Generations

Even as we get ready for the inauguration of one of the youngest Presidents in history, USA today is reporting that the 111th Congress will be the oldest ever:

The nation's capital is about to confront a political generation gap: Barack Obama, one of the youngest presidents ever to take the oath of office when he's inaugurated Jan. 20, will be working with the nation's oldest Congress.

The average age will be 57 in the House and 63 in the Senate, according to the chambers' historical offices. In each case, it's the highest on record.

I don't note this to be ageist, or to be an unthinking booster of more young people in Congress. Experience - particularly in arcane policy matters - can be an asset, and youth isn't inherently a positive trait. However, older Americans are routinely on the wrong side of many issues facing our country. They were on the wrong side of Prop 8 in California. Many in Congress were wrong on Iraq and the Patriot Act. And older generations have been unbearably slow to recognize the threat of global warming and the need for a green energy economy. Younger members are far more likely to be on the right side of these issues and push for bolder action than older members of Congress. So yes, age does matter here.

All is not without hope. There is some young (Democratic) blood getting pumped into the House of Representatives this week:

• Jared Polis (CO-2) '75
• Glenn Nye (VA-2) '74
• Tom Perriello (VA-5) '74
• Ben Ray Lujan (NM-3) '72
• Martin Heinrich (NM-1) '71
• John Boccieri (OH-16) '69
• Dan Maffei (NY-25) '68
• Frank Kratovil (MD-1) '68

Irony of ironies, the 111th Congress will also see Republican Aaron Schock (IL - 18), seated in the House. Despite the GOP's trouble with Millennials this year, Schock will be the youngest member of Congress and the first Congressman to be born in the 1980s.

Hope you are all having a better holiday than me. I've been sick as a dog and mostly useless since Friday morning.

• CQ Politics profiles Henry Waxman, congressional watchdog and the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Waxman is likely to be a big ally in passing bold energy policy this year.
• Despite problems with the exit polls, word is trickling in that young voters in Colorado came out big and like their peers in most states, went for Obama.
• Ari Melber at The Nation has a few thoughts about Obama for America 2.0.
• Looking back on Obama for America 1.0, you should read this lengthy interview with campaign manager David Plouffe if you have not already done so.
• At CNN.com, Marian Salzman discusses intra-generational politics within the Baby Boomers, and how Obama represents a changing of the generational guard.
• Meanwhile, the Washington Post delves into generational politics in this piece about the "Madoff Generation."

On October 10th of last year, Thomas Friedman wrote about The Millennial Generation, showing everyone that his "expertise" on foreign affairs and energy policy doesn't extend to generational discussion.

But Generation Q may be too quiet, too online, for its own good, and for the country’s own good. When I think of the huge budget deficit, Social Security deficit and ecological deficit that our generation is leaving this generation, if they are not spitting mad, well, then they’re just not paying attention. And we’ll just keep piling it on them.

...

America needs a jolt of the idealism, activism and outrage (it must be in there) of Generation Q. That’s what twentysomethings are for — to light a fire under the country. But they can’t e-mail it in, and an online petition or a mouse click for carbon neutrality won’t cut it. They have to get organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize them.

Friedman waded into generational waters again this morning, and while the content was slightly better (the overall gist of the column made good points), he showed again that he does not understand the Millennial brand of activism.

The carnage was mostly restricted to the intro:

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about Tom Brokaw’s book “The Greatest Generation,” that classic about our parents and their incredible sacrifices during World War II. What I’ve been thinking about actually is this: What book will our kids write about us? “The Greediest Generation?” “The Complacent Generation?” Or maybe: “The Subprime Generation: How My Parents Bailed Themselves Out for Their Excesses by Charging It All on My Visa Card.”

Our kids should be so much more radical than they are today. I understand why they aren’t. They’re so worried about just getting a job or paying next semester’s tuition. But we must not take their quietism as license to do whatever we want with this bailout cash. They are going to have to pay this money back. And therefore, we have an incredibly weighty obligation to make sure that we not only spend every stimulus dollar wisely but also with an eye to creating new technologies.

