government

Perhaps this is just one conservative know-little's analysis, or maybe it's a sign of a recycled talking point to come.

John Feehery, a political pundit who has experience under former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, writes in The Hill that Republicans might be the best fit for Millennials based on the youth's love of free markets. Feehery tries to make his argument based on the Pew Research Center's recent report on Millennials.

While Republicans may seem out of step with Millennials, especially because their social conservatives have such hostility to gay rights and insist so ardently for traditional values, the free-market principles of the party, which stress a light touch on regulation and more freedom to allow a rapidly changing marketplace to evolve on its own, should work well with younger voters who see all of the opportunities that come from the Creative Revolution.

Perhaps Feehery skipped over broad swaths of the data. The release I read discussed Millennials pro-government tendencies. More than half (the only generation that can claim this) of youth favor government intervention and an activist government.

In case pictures aren't your thing:

Millennials are significantly less critical of government on a number of dimensions than are other age cohorts. This tendency has been seen on a variety of individual survey questions as well as on a three-question index of items from the political values survey; this index covers opinions about government’s effectiveness, government regulation of business and whether the government has too much control over people’s lives.

I applaud Feehery's argument that Millennials should be courted, but his analysis that Republicans have a shot at this generation based on non-existent anti-government views is just plain out of whack with reality. The "creativity" argument is creative, but it's wrong. It'll be interesting to see if the GOP tries to use it in a ploy to attract Millennials. Stay tuned.

Update: Andrew Romano of Newsweek makes the same faulty argument. Notice the lack of data simply discussing Millennials' views on government that I provided above.

The basic idea is less government, more liberty, which is far more consistent than the GOP's current platform—and has the added bonus of being far more appealing to the (largely anti-Bush) Millennial Generation as well. As compared to the average American voter, Millennials are less willing to agree that military strength is the best way to ensure peace (52–42 overall vs. 38–58 for Millennials). They are more liberal in their views on family, homosexuality, and civil liberties (especially as compared to the Silent Generation). And they are identical on questions about whether "it is the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can't take care of themselves," which suggests that with old age still half a century away—and with the Boomers threatening to bankrupt the country—they'd see entitlement reform less as a threat than as a precaution. What's more, "while the Democratic Party has a larger advantage among Millennials than it does among the two oldest cohorts, a greater proportion of the party’s support comes from people who do not explicitly identify as Democrats but only lean toward the party." They're Independents, in other words. They could be convinced.

Washington Post education columnist Jim Mathews decided to comment on the sudden controversy regarding President Obama's speech to the nation's schools. Mathews writes that he does not believe it is a good idea, not because of the standard reasons conservatives have stated, but because he believes it would inconvenience teachers too much.

If the president of the United States shows up at a school, as Obama will do at Wakefield, that is different. I also think class can be interrupted to view events certain to make the history books, like the landing on the moon or the inauguration of the first black president. But for most people, watching Obama on TV Tuesday can be done when students get home. Some channels will rerun it. Anyway, I think his speech would work better as an educational exercise in its written form, giving teachers a chance to have students edit it or reply to it. That will mean more writing time, essential if they are going to learn to handle words as well as Obama does.

First, let's be realistic. Are "most" parents going to sit their son or daughter down and have them watch the Obama speech? No, probably not. And if they do, are they going to get much out of it? Again, probably not. Yes, parents have a role to play in their son or daughter's education. But are they qualified to be teaching civics education? This is the kind of strategy we've been relying on the past few decades, as civics classes have been ripped out of curricula in favor of math and science. While young people today are more politically engaged, that didn't happen until 2003/2004. So this strategy hasn't exactly paid off.

So instead of gambling that parents would actually work with their student to get the most educational experience out of the President's speech, the teacher should absolutely have the responsibility of exercising his/her creativity and using the rare moment to educate outside the box. To get to most students today, you don't just place a written copy of the speech in front of them and tell them to respond on their own time to what the President said. In a world chock full of digital media, the written word should be accompanied by some kind of electronic vehicle to get to the heart of the educational material. Standard pedagogy that worked with Boomers isn't going to be effective with young people today. I'd ask Mathews why that teacher can't show the video of the speech in class (I don't think it necessarily has to be shown that day - on their own terms), accompany it with a written copy of the speech for those who do learn better textually, and use it to broach the subject of the presidency, that person's role in America, and perhaps discuss what this president was trying to tell them.

