Howe and Strauss

As I mentioned in yesterday's Quick Hits post, Neil Howe has revisited the politics of Millennials in a report co-authored with Reena Nadler, titled "Yes We Can: The Emergence of Millennials as a Political Generation." Howe and Nadler examine the political motivations of today's young people through the lens of the the framework Howe and his late research partner, William Strauss, produced a decade ago. The report, which was released by New America Foundation as a part of its Next Social Contract Initiative, is available in a .pdf file here. This report, and Peter Levine's report, titled "The Millennial Pendulum: A New Generation of Voters and the Prospects for a Political Realignment," will be released at an event at the New America Foundation (1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW 7th Floor, Washington, DC). Participants include Neil Howe, Reena Nadler, Peter Levine and Scott Keeter (Director of Survey Research at Pew Research Center), and Hans Riemer (National Youth Vote Director for the Obama campaign and former Political and Issues Director for Rock the Vote).

The first portion of the report rehashes what the Millennial Generation is, how it fits into American history, and the generation's collective personality. In fact, Howe and Nadler examine the development of the Millennials using the seven adjectives Howe and Strauss used to describe Millennials in their book Millennials Rising: special, sheltered, confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving.

Eventually, Howe and Nadler delve into the development of the Millennials' political personality. Conceding that it is too early to know whether or not the Millennial trend toward the Democratic Party is a sure thing and that Millennials are somewhat complex politicos, often taking hybrid positions, Howe and Nadler label Millennials as "politically and economically liberal but socially and culturally conservative." The authors compare the politics of today's youth with the views of "Reagan Democrats," seeing similarities in each generation's political orientation.

At first, the conservative label threw me off. I remembered reading in Generation We that Millennials are much more tolerant socially than their elders. For instance:

On race, too, there’s strong trend among Generation We toward seeing race as fundamentally a nonissue. In 2003, almost all (89 percent) of white 18- to 25-year-old Millennials said they agreed that “it’s all right for Blacks and Whites to date each other,” including 64 percent who “completely” agreed. Back in 1987–1988, when the same question was posed to white 18- to 25-year-old Gen Xers, just 56 percent agreed with this statement.

Gallup data from a 2005 poll underscore these findings; 95 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds said they approve of Blacks and Whites dating, and 60 percent of this age group said they had dated someone of a different race. In addition, 82 percent of white 18- to 25-year-old Millennials in 2003 disagreed with the idea that they “don’t have much in common with people of other races.”

But it is their views on sexual preference issues that are perhaps the most strikingly liberal. On gays, the views of Generation We are far more liberal than that of their elders. For example, in a 2007 Pew survey, an outright majority (56 percent) of 18- to 29-year-olds supported allowing gays and lesbians to marry, while the public as a whole opposed gay marriage by a 55-to-37 majority.

Millennials are also concerned about political trends that put tolerance at risk. In an April 2005 GQR poll of 18- to 25-year-olds, 64 percent believed that religious conservatives had gone too far in invading people’s personal lives, and 58 percent thought the country needs to work harder at accepting and tolerating gays, rather than work harder
at upholding traditional values.

But Howe and Nadler weren't necessarily talking about same-sex marriage and abortion (which Millennials do not view either more progressively or conservatively than their Boomer parents). Instead, they were focusing on the Millennial fondness for the family structure. Emphasis is mine.

Millennials are maintaining strong emotional, physical, and financial connections with their families as they enter adulthood. Throughout their childhood and adolescence, they have been more likely than the last two generations to trust their parents, depend on their support, and discuss important personal matters with them. Looking ahead, Millennials also place great importance on starting their own nuclear families. They are less interested than their Boomer parents in reforming family life and discussing (or arguing about) “family values.” Most prefer to take the importance of families for granted and try to make them work. Like older liberals, they support a broad definition of acceptable family structures. Like older conservatives, they believe that strong families are the cornerstone of a stable and livable society.

[...]

