Mobilize.org

It's common knowledge that Social Security is "the third rail" of politics, but this year it is doubly true for youth organizations. We're in the middle of what may be the most important election in our lifetime and Democrats stand a damn good chance of not only winning the Presidency, but of capturing sizable majorities in both chambers of congress that could virtually guarantee a progressive policy reformation not seen since the New Deal or the Great Society.

In election after election, young voters are choosing Democratic candidates over Republicans by large margins. On issue after issue, young voters hold progressive stands on how to solve the problems that affect our nation. Except on the issue of Social Security.

A recent report by the Center for American Progress and Demos found that 74% of Millennials are supportive of plans to privatize social security compared to 41% of adults over 60. That's the bad news. The good news is that this is less about their ideology than their particular stage of life. It's common for younger voters to feel less secure about social security (and their prospects for receiving it when they retire), and thus be open to more ideas as to how best we can "fix" the perceived problem.

Here's some more good news: according to that same report, compared with previous generations, Millennials are more open to the government spending money to stabilize social security. It's not that Millennials aren't progressive on Social Security - at this point they aren't anything except looking for an answer, and not even very hard at that. According to a February Rock the Vote poll (pdf), only 4% of Millennials rank Social Security as the most important issue that will determine how they cast their ballot.

Nevertheless, it is the one sole chink in the armor that conservatives can exploit if they want to make inroads among youth. John McCain is already out on the stump exploiting this, speaking out of both sides of his mouth on the issue of privatizing Social Security. You can bet that there will be even more attempts by Republicans to scare young voters about the program's long-term fiscal stability as we get closer to the election.

That's why it's really disheartening to see youth organizations like Mobilize.org, Rock the Vote, and the Roosevelt Institution engaging conservatives on the issue and providing ideological cover to conservative groups who want to privatize the social safety net that has served us so well for so long.

On Monday, June 16th, these and other youth organizers, along with a number of conservative and "nonpartisan" policy types, will convene in Washington for the Youth Entitlement Summit. The name alone - entitlement - should ring alarm bells as a conservative frame, as should the leading sponsor organization, Americans for Generational Equality (AGE) - a conservative outfit that has promotes "intergenerational strife" and argues for the privatization of social security. Founded in 1986, it closed up shop in 1990 only to reopen it's doors - and PR machine - in 2006.

The conference claims "non partisanship," and a spirited discussion of the issues, but if that is really true, why are there no progressive economic luminaries like Jared Bernstein addressing the attendees? Why is the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute nowhere to be seen in the list of partners? Instead, the agenda boasts scholars from the Brookings, Heritage and Hoover foundations and the panels all take on the frame of "X program in crisis." Hardly a fair and balanced representation of the issues.

We're on the verge of the first progressive majority in decades. Social Security's problems - to the extent that it has any - are minor at best and decades in the future. There is no rush to fix this "problem," and if we can all wait another 6 months, the solution we find is likely to be much better or all Americans. Collaborating with conservative idealogues, even sitting at the table with them at this point is pointless at best and damaging at worst -- to the coming electoral wave and Democratic support among young voters, and to setting the agenda when we have a Democratic government in 2009.

Youth organizers beware! Stay off the third rail of politics and don't play the conservative's game. We have nothing to gain by engaging them on this issue until AFTER the November election.

A few announcements about opportunities with six great orgs:

• The annual Campus Progress national conference is just around the corner (July 8th). Check out conference info here.
• The Nation and Brave New Films are teaming up to recognize outstanding, under the radar activism by young people. You can find out more - including how to nominate someone - over here.
• Democracy for America is offering scholarships to Netroots Nation. Apply here.
• Mobilize.org is gearing up to award a number of $3 - 5k grants to Millennials working on projects supporting clean elections. If you can't make Netroots Nation, they are holding a conference on the subject in Denver in July (The Democracy 2.0 Grant Summit, Money in Politics). More info here.

After months of information gathering on their website and in the field, and after a conference in which 50 youth leaders worked collaboratively to craft a statement based on their personal experience and the collected data, Mobilize.org has released their first draft of Democracy 2.0: A Declaration of Our Generation. The text, which is not yet available online, is as follows:

Democracy is an unfinished project. It’s time we upgrade.

We, the Millennial Generation, are uniquely positioned to call attention to today’s issues and shape the future based on the great legacy we have inherited. Our founding fathers intended for every generation to build, indeed to innovate, on the American experience. We realize that as young people we are expected to be the leaders of tomorrow, but we understand that as citizens we are called to be the leaders of today.

We are compelled by the critical state of our present democracy to establish a new vision.