Finally, we come to the matter of role modeling. Our society harps on young students today not having the right role models to look up to anymore. Yet, when the President of the United States tries to offer a positive message to today's youth, it's not good enough.

This whole controversy is nonsense. Whether it's because he's the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, who is trying to do the job we hired him for, or because this is a great opportunity to teach children about our civic responsibilities using innovative pedagogies, I wholeheartedly support those schools who are embracing this rare opportunity.

After posting my piece last night on youth and government health reform, I thought more about the attitudes of young people on the issue. The meme out there is that we consider ourselves to be "invincible," therefore we're not engaging in discussion on the issue. Luckily, in true Millennial form, some young people collaborated, started an organization, and fought back against this "invincible" myth.

But if we're not perceiving ourselves to be invincible, what's going on here? Why the minimal "noise" from young people?

First, let's remember that today's young people don't make "noise." Our generation wants to solve problems, not settle ideological scores, whether that's through technology, multi-tasking, collaborating with others, etc. Our change-making skills are generally different from the Boomers currently running our major institutions. While our conservative elders are best-served to confuse voters of all ages in this debate, many of our older Democratic brothers and sisters don't have the stomach to avoid the false clamors for bipartisanship. As a result, Democrats and Republicans who run the debate continue to yell at each other, while millions of Americans - including too many young people - gamble their already-precarious life savings on not getting hurt or sick. So whether young people are attempting to make change or not, the "chorus of cynics," and in this case, cowards, distracts from anything we would be doing anyway.

Given the sway that lobbyists and special interests still have within Congress and other halls of government, young people unfortunately can't yet enact their brand of change in every institution. In 2008, this was overcome by advocating and voting for a candidate who displayed a mastery of the peer-to-peer tactics, and the pragmatic and "no drama" approach that Millennials embrace. Millennials saw this approach on many issues the first part of this year as well, particularly on pieces of legislation like Serve America, the large expansion in national service through the federal government. But now that the most important issue has appeared in front of us as a nation, young people are missing that refreshing call for collaborative, pragmatic problem-solving. Instead, talking points and yelling abounds. To paraphrase from today's op-ed piece in the Post, "We have the hope. Where's the audacity," Mr. President?

Eight months into the Obama administration, as we mourn the senator from Massachusetts, many of us retain the hope, but we are wondering what happened to the audacity that is needed to move the country in a new direction. In recent weeks, many progressives have expressed concern that Obama's bold plan to reform health care may be at risk. A defeat on this key issue could undermine other elements of his agenda. We don't believe that the president has changed his goals, but we wonder whether he underestimated the power necessary to bring about real change.

If we're going to be successful in getting this done, we need the chief facilitator of the "millions of voices calling for change" to return to his role.

An LA Times article, also published today, discusses the widespread support among young people for government-led health reform. It contained the statistics that are more startling and worrisome every time I read them:

Young people account for 30% of the uninsured population, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, a health policy research foundation. They are least likely to be offered health insurance through employment benefits -- just 53% of working young adults are eligible for employer-based coverage. And since their incomes tend to be low, buying coverage on their own is usually too expensive.

The problem is still there, and getting worse with each day. Contrary to the conventional wisdom spread by AP writers, the youth of the nation don't feel invincible. Try disgusted. In the midst of a cacophony that, at best, lacks courage, and, at worst, is hate-filled, we simply want to see some semblance of the problem-solving politics for which we voted.

In a post today at Daily Kos, DemFromCT discusses some data from the most recent ABC/WaPo poll (don't even bother reading the article -- youth are skipped over in the analysis), specifically covering health care reform. The post was inspired by a WaPo analysis, found here. What I found to be interesting was the comparison of the 18-29 year old crosstab with seniors:

On the top you can see that youth in June supported -- either strongly or somewhat -- the addition of a public plan to our health care system at a 71 percent clip. Two months later, the number has dropped to 61 percent. Much has been said in the blogosphere over the last week regarding the fading of Obama's base, the youth vote included, so this drop -- especially with President Obama on vacation the last week -- isn't surprising. The GOP has been able to run with the death panels meme without being challenged by the media, and until the last week or two, the DNC and OFA sat on their laurels, watching HCR opponents turn town hall meetings into a mush consisting of hyperbolic warnings of America ending and disruptive and undemocratic tactics.