Friedman is still on his radical shtick, once again arguing that times are so dire that we need to sit in the streets and chain ourselves to bulldozers. Friedman believes that the only way to act with urgency is to go crazy, like much of the Boomer activists did, marching in streets, braving teargas, screaming chants, and disrupting society. But we know that we can show appreciation for how urgent this moment is in our own way. Today's youth were involved in this election at a rate not seen since 1972. CIRCLE finds that about 23 million young Americans cast a ballot this year, over 3 million more than the number in 2004. How many times do we need to cite data that shows that Millennials volunteer at record rates? Friedman once again equates activism with being "radical," and he's wrong.

Friedman writes about Millennials as if we're still seven years old, too distracted with getting the latest toy that comes with our Happy Meal to understand what's going on. Friedman acts like we're impotent, like we didn't just make history ourselves, uniting behind a candidate, sweeping him through the Democratic primary and into the White House. Yes, Tom, that happened. And we did it.

Boomers do owe us. They got us into this mess. Millennials aren't being "quiet" because we're not aware of what's going on. We're doing our thing, working through the establishment, changing the system from the inside out. And we're also watching to make sure the Baby Boomers stay focused on their "weighty obligation." We've already turned the political world upside down. We're not afraid to do it again.

UPDATE: I'm listening to this again, and I'm thinking this might just be a horrible joke on the show gone awry, especially after finding out that very little can be taken seriously on this show in the first place.

But I certainly do not put it past someone like Brokaw to make that statement and mean it, especially given his poor analysis through most of this campaign. Which is why I posted this in the first place.
-------------------

In my youthful naivete, I once assumed Tom Brokaw was a decent journalist. I figured that since he was on NBC each night, he must know what he's talking about.

I must have been pretty dumb.

Brokaw was a guest on "Wait Wait...Don't Tell me!," a quiz show on NPR hosted by Peter Sagal. Prior to asking Brokaw trivia questions, Sagal broached the generational conversation (about seven minutes in):

Sagal: Tom Brokaw we have asked you here to play a game we’re calling “The Dorkiest Generation.” So, you’ve written a book about the World War II generation, you’ve written a new book about the generation of the sixties — the boomers. We don’t think you’re going to be writing one about kids today. They won’t even clean up their bedroom for goodness sake. But we also think that because they have been wasting their time…

Brokaw: I’m waiting for a member of this generation to write one that’s simply titled “My Generation Sucks.”

Sagal: The problem is we think these kids these days, these kids in their twenties and thirties — are they kids? I don’t know — they’re wasting their time playing collectable card games these are the games in which you buy decks of custom cards and play them against their friends. It’s like Cribbage for kids who can’t get dates.

Brokaw: Right.

These losers obviously have no clue what they're talking about.

I'm more interested, though, in Brokaw, because he's actually someone that people listen to (sorry Sagal), and he poses as an expert on generations with no apparent knowledge of any of the theory behind the subject.

Every time one of these esteemed journalists or pundits stereotypes simply because it's easy to do (this generation is too quiet, this generation won't vote, there's no such thing as the Millennial Generation, etc.), their own laziness and vanity, revealed in their criticism, immediately disqualifies them from contributing to any rational political dialogue in the future. Why? Because the thing is, it's not hard to be well-informed on the rise of the Millennial Generation, a group any serious political observer should now be taking seriously. Like Mike wrote earlier today, the 2008 youth vote narrative has been far smoother than 2004's, as many of these stories, studies, and articles seem to be written from Future Majority blog posts. All it takes is a few Google searches, and you've got a few pages chock-full of statistics right in front of you.

Of course, if Brokaw took the time to do this, he'd see we don't suck. We're the next "Greatest Generation." Unlike the individualistic Boomers (Brokaw is one), Millennials are civic in nature, confident enough to tackle big problems, and pragmatic and collaborative enough to piece together big solutions. The political dialogue will be changing because of the exhaustion with what Obama described as the dorm room fights taking place in the '60s. A new discussion is already emerging that takes back the meaning of "moral values," applying it to genocide, poverty, and climate change, as opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage, and creationism versus evolution. The results of this election, in which Millennials increased our turnout rate yet again -- the highest rate in 36 years -- demonstrate this civic responsibility and potential. Yet we suck, according to Brokaw, and we're "wasting [our] time," according to Sagal.

We're getting to a point now when it's not so easy to make a lazy assumption about young people anymore. This election, data from other studies, and simple anecdotes are beating back this "young people don't care" bit. It's just too bad that crusty journalists like Brokaw haven't caught up with the times. Perhaps Brokaw should listen to some Dylan.