In a world often damaged by conflict and intolerance, we must commit to develop common ground through equality and open mindedness.

In a world often damaged by social isolation and materialism, we must commit to community at the family, local, national and global levels.

In a world often damaged by instant gratification, we must commit to creating sustainable solutions.

In a world often damaged by apathy and disillusionment, we must commit to civic participation and inclusion of all voices.

The present state of our democracy impedes opportunity for real change. We must connect the specific issues failing our population with their underlying systemic causes.

Our government seems unable or unwilling to adequately address our broadest problems, including economic inequality, America’s role in the world, and the effect of money on the democratic process. But we must remember, our government is only as effective as the sum of its citizens. Low civic participation means the most disadvantaged people in society are neglected and we overlook many potential solutions to our problems.

Our generation is telling a different story. We are uniquely positioned to foster community engagement through social networks of all kinds. It is our responsibility to use information and technology to upgrade democracy, transform communication and advance political engagement and civic participation.

We are social networkers, we are multi-taskers, we are communicators and we are opinionated. The informality of our generation breaks down traditional barriers and opens doors for inclusiveness and equality. Most importantly, we are leaders in a society that yearns for leadership.

It’s our democracy, it’s time to act.

In my previous coverage of this project, I noted that attempts at creating generational statements of purpose seemed to happen once or twice every decade in politcs, and that Mobilize.org would need to clear a number of hurdles if their project was to be both useful and effective at provoking change in our political system. First, it would need to be inclusive of many different groups - something frequently not the case in the past, since manifestos seem to get written by a small cadre of like-minded individuals working in private.

In response to the first issue, Mobilize.org seems to be on their way to success. The current document was written collaboratively by a diverse group of 50 individuals who, with the help of a discussion moderator and electronic voting tools, synthesized responses of over 1000 individuals to an initial survey posted on the Mobilize.org website. These individuals were a mix of Republicans, Democrats, Independents and Greens, and spanned all race/ethnicities except for Native American.

The resulting document (above), is itself only a draft. Mobilize.org will soon be posting it on their website along with a wiki and inviting anyone to comment and suggest edits. In December, 435 individuals, one from each Congressional District, will convene to further refine the document, which they will then bring back to their districts.

The second obstacle that I identified was was that of utility. Will those 435 organizers use the document and push it out in their districts? And If so, will the document actually increase the effectiveness of youth organizations or bring about a change in the attitudes or understanding of our issues among politicians?

On this account there is still much doubt about the ultimate effect this document and the Democracy 2.0 project will have in changing our politics. The document contains numerous statements of intent and purpose, yet many of these could be twisted towards the purposes of either Democrats or Republicans. Committing to the family at the local state and national level doesn't say how government should proceed on issues like Choice or abstinence only education. Advocating for sustainable solutions could equally mean less-effective mechanisms that "protect" the economy (read fossil fuel companies), just as much as it could mean Apollo-program size investments in a new energy economy.

This is itself, a feature, not a bug, in the eyes of Mobilize.org and the Democracy 2.0 team, who strive to be "all-partisan," yet without more specificity, it's hard to see how the document could be an effective roadmap leading a generation toward a concrete resolution of the problems it identifies. Rather it provides cover for all sides to stake a claim as addressing the concerns of the younger generation without guaranteeing a break in the partisan gridlock we now face.

I continue to find this odd, because we know that young people have ideas about these issues. A declaration that makes no firm commitments cannot be said to represent the voice of a generation that has shown allegience towards certain solutions to our society's problems.

A final thought. The statement encourages its readers to act, yet makes no mention of the fact that young people are acting. The climate change movement has received a huge burst of energy from young people looking to get involved. Voter turnout is rising dramatically, and dozens of new political and civic organizations founded by young people have started in recent years. Generational change has long been afoot, and it seems anachronistic and out of touch for the Declaration of our Generation to be so unaware of the environment in which it exists.

I'm not giving up on this project - far from it. I'll reserve my final judgment until I see the document that comes out of December's Party for the Presidency and those 435 representatives begin to move from documentation to implementation of these ideas.

So here's a question: Does the Millennial Generation needs a political manifesto?  Would there be value in a new Port Huron statement?  And is such a thing even possible in today's political, technological and cultural environments, which are all substantially different than the time during which P.H. Statement was written?

I ask these questions because this week I received a message on my FaceBook account from a group called Mobilize.org, an "all-partisan" organization that is intent on creating a new document, called Democracy 2.0, A Declaration of Our Generation, and use it as a jumping off point to engage Millennials in a campaign to "change our government" (whatever that ends up meaning).