But even with all of this, according to this poll, youth aren't changing their mind about the benefits of health care reform. Responses to a question not published in DemFromCT's analysis but published instead in the WaPo write-up show that 18-29 year olds, when presented with a chance to evaluate whether or not government-inspired reform of the health care system would help or hurt, still believe that it would be a positive development -- their response didn't change over the course of two months. Seniors, though, disagree. 48 percent of those polled believe that government health reform would harm the system, up from 39 percent in June. Furthermore, the percentage of senior respondents strongly feeling reform would do more harm than good surged seventeen points.

The bottom question in the initial set asked whether or not the health care system would lead to improved care for the respondents in particular, and the affirmative responses from June to August nearly doubled among Millennials. 15 percent believed their health care would be better in June, with 28 percent answering the same way two months later. The "betters" seem to draw both from the "worse" and "same" groups. Seniors, again, differed from youth. More seniors believed that health care reform would lead to worse health care.

So, as on many current political issues, there's a generation gap. While both young and old are at least feeling queasy about the public option -- much thanks to GOP/insurance industry-led obstructionism and timid Democratic leaders -- the two groups begin to diverge from there. Elder voters, already feeling lukewarm about Obama, do not believe health care reform will benefit the system or their own health care. Youth, meanwhile, still widely support government-led health care reform, while maintaining a belief that, in the end, the government will get it right.

Youth can still serve as a base to Obama. The big question is whether or not Obama has any nerve left to ratchet up the debate, and whether or not Democratic members of Congress have the chutzpah to strongly support a public option. There is a still-formidable cohort of young voters waiting to see some political courage from Obama and the Democrats.

Erica Williams, the Deputy Director at Campus Progress, has a great piece up at CP's blog on economic investment, Funding Our Future. Williams uses CNN's recent poll showing youth to be the strongest supporters of the president's health care plan to point out some problems youth have encountered in trying to engage in dialogue surrounding this process.

Williams explains what many youth who vocally support the President's plan for health reform probably feel. As Williams and others advocate for the plan, engaging other, older Americans in intelligent discussion as to why its needed and why the scare tactics are nothing more than symbols of fear from an entrenched systemic oppressor, we are met with annoyance and condescension.

...Nevertheless, every day I try new responses to those that ignorantly assume I don’t care about health care reform because I’m under 30 and supposedly invincible.

I could tell them that health care reform is my fight because my partner, 25 years old, is an entrepreneur, consultant, and all around brilliant guy who cares more about professional fulfillment than financial gain and has thus been without insurance for 3 years. I’ve cried myself to sleep many a night over his lack of coverage, terrified that at any moment, an illness or accident could push us into financial ruin in the beginning stages of our life together.

I could tell them that health care reform is my fight because 60% of my friends (yes, I did the math…) have lost their jobs in the past 6 months and don’t go to the doctor. Or that my godmother died of cancer with health insurance that wouldn’t cover her treatment.

I could say that a young friend of mine is afraid to get a test that would tell whether or not he has a congenital heart disease because he is worried that he will forevermore have a pre-existing condition.

I could also tell you that in addition to being young, I’m a woman of color and that for my demographic in particular, health care is a life or death issue.

Chalk up our not being invincible as another one of those inconvenient truths. Young people make up 30 percent of the uninsured in this country, while only consisting of 15 percent of the population.

But Erica's right in that it's not all about numbers. We're invested in this debate not based on whether or not we're wholly or partially impacted by the mess our elders have created with the inefficient health care system. We're in it because it's simply wrong. It's an injustice. King's oft-quoted declaration of injustice anywhere serving as a threat to justice everywhere applies here.

As the future of this country, we most definitely have a place at the table for this discussion. It shouldn't be diminished. It shouldn't be taken away. It should be validated, because odds are, we're going to have to be the ones to clean up this mess.

President Obama's weekly address again addresses health care reform, and again highlights the ridiculous rumors out there spread by conservatives and the health insurance industry. Towards the end, though, Obama invokes President Kennedy's call for his own generation to do the heavy lifting necessary to craft the Medicare program.

So when folks with a stake in the status quo keep inventing these boogeymen in an effort to scare people, it’s disappointing, but it’s not surprising. We’ve seen it before. When President Roosevelt was working to create Social Security, opponents warned it would open the door to "federal snooping" and force Americans to wear dog tags. When President Kennedy and President Johnson were working to create Medicare, opponents warned of "socialized medicine." Sound familiar? Not only were those fears never realized, but more importantly, those programs have saved the lives of tens of millions of seniors, the disabled, and the disadvantaged....

[...]

Nearly fifty years ago, in the midst of the noisy early battles to create what would become Medicare, President Kennedy said, "I refuse to see us live on the accomplishments of another generation. I refuse to see this country, and all of us, shrink from these struggles which are our responsibility in our time." Now it falls to us to meet the challenges of our time. And if we can come together, and listen to one another; I believe, as I always have, that we will rise to this moment, we will build something better for our children, and we will secure America’s future in this new century.

I wanted to post this as a follow-up to Sarah's post earlier this morning, as President Obama's weekly video address hits many of the same themes that former minority leader Tom Daschle discussed at 80 Million Strong.

Right now, it seems that this is the cause of our generation. Thankfully, President Obama seems to understand this.

What is it with Thomas Friedman and his insults? First, he wrote that Millennials were too quiet, too wrapped up in the internet to care about the country's direction. He then came back last December and tried to argue again that because we're not chaining ourselves to bulldozers, we're not doing anything and thus don't care about the trajectory of the country.

Yesterday, Friedman again assailed millennials, equating Facebook and other social network sites with laziness and apathy. The offending passage is in the last paragraph:

And then there is We the People. Attention all young Americans: your climate future is being decided right now in the cloakrooms of the Capitol, where the coal lobby holds huge sway. You want to make a difference? Then get out of Facebook and into somebody’s face. Get a million people on the Washington Mall calling for a price on carbon. That will get the Senate’s attention. Play hardball or don’t play at all.

Emphasis added.

The Energy Action Coalition pieced together a response it blasted to its e-mail list. I've provided it below:

As a young person, you care about global warming. You know that a clean energy economy will create millions of jobs and pathways out of poverty, reduce pollution, and save the planet. And you are willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen. Right?

Well, Thomas L. Friedman, the popular New York Times columnist, isn't convinced. In fact, Friedman concludes his latest column* by calling us out! He writes:

"Attention all young Americans: your climate future is being decided right now in the cloakrooms of the Capitol, where the coal lobby holds huge sway…. Play hardball or don't play at all."

Does Friedman have a point? Do we need to be bigger and louder?

I think the answer is yes.

Don't get me wrong -- I know that thousands of young people across this country are working tirelessly to usher in a clean and just energy future for us all. But if we want to truly achieve our goals, we need our elected officials to know that we are watching closely as they debate the climate policy that will shape the rest of our lives.

Take the first step. Let President Obama and your Senators know that you demand bold, just, and science-based climate solutions, and ask your friends and family to do the same.

Let's send a strong message to our President and Senators that we're here, we're watching, and we're ready for action. And let's ask our friends and families to do the same. It's going to take big numbers to fight back against the thousands of letters and calls generated by the dirty energy industry (not to mention their well-paid lobbyists).

Send a message to the President and your Senators, and forward this email to everyone you know.

But we know that sending email isn't enough. In order to drown out the voice of the dirty energy industry, we're going to need to mobilize in unprecedented numbers. Tom Friedman isn't kidding when he suggests we should have a million people marching in the streets.

Ready to take a bigger step? Sign up to be a leader in your community, and to help get millions of feet in the streets for climate solutions.

We've gone big before, but now we need to go bigger. And the only way we will get there is if people like you do more. Ready to take a bigger step? Sign up today to get active in your community, to get in the faces of our elected officials, and to recruit the huge movement it will take to win.

In it to win it,

Whit Jones
Acting Field Director
Energy Action Coalition

While the e-mail was inspirational enough, the problem with Friedman's column is that he once again lacks the understanding that change can be accomplished through a variety of means. Friedman (and there are many more who think just like him) discounts activism through institutions as nothing. In doing so, he insults those youth already busting their ass for this legislation and movement. For instance did Friedman say anything when Powershift '09 brought 11,000 youth activists to DC urging the government to act? Who was quiet then?

