Why Are Youth Organizations Providing Cover for Conservatives on Social Security?
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.
2008 Youth Vote in Context
The following charts and graphs are meant to contextualize the unique role that young voters played in the 2008 election, and their increasingly important role in a winning electoral coalition:
2008 Youth Electoral Map

2004 Youth Electoral Map

Youth Vote Partisan Advantage: 2000 - 2008

Youth Vote Historical Support: 1976 - 2008

Breaking News