This is something that tends to happen every decade or so in American youth politics.  I'm by no means a scholar of these manifestos, but off the top of my head I can think of two recent attempts - Third Millennium in the early and mid 90s, and more recently the Principles Project in 2005.  From what I can tell, Third Millennium took the fiscal conservatism of Gen Xers (balanced budget, fix social security), which was made safe by Clinton's economic policies, and tried to craft a statement that would drive a youth political movement around those issues.  Comprised mostly of young white guys, with a statement of principles written by a smaller group of said white guys, it was not very representative of Late Gen-Xers or early Millennials.  It didn't gain much traction in the cultural zeitgeist, and most people don't even know about it today.  The Principles Project - an offshoot of the now defunct 2020 Democrats - tried something similar, though all drafts beyond the first draft were part of a group wiki, allowing a more collaborative, open creation process.  Even with a more open process, and buy-in from a fairly diverse set (cultural and political) of the [dot]Org Boom youth organizations that were created in 2004, that too gained little traction.

As far as I can tell, Mobilize.org's plan runs something like this.  For the next four months, they will propose a series of questions on their website, the answers to which will be incorporated into a draft statement.  Sample questions include:

1. What currently works and what doesn't work in our democracy, and specifically, what should the role of government be?
2. What characteristics define our generation and how can these traits help us redefine our democratic process?
3. What should Democracy 2.0 look like and what action items must we take now to help create a more citizen-centered approach to democracy?

Added to this statement will be some quantitative research obtained through an online survey.  This document will be considered a first draft, which will then be used to provoke discussions at a number of conferences, the final of which will be The Party for the Presidency - a gathering of 435 local activists, one from each Congressional District.  As part of the Democracy 2.0 distribution strategy, it will be the job of these activists to produce some sort of final consensus which they will then push to other local activists and apolitical folks in their district.  

I think the problems with these types of statements come down to this:

• The subversive site Jam Band Fan or Taliban? posts several low-resolution pictures of hazy-eyed, bearded men and asks readers the simple question: Jam Band Fan or Taliban? Guessing correctly is surprisingly difficult -- although, to my defense, Phish and The Grateful Dead predate my lifetime -- and members of both groups have gone days without showering. Definitely check it out for a laugh.
• In response to the recent New York Times/ CBS News/ MTV poll that described the more liberal tendencies of young voters (which we previously covered here and here), the highly trustworthy show Fox & Friends interviewed Jason Mattera, a spokesman from the Young America's Foundation, who challenged the poll’s results.
  
  Mattera -- a fast-talking man with catch-phrases that rival those of Tony Snow -- asserts that "young people, as opposed to the general public, are more conservative on the issue of abortion and racial preferences. ... [T]hey'd rather ban abortion and they are opposed to racial preferences. Media Matters systematically disproves both of Mattera’s contentions, once again proving the reliability of Fox News.
• Articles about Obama’s “viral marketing campaign” are everywhere, from Time Magazine to the blogosphere. He seems to be covering all of his bases -- both large and modest contributions from all generations. Karen Tumulty of Time notes that “more than $10 million of Obama's second-quarter contributions were made online, and 90% of them were in increments of $100 or less.” While Sasha Issenberg of Boston Magazine describes Obama’s ability to capture Boston’s biggest political networkers and invest their money in youth fundraising.
• Al Gore introduces Live Earth as a hologram. While he still uses his infamous monotone, he is definitely less stiff in hologram form.
• Apparently, Myspace, in conjunction with Mark Burnett, the reality show guru behind "Survivor" and "The Apprentice,” is planning to launch an interactive political show. MySpace users will select a candidate who they feel best represents the collective voice of Americans. The winner then wins one million dollars to donate to a political candidate. HUH? The whole thing sounds a little convoluted to me. Why don’t we all actually vote in 2008 rather than partake in a Rupert Murdoch nonsensical ploy?
• Check out Living Liberally on Open Left for interesting cultural and political anecdotes. Recent posts focus on Michael Moore’s Sicko. Today’s joke of the day, for example, warrants both a cringe and a chuckle:

  Michael Moore was on CNN arguing with Dr. Sanjay Gupta about Sicko, claiming that Americans shouldn't be hurried along the path of bankruptcy and death because of a horrible health care system. Gupta argued that in Canada and England, people have to wait in line to die ... And after all, who wants to wait in line?

• Mobilize.org is recruiting 435 young activists, one from each Congressional District, to attend The Party for the Presidency in December. At the party, which sounds like an amazing opportunity to schmooze with motivated millennials, the “Declaration of Our Generation” will be unveiled. To contribute to the declaration click here