Granted, Whit's right -- we all can be a little louder on the issue, but it doesn't have to be limited to getting in the streets. We can continue our own brand of activism by using our technological proficiency and collaborative skills to push for the bill's passage. Yes, the bill's important (even if it has been watered down); but the 1960s are over. Youth have a plethora of tools at their disposal to create the change they wish to see. Unfortunately, Friedman either doesn't understand that, or doesn't want to.

Last week I wrote about the House passing the Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act. Because I failed to detail the bill then, I want to now examine the ramifications of the legislation's passage this week, reiterating why it is so important to today's young people.

According to the Institute of International Education, there are three times as many foreign students studying in the United States as there are Americans studying abroad. And those Americans who do study overseas can't help but go to the beautiful cities/cultures they're exposed to in today's media - cities with economies that are functional and developed. (I certainly am not implying that this is a wrong choice, but merely noting that it's natural for students to want to see romanticized cultures described to them for most of their lives.) The Paul Simon legislation not only seeks to balance those Americans studying abroad with the number of foreign students studying in the United States (it will do so over ten years), but it also wants to diversify locations across the world. Europe and Australia might still be popular, but hopefully options in underdeveloped countries in Africa and Asia will grow in popularity as well.

Of course, the legislation's main benefit to students and institutions, as cited last week, is the funding commitment. More opportunities will be offered to students should the bill be signed into law by President Obama, thanks to the injection of millions of dollars into the process. In return for the funding, though, institutions will be expected to examine common barriers to students studying abroad on their individual campuses and finding solutions for those problems.

If passed, the legislation would create other initiatives that fortify the U.S.'s presence in the world, especially among young people. In addition to study abroad provisions, the legislation adds 1500 Foreign Service Officers and modernizes the diplomatic corps. From a House Foreign Affairs Committee press release:

Among other significant measures in the bill are provisions that:

• strengthen the arms control and nonproliferation capabilities of the State Department

• reform the system of export controls for military technology and improve oversight of U.S. security assistance

• ensure that the United States will meet its financial commitments to the United Nations (U.N.) and other international organizations

• allow financing the refurbishment of helicopters for U.N. peacekeeping missions in Darfur, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo and other peacekeeping missions authorized by the U.N. Security Council

• establish the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation as a new executive branch corporation to expand dramatically the number and economic diversity of U.S. students studying overseas

• substantially increase the budget of the Peace Corps to support President Obama’s goal of doubling the number of Peace Corps volunteers, and authorize a plan to use short-term volunteers to respond to humanitarian and development needs

• broaden the Merida anti-drug trafficking initiative to include the Caribbean, and improve monitoring and evaluation of Merida programs

• and increase resources and training for enforcement of intellectual property rights, especially in countries identified by the U.S. government as lax in enforcing those rights.

NAFSA has been doing a fantastic job of outreach and education on this bill. Their release on the House's passage of the bill can be found here. NAFSA has made an online guide to the bill, while also creating a Facebook group to track its progress with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where it heads next.

There's no doubt young people would benefit from this bill, especially given how much it does target multicultural, compromising, and pragmatic millennials. There's no reason for the legislation to run out of time this session. We'll keep an eye on this as it moves on to the Senate. In the meantime, be sure to take advantage of NAFSA's coverage above.

As a result of some movement in committee assignments, The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that proponents of a direct loan-based program could be gaining an influential supporter on the House Committee on Education.

Rep. Thomas Petri (R-WI) is next in line to succeed Rep. Howard P. McKeon, who will leave the education panel to serve as the highest-ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee. Petri is known to be a fervent supporter of the direct lending program.

If Mr. Petri replaces Mr. McKeon, the committee’s Democrats could face less opposition from Republicans to President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the guaranteed-student-loan program. Congress has until mid-October to decide whether to abolish the bank-based program or make less drastic changes in student lending.

This is encouraging news. As we strive to improve the financing of our educational system, we've got to be able to look at new solutions, especially ones that don't involve middlemen who have college students begging for financial mercy. Hopefully Petri will be more receptive to legislation that strengthens the direct connection between the government and those it is helping.