Despite this family-oriented “traditionalism,” today’s youth are more likely than older Americans to believe that unconventional families can be just as close and stable as traditional families. Millennials believe that the opportunity to participate in family life is so important that nobody should be left out. This generation is nearly twice as likely as older Americans to favor gay marriage, and they are the only age group that favors allowing gays to adopt children.

Republican youth, as Mike noted earlier this week, like to see a path back to parity among today's youth in the "socially conservative" nature of Millennials, but as you just read, this proves to be fool's gold. This isn't your Republican Boomer parent's "socially conservative" philosophy.

Furthermore, what Howe and Nadler don't substantively touch upon is that Millennials are much more apt to think economically when thinking of matters of national importance. Arguments over the fabric of the nation consist not of abortions and the possibility of gays marrying each other, but of the social safety net and entitlement reform. The fiscally liberal Millennials will be placing much more emphasis on defining its pro-government priorities in the budget than on any social viewpoints, especially given the nature of the economic crisis. This certainly counts for something and can't be overlooked when assessing the next twenty or thirty years of politics.

Howe and Nadler center their report on "ten imperatives" they think will form the Millennial political agenda moving forward.

1. Strengthen Community
2. Trust the System
3. Minimize Personal Risk
4. Support the Family
5. Be Upbeat and Optimistic
6. Make Capitalism Work Better
7. Champion Unity over Diversity
8. Favor Realistic and Multilateral World Leadership
9. Seek Consensus and Decorum in Politics
10. Plan Ahead for the Long-term

I don't think any of these would necessarily surprise those of us interested in Millennial political behavior, other than the way Howe and Nadler have Millennials supporting the family compared to our conservative counterparts. One thing to underscore might be the economic liberalism of today's young people. Again and again, Howe and Nadler point out the pro-government, pro-regulation mindset among the generation, careful to include that Millennials don't despise business and the markets. Raised amid excessive individualism, Millennials tend to see a group solution to many crises, and so with our global financial crisis, it's only natural that they look to an institution like the government for solutions.

Looking into the future, Howe and Nadler underscored entitlement reform as something Millennials will use to grab a hold of the political discussion. Howe and Nadler predict that future-oriented Millennials will be the generation with the political ability and will to make tough, sustainable fiscal decisions, reforming Social Security and Medicare.

All in all, Howe and Nadler's report is a good start. Millennials are clearly already starting to impact our politics in a major way. But I think there's more that can be said regarding the future agenda for the generation, especially given Howe and Nadler's prediction that Millennials will coalesce behind one party in a civil, pragmatic way. For example, at what point does the climate crisis begin to supercede entitlement reform as the largest challenge? Will we be recovered from today's mess in time to deal with that? A great foundation, but I'll be looking for more to read on this in the months and years to come.

As we move closer and closer toward Election Day, I’ve found myself zooming out of the daily back-and-forth of the campaign, focusing on the larger meanings of this election. Since Obama began to seriously challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, I have observed a few different dynamics that, should Obama go on to win the election, would lead to a groundbreaking shift in American politics. I’d like to examine these over two posts -- one today and one next Saturday -- with the understanding and acknowledgment that we still have much work to do and that nothing in presidential politics (including an Obama victory) is a given.

Setting the Stage – Nixon’s Contribution

Earlier this summer I read Nixonland by Rick Perlstein, and I found it fascinating (if you’re at all into politics and current affairs, you must read it). Perlstein looks back at our modern political history, tracing the culture war dynamic present in our politics to Richard Nixon’s campaign for president in 1968, and eventually clear back to his childhood. Prior to running that campaign, the curiosity of Nixon’s strategists was peaked by a memo written by a young, former aide of conservative Bronx congressman Paul Fino named Kevin Phillips; the title was “Middle America and the Emerging Republican Majority.” The effects of that memo have shaped the political battlefield of the last forty years.

The language was new, but the theory was as old as the crusade against Alger Hiss: elections were won by focusing on people’s resentments. The New Deal coalition rose by directing people’s resentment of economic elites, Phillips argued. But the new hated elite, as the likes of Rafferty and Reagan grasped, was cultural – the “toryhood of change,” condescending and self-serving liberals “who make their money out of plans, ideas, communication, social upheaval, happenings, excitement, at the psychic expense of ‘the great, ordinary, Lawrence Welkish mass of Americans from Maine to Hawaii.’ (Perlstein 275-76).