(h/t to L. Russell Allen at pushback)

This is a guest post by Millennial Makeover authors Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais. Originally published in The Politico. --Mike

The key to waging a successful presidential campaign by either Barack Obama or John McCain will be their ability to use their respective conventions to overcome generational tensions. What happens in Denver and the Twin Cities could give the nominees freedom to embrace the generational changes that will shape American politics for decades to come.

If the candidates pay proper attention to generational politics, each convention will begin with a nod to their party’s Boomers and then pivot away from the past to address, on the final night, new voters whose support they will need to win in November.

The candidates must take the lead in managing their party’s convention so that the ticket and its platform reflect the desire of the electorate to move beyond the cultural wars of the 1960s. Each party’s understanding of this generationally driven challenge will be evident in how it handles the iconic, Boomer figures demanding center stage at their conventions.

Obama, in an acknowledgement of the generational strains in his party, has agreed to Hillary Rodham Clinton's request to not only address the convention in prime time on Tuesday night, but to have her name placed in nomination the following night. In return, he has gained the agreement of former president Bill Clinton to, in effect, lead the Boomers in the Democratic Party to embrace and endorse Senator Obama's nomination on Wednesday night.

As tough as that challenge has been for Obama, the problem is more acute for John McCain. President Bush's job performance ratings are among the lowest of any president. But he remains popular with Boomer ideologues in the GOP, who are continually looking for signs that McCain has stayed from party orthodoxy. Any attempt to deny a sitting president the spotlight at their national convention, as Democrats did in keeping Lyndon Johnson from addressing their 1968 convention, will be met with cries of “I told you not to trust him” from Republican true believers.

It appears that McCain’s advisers have decided to throw cultural war red meat to the delegates with appearances by Bush and Vice President Cheney on Monday, in hopes that the electorate won’t pay too much attention until later in the week.

If history is any guide, the place where both candidates will be willing to make concessions to their party’s ideological base will be the party’s platform. Since this policy statement is debated early in the convention, with little penalty for abandoning a plank or two later in the campaign, platforms are the easiest way to throw a bone to ideological purists. The Generation X and Boomer Democratic blogosphere has previously attacked Obama for failing to adhere to hard left positions on post 9-11 issues and offshore oil drilling.

Similarly, a number of conservatives have condemned McCain's former positions on climate change, immigration, and campaign finance reform.

The choice each candidate must make is whether to use the platform debate to give the cultural warriors in their party a final opportunity to replay the political drama of the nation’s Boomer past or to use the platform debate as a “Sister Souljah” generational moment and decisively break with that kind of divisive politics.

In the end, however, there will be no better place for the two candidates to demonstrate their break with the politics of past generations than in their acceptance speeches.

The McCain campaign has signaled its intention to use their candidate’s story of personal sacrifice on behalf of the nation throughout the convention. This effort will likely culminate in an acceptance speech attempting to simultaneously distinguish his life’s experience from those of the Woodstock generation (“I was tied up at the time”) and arouse the passions of his party’s Boomer base.

The challenge, however, is how to do that that without awakening a set of related thoughts among Millennials about just how old and potentially out of touch with their generation he is. Millennials weren’t around for Woodstock, don’t care about it, and prefer that everyone “play nice” together. Passion displayed as anger turns them off. To capture a new and winning coalition in this campaign, McCain would be better off using his acceptance speech to underline his national security credentials based on a lifetime of service, both of which appeal greatly to Millennials.

Obama’s decision to deliver his acceptance speech before a large outdoor audience on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech comes with its own set of risks. Echoes of that remarkable speech are sure to arouse the passions of the liberal half of the Boomer generation. But, it will also remind viewers of the turmoil of the 60s that drove a majority of the nation to embrace the Republicans’ appeal for “law and order.”

Obama’s rhetoric will need to inspire a new generation to take the next steps toward achievement of King’s dream, without creating a backlash among the rest of the electorate that wasn’t enamored with the racial overtones of the Democratic primary campaign.

To succeed in November, both candidates will have to speak explicitly to the future and demonstrate that their campaign represents the hopes of a new generation. The country is waiting for a new leader with a new approach to guide it out of the Boomer briar patch in which it has been stuck since 1968. After the conventions, we will have a clearer idea who can best lead the country into a new era of American politics.

Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics published by Rutgers University Press.

I've recently become interested in urban planning and the impact of the Millennial Generation on its future. I'm originally from an area smack dab in the middle of the rust belt. I've read about and observed the many mid-size industrial cities around my hometown, especially Youngstown, Ohio, struggle with keeping crime under control, working around massive population loss, and selling people on the notion that it is important to rebuild these cities' urban cores.

Luckily, many of these cities are already getting back on track. Youngstown, for example, is being guided by the Youngstown 2010 project, a community-drafted plan established in 2002. Cleveland's downtown got an overhaul in the early 1990s. But there is still more work to be done. In doing this work, we need to make sure we understand what resources these communities need in order to solidify plans like these and put them into action.

Many people might ask why this has any connection with Millennials -- why is it important to rebuild these cities when its citizens have been moving to suburbs for years? Why is it important to invest in these urban areas when those young people fortunate enough to go to school will just move away after school? An article in the Washington Business Journal about the connection between the future of urban planning and its connection with Generation X and Millennials gave me an answer.

Millennials are actually pre-disposed to living in urban areas. Their focus on community and convenience demands a short commute to whatever resource they need in their community. Ask any Millennial who uses the Internet to do research for a school project, chats on AIM with two friends, listens to music, and checks on the score of his favorite team's baseball game all at once -- they like to multi-task; they like productivity.

The most important factor in figuring out where we’ll be living in the future is to look at how we’ll be living. Just as the automobile in the 1940s and ’50s and racial turbulence in the 1960s and ’70s drove their parents and grandparents to the suburbs, look for today’s younger generations to affect what tomorrow’s communities will look like.

Just consider developer Jim Abdo’s successful bet in the late 1990s that Gen X-ers (born from 1965 to 1980) would line up for new places in the city if he helped remake Logan Circle.

“Generation X and Generation Y are putting much more emphasis on life-work balance,” says Adam Ducker, managing director at Richard Charles Lesser & Co., a real estate firm based in Bethesda.

One of the main ways to achieve a better life-work balance, Ducker says, is foregoing a large home in the suburbs and the long commute it carries for a smaller home closer to work. Commuting in exchange for a bigger house was a deal baby boomers were willing to make for their family. For younger generations, that’s not a reasonable trade-off.

As you read, a community re-formed on the basis of convenience is a necessary ingredient in rebuilding our urban areas. In addition, their dedication to the environment is another reason why Millennials might be interested in living in an urban community. An overhaul of the mass transit system would appeal to younger people in this time of high gas prices and environmental concerns.

So where does infrastructure come into play?

Well, the problem with urban redevelopment is that, many times, the projects that are a part of the process get stalled in Congress or other legislatures because they are labeled as "pork." For example, John McCain is on record saying that he will pay for many of his own plans -- like reinstating Bush's tax cuts -- by eliminating the pork from Congress. And while you can already see the problem developing there, McCain adds to it by advocating for a gas tax holiday; this will eliminate the funding for many of the projects involving our nation's infrastructure, further paralyzing development (while not getting any economic benefit).

Bob Herbert wrote a terrific piece for his column in the New York Times about the importance of infrastructure and its tendency to fly under the rader due to its... unsexy... nature.

I sat in on a meeting Thursday as Mr. Diaz and several other mayors, including Michael Bloomberg of New York, met in Manhattan to discuss ways of getting the federal government involved in large-scale infrastructure and transportation initiatives. The mayors are trying to spread the message that investing in a sound infrastructure is essential for continued economic development.

This may seem obvious, but infrastructure proponents are having a terrible time getting traction on this issue. Infrastructure initiatives are expensive, and not sexy. But there are powerful returns on these investments. They tend to pay for themselves many times over (can you imagine New York City without the subways?) and the projects are job creators.

With President Bush on the way out, the burden of leading an effort to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure would fall on either Barack Obama or John McCain. Representatives of each candidate attended Thursday’s meeting but did not participate.

The mayors talked about clogged highways, the high price of gasoline and an air transportation system that seems to get more pitiful by the day. Mayor John Robert Smith of Meridian, Miss., called on the presidential candidates to take a bold, creative approach to the nation’s transportation needs, including substantial investments in railroad infrastructure.

Mr. Smith believes the nation should devote the same level of commitment to developing a first-rate passenger rail system as was marshaled for the interstate highway system in the Eisenhower era.

My whole point in writing about this issue today is to articulate the link between progress for the future (and we have to look at what Millennials will want, since, according to the Washington Business Journal article, they'll be 30% of the population and transitioning to homeowner status by 2012) with the need for infrastructure. Bob Herbert is right -- it's not an attractive issue to talk about, just like it's not fun to sit in construction delays on a highway, but placed in context, it's crucial for our future.

We could have vibrant communities, with small grocery stores, coffeehouses, laundry facilities, movie theaters, drug stores, and apartments all included. We could have a state-of-the-art mass transit system linking these communities in many of our urban areas. We could have a light rail highway set up in the mold of the Eisenhower highway system. But without a focus on infrastructure, none of this will get off the ground.

Some reading for your Saturday. (Updated by Mike)

• A Missouri state senate race was decided by youth volunteers.
• Russell Simmons, a famed hip-hop producer, appears on Fox News to discuss his GOTV effort.
• An excellent article delving into McCain's failure on technology policy and its connection to his poor performance among youth.
• Paul Krugman ponders our globalized economy and its understated fragility with regard to geopolitics.
• David Broder tackles the well-oiled machine that is the Obama campaign.
• The Toronto Star has an interesting column on the disappearance of fashion's connection with politics; it turns out Millennials would rather profess their opinion online and turn them into social movements -- who knew?
• MSNBC examines the volunteer efforts of China's Ba-Ling-Hou Generation, the American Millennial's counterpart; many Chinese youth have mobilized to confront the damage from the recent massive earthquake that struck a few weeks ago.
• U.S. News and World Report has a profile on the generations of the two presidential candidates; unfortunately no discussion of the impact of Millennials.
• User Generated Content at its best:

Gallup has a new poll up looking at various demographic dynamics in the Obama-McCain general election matchup. Here's what they're showing for the different age demographics/generations:

There are two interesting things to note here:

1. As DemFromCT notes, Gen X appears to be losing it's conservative voting habits and turning to the left. This supports similar data reported by PEW earlier this year, and is super bad news for Republicans. Gen X - particularly the older members - have long been one of their most reliable voting demographics. In 2004, Bush won 30 - 44 year olds (Gen X and younger Boomers) 53 - 46%.
2. Obama's advantage among Millennials echoes what we saw in 2006 when young voters chose Democrats 60 - 38%. In 2004, Kerry won young voters by a much slimmer 54 - 45%, and young voters were 17% of the electorate.

If Gen X votes Democratic, or splits it's vote in November, and if young voters make up 19 or 20% of the electorate and vote for Obama by a 23 point margin, this is going to be a blowout up and down the ballot.

Stuff you should know and see that I won't be blogging in depth:

• Looks like we have another YEO! John Tyler Hammons, a 17 year old freshman at the University of Oklahoma was elected the mayor of Muskegee, a town of 38,000 people. He ran on a good government platform and won in a run-off against the former mayor, capturing 70% of the vote. Way to go John. - The Politico
• Young evangelicals continue to abandon Bush and the GOP over Iraq and the economy. - Huffington Post
• The Godfathers of GOTV testing and research, Gerber and Green, have a new book out pimping Peer to Peer as the best form of organizing. Direct mail and robo-call consultants everywhere are not happy. - Campaigns and Elections
• Two articles say that Obama will need the "senior vote" if he is to beat McCain. I tend not to agree. There are more voters under 30 than over 65, and in some contests we are already performing on par with their turnout. It all depends on how many new young voters show up in November. - Democratic Strategist
• Obama is the king of voter-generated music tributes. - The Politico
• Republicans held a fashion show on the National Mall to show off their new convention swag. This was my favorite photo. And no, this is not a joke. - Minnesota Monitor

Who at the GOP thought it was a good idea to bring back MC Hammer pants? And I'm pretty sure that if that little girl were a lib'rul, we'd hear wingnuts screaming about flag desecration.

Joe's got a great video up about Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" - in which he (Rush) encourages Republicans to eff with the Democratic primaries. He also has a good summation of the point I made earlier today about the supposed "race divide" between the Democratic candidates and how that plays out at the generational level.