unfortunately dropped well below previous levels as I worked on my book and struggled to juggle a full-time job and blogging. I've been able to do a new book every 12 - 15 days, and hope to keep that up through the spring and summer (no promises once the Fall gets here and the campaign really kicks into high-gear).

Most recently, I finished Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics by Morely Winograd and Michael Hais. Winograd is a former policy advisor to Al Gore, and Hais is a retired executive for communications research firm Frank N. Magid Associates. Together, they've pooled their expertise and produced a compelling look at the historical, demographic, and technological trends that have shaped American political history, and how those cyclical trends might play out as the Millennial Generation comes into it's own as a force in American politics.

Millennial Makeover owes a large debt to the work of generational theorists William Strauss and Neil Howe, upon whose theory of generational "cycles" much of their work is based. In a nutshell, that theory, applied to politics, boils down to this:

Every 40 years or so American politics goes through a "realignment," or a period during which the balance of power changes radically, as do the kinds of politics that are practiced. These realignments come in two types - idealistic and civic - each matching the characteristics of the generation which drives them. Idealistic realignments tend to focus on moral and personal politics and are typically characterized by gridlock and inaction in Washington. Political participation tends to ebb during idealist eras, and more voters identify as "independents." Civic realignments are characterized by a greater pragmatism and public participation rates, and greater partisan identification in the electorate. These eras tend to be times in which the government and how it functions are made anew. In both instances, the weaker of the two parties at the time of the realignment tends to come into power, not insignificantly through the help of new communications technologies.

The 20th Century saw two such realignments. First through the GI Generation, a civic generation which remade American government and business institutions in the pre- and post-WWII period through a radical expansion of the role of government in the lives of Americans via programs such as the GI Bill and the New Deal. Technological assistance for Democrats and the GI Generation in that realignment came via the advent of radio, exemplified by FDR's Fireside Chats. This was a high time for the Democratic Party. Approximately 40 years later, it was the Baby Boomers who realigned the country, this time as an idealist generation with the help of their savvy use of the television. The Baby Boomer period, from which we are now emerging, was marked by declining rates of participation, a focus on personal and moral issues (the culture wars), and the ascendancy of the Republican Party, which attempted to minimize the (social and economic) role of government and undo the reforms of the New Deal.

This cyclical realignment has occurred 5 times in our history, and Winograd and Hais argue that the 6th realignment is upon us. With the help of social software (blogs, wikis, youtube, facebook, etc.), Millennials, who are already showing higher and higher rates of participation in the political process and a greater identification with the Democratic Party, will once again remake American politics, from the issues on which the government takes action, all the way down to the means by which it interacts with its citizens.

When it comes to examining the historical trends (as far back as the Revolutionary War) and contextualizing data on the beliefs and habits of today's youngest generation, Millennial Makeover is a font of information, both old and new. Equally impressive is their handling of technology. Winograd and Hais do a good job outlining how social technologies are short-circuiting and rewiring the political process (notable examples include George Allen's "Macaca Moment" on YouTube and the way that blogs have altered the money equation in campaigns and elections), and how the Millennials' penchant for information sharing and cultural production will move those technologies even further into the heart of our political process. For those looking to delve into either of these topics, Millennial Makeover is a top-notch reference.

That said, considering that their main thesis is that Millennials will reshape American politics, there are very few actual Millennials in Hais and Winograd's book. And their writing credits generational shifts and overall technology trends for the changes we are seeing in the voting electorate above and beyond the efforts of the emerging progressive youth movement we cover here at Future Majority, a position exemplified by this quote:

Many different groups and causes will try to claim responsibility for this reversal in civic life, but generational cycles should be given most of the credit.

I admit that I am particularly biased here in that my own book is dedicated almost exclusively to covering the role of new youth institutions in mobilizing the Millennial Generation at the polls. It's not that I disagree with Hais and Winograd that technology and generational cycles shouldn't get credit, but I believe them to be two of a confluence of factors that also includes new youth-built and youth-driven institutions within the Democratic Party and progressive movement. Millennial Makeover makes no mention of the role that organizations like the Bus Project, Young Democrats, The League, or many others played in turning out young voters in '04 and '06, either to refute or affirm their role.

Young people and new youth institutions are agents of change in this reshaping just as much as generational trends and shifting technologies (indeed, many of these new groups take advantage of both trends). The work of these groups since 2004, and their success in turning out Millennials, particularly due to their on-the-ground, peer-to-peer field work, is well-documented. Yet the book treats these organizations as if they did not exist, and that strikes me as a rather glaring omission.

There is precious little serious political analysis as to how the Millennial Generation has, and will continue, to shape our politics. To my knowledge, there are only three such resources available to date, Millennial Makeover, my own Youth to Power, and Keli Goff's Party Crashing. Having read two of them at this point, I think we're fortunate in that the first two books seem to be quite complementary. Millennial Makeover excels in its analysis of generations in American politics, the shifting technological landscape, and the contours of the Millennial Generation, but gives short shrift to the emerging progressive youth movement. My own book's strength lies in its chronicling of the rise and role of Millennial institutions in our current political realignment. While it touches on much of what is in Winograd and Hais's book, its coverage of generational cycles, history, and technology does not approach the depth with which they are explored by Winograd and Hais. Goff's Party Crashing is next on my list, and looks to be just as unique in its focus and coverage as the previous two books. Together, they might be an invaluable trilogy for anyone looking to understand the political impact of the Millennial generation.

I finally finished reading UnChristian: What a New Generation Thinks About Christianity . . . And Why It matters. It was a difficult read. In the past I’ve reported on the exodus of young evangelicals away from Bush and the Republican Party, and the shift in focus of young evangelicals from culture war topics like abortion and gay marriage, and towards more community and social justice oriented work on issues of poverty and climate change. I picked up the book hoping for a glimpse into how young people are changing the church along these lines. These issues were only addressed tangentially in the book.

Instead, I got a full-throated defense of the most rigid interpretations of Evangelical Christianity and a market research-based attempt to rebrand Christianity among the general US populace, with a strong focus on capturing Millennials and Gen Xers (what the authors calls “mosaics” and “busters’).

In essence, the authors, after extensive quantitative and qualitative research, identify six negative qualities most commonly associated with Christianity. These are: that evangelicals are hypocrites who do not practice what they preach, they are only focused on a superficial “saving” of others souls rather than real connection, empathy and communication, they are anti-homosexual, they are sheltered and ignorant of the real world, they are too political, and they are judgmental. In most instances, the authors assume that evangelicals themselves must accept responsibility for these negative “perceptions,” which are due to their own failure to practice what they preach and live up to the teachings of Jesus. This failure is the meaning of the books title, UnChristian.

It was extremely disorienting, being in the head of someone holding religious and social views so at odds with my own, even more so in that I’m a Millennial and the research and tactics the authors discuss are designed to make their brand of Christianity more appealing to me. In particular, this manifested itself in two ways – or two tensions – that are present throughout the book

The first is between altering the general public’s perceptions of Christians and altering the lives of Christians themselves to more accurately reflect the values they preach and the teachings of Jesus. At times the authors seem to be arguing for a fundamental revolution in how Christians live the Word and use themselves as examples of what they preach. At other times they seem to be arguing for cosmetic or tactical changes - slicker PR to revitalize a dying brand.

The second tension is between that lived, altered, Christian life and the actual values of those they are trying to convert. In some ways, these are fundamentally at odds no matter how much those in the church change their own lifestyle. Gay marriage and homosexuality as a “lifestyle” are the two most prominent examples of this in the text. No matter how much young people’s values change, the Church’s don’t. The authors may argue for greater compassion and empathy for the GLBT community – essentially hate the sin, love the sinner – but at the end of the day the church and its practitioners are splitting hairs. The sinner and the sin are one and the same and the GLBT community, and its friends, peers, supporters in the younger generations don’t see any sin at all. Until the Church comes to that recognition, all their attempts at empathy really will be just so much PR.

Despite my fundamental disagreements with much of the author’s world view, the book is a wealth of demographic and opinion data, and contains a number of smart tactical ideas that could be applied to any persuasion campaign.

Among the findings:

Perceptions of Christianity among 18 – 29 year olds

Outsiders vs. Churchgoers on Homosexuality (% Who Believe the following to be a “major” problem in America)

Young Adults Are Concerned about Conservative Christians in Politics

Mosaics and Busters - More Skeptical that Churches are Loving Environments

Percent Who Agree that the Bible Should Determine the Laws Of Our Country

These numbers are extraordinary. And while the authors see them as a sign that Christianity is in trouble and needs a serious shot in the arm to revitalize itself, I see a chance - offered by Millennials and Gen Xers, or Mosaics and Busters as the author calls them - to move beyond the culture wars that have entangled our politics for so long. There is clear movement among the younger generations away from the christian conservative politics of the past.

By about 20 percentage points, young born-again Christians (21 – 44) are more accepting of cohabitation, sex outside of a marriage and a variety of other “cultural” issues. The evangelical movement seems to be fighting a losing battle. Look at the charts; more young people perceive Christian conservative activism to be a greater problem than GLBT activism. According to the authors, for every 100 young people who are not born-again by the time they are 18, only 6 will make the conversion later in their lifetime. Perhaps most significantly, the authors predict that an equal number of born-again Christians will vote for Democrats in 2008 as Republicans.

Ultimately, the authors and I fundamentally disagree on the meaning of these numbers. Where they see a problem to be solved, I see a trend in tolerance to be nurtured and encouraged. In one instance, though, we are united in our view. Where as they see it as incumbent upon believers to take the more tolerant, community oriented and diverse views of today's youth seriously in an attempt to engage them in a real conversation (that eventually leads back to the Church), I think that progressives must take the religious views of these more progressive churchgoers seriously and engage them in our own conversations. Their numbers may be shrinking but it is in their power to move the political activism of Christians in a direction that is more in line with progressive, social justice ideas. That's an encouraging thought and certainly a conversation worth having.

I just finished reading Here Comes Everybody: The Power or Organizing Without Organizations, the new book by Internet and social media guru Clay Shirky. It’s a quick, informative read that explores the possibilities, limits and rules of new social technologies.

In 300 pages, Shriky conveys the scope and complexity of social technologies without succumbing to the techno-utopianism, which plagues so much writing – and professional consulting – about the subject. For those paying close attention to these trends, Here Comes Everybody will serve as a good refresher course, with enough detail about network theory to satisfy your inner (or outer) nerd. For novices, Shirky’s book offers an essential introduction to how social technologies are changing the operational landscape for group action in any form.

Shirky’s thesis will be familiar to many who work in online politics, and it runs something like this: the advent of new social technologies like wikis, blogs, media sharing platforms – even email – have created “communications tools that are flexible enough to match our social capabilities.” As a result, almost all the old barriers to group action and collaboration have collapsed, leaving behind a new environment in which amateur and collective actions can rival those of professional/corporate institutions.

Under these new rules, it’s possible for a young couple in Manhattan to enlist the aid of an army of MySpace users to track down a cell-phone thief. Hundreds of independent, amateur photographers can collect and share images of a hipster event in Brooklyn that would be under-reported by the mainstream media, while amateur photographers can document disasters like the South Asian Tsunami, or the terrorist attacks on the London Underground, often outperforming the work of traditional journalistic institutions. With the aid of new technologies, the laity of the Catholic Church informed and organized itself against child abuse in the church, overcoming geographic barriers and information bottlenecks that prohibited such inter-parish coordination in the past. Hundreds of independent programmers, flung across the globe, contribute to open source software projects that compete with multinational corporations. These are just a few of the varied case studies presented by Shirky throughout the course of his book.

In these anecdotes, Shirky presents a clear picture for how social technology has transformed a range of professional and amateur practices (and blurred the lines between the two). For those looking to apply social technology to their own work, he also dives headfirst into the social theory, providing a road map illustrating the various levels of interaction and collaboration that technology has enabled, and what it takes for a social media strategy take root. This is where many – even old hands – will find the most value in the book.

Shirky makes a number of valuable insights about group formation and action that those working with social media would do well to note:

• The “hive mind” or “collective intelligence” is mostly (though not entirely) a myth. Most content creation and sharing comes from only a few users within a community, but the participation of those users can create enough value for the community to thrive.
• As groups scale upwards they become unmanageable and it is the smaller networks within the larger one that maintain coherence and connection amidst the larger group (what he calls the “small world theory”). These “small world” clusters work as amplifiers and filters within the larger network.
• He notes that the old model of activism was to find those who “care a little” and get them to care more. Now, the model is to find those who “care a little,” and find small, easy ways for them to participate that are commensurate with their interest, but highly effective in the aggregate.
• Whether in business or in politics, social technology has lowered the cost of failure to near zero, allowing new ideas that were unworkable for a rigid, hierarchical institution with limited resources to flourish or flounder on their own.

Finally, and most related to what we do here at Future Majority – Shirkly notes that technology has the greatest impact not when something new pops up, but when the new becomes ubiquitous. All of us have grown up in a world based on scarcity of resources and hierarchical institutions. Today, we are relearning the rules as we adopt these new technologies and those old rules are broken. For those coming after us, teenagers and children now, who are digital natives to this technology, these “new” rules won’t be new anymore. They’ll just be the rules. It’s then that we’ll finally begin to see the promise of these technologies fulfilled.