As Perlstein would go on to note, the cultural resentment fostered by the Nixon campaign capitalized on the humiliation many Americans were feeling at not being able to defend what, to them, were obvious American values: “Nixon described the ‘silent center’ as ‘the millions of people in the middle of the political spectrum who do not demonstrate, who do not picket or protest loudly.’ They were loud. You were quiet. They proclaimed their virtue. You, simply, lived virtuously” (275).

Emphasis original. At a time when a crevice was already developing within the electorate, Nixon sought to create a canyon. And he was successful. We all know what happened at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and the 1968 election was one of the closest decisions in history: Nixon nabbed 301 electoral votes to Humphrey’s 191 (George Wallace had 46), but the razor-thin margin in popular vote told the story. Nixon received 43.42 percent of the popular vote, while Humphrey collected 42.72 percent. America was divided, and Perlstein, throughout his book, demonstrates the coalitions’ hardening into the two red-blue political camps we see today.

Gridlock – Red Versus Blue

These red and blue camps, formed in the 1960s, have organized our political culture for the past forty years. If you’re a Millennial, it's all that you have experienced. The two sides slug it out: the party’s candidates and his/her supporters are seen as the “cultural elite.” This candidate is portrayed by the other side as out of touch, and his/her followers are painted as weak and un-American. The other candidate and his/her supporters are seen as stupid fools, voting against their own self-interest and doing it proudly, while lining the pockets and inflating the egos of the conspiring elites.

The most important dynamics in presidential elections since 1968 have not been stances on issues; the “game-changers,” instead, have been the results of the rational-efficient approach taken (the Republicans have been better than the Democrats at applying it, winning seven out of the ten elections over the last forty years). Cheating, preying on fear, and limiting the political discourse to symbols and character assassination have all been incorporated in these campaigns at one time or another since 1968. Republicans, in particular, have their own greatest hits album of win-at-at-all-costs, short-sighted politics (mainly because they've been the party to benefit from this approach): Watergate; Reagan’s “bear” ad in 1984; the Willie Horton ad sponsored on behalf of the Bush campaign in 1988; Pat Buchanan’s speech pushing the culture war at the RNC in 1992; the Bush ad emphasizing the word “rats” in connection with Al Gore in 2000; the “Swiftboating” of John Kerry in 2004; and, in 2008, the attempt to paint Barack Obama as a mere celebrity, and therefore, “not ready to lead.”

The shrinking of the political dialogue is not limited to presidential campaigns. In numerous confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill (especially those of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas), in the filibuster showdown that erupted in 2005, and in Dick Cheney’s directing the phrase “Go f**k yourself!” to a Democratic senator, we have seen the breakdown of the collegiality and devotion to the common good needed in order to make any kind of political progress.

Let’s be clear: the Baby Boomer generation’s relationship with this approach to politics is symbiotic. We know, from Neil Howe and William Strauss, that Baby Boomers inject morals into their politics. Fiercely ideological, they will dig in and refuse to compromise for the greater good, because, to them, the greater good is their cause. Nixon’s emphasis on cultural warfare while in pursuit of drilling a chasm within American society played to the Boomers’ moralistic and individualistic tendencies. And with the political dialogue repeatedly calibrated to Boomers’ minds, the Boomers reinforced, again and again, their brand of politics.

We’ve seen the divisive approach to politics in 2008, especially given the racial and sexual tensions in the nominating contests and the general election thus far. But with the emergence of 1.) the Millennial generation, the civic-minded counter-balance to the values-driven Boomers; 2.) various traumas to the country (9/11, The Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, the Financial Meltdown) that have combined to serve as Howe and Strauss’s “crisis,” and 3.) presidential candidates representing both brands of politics, a perfect storm may be about to strike that transforms the political landscape for years to come. What might this transformation look like?

Please read Part II next Saturday to find out.

Sources cited:

Perlstein, Rick. Nixonland. New York: Scribner, 2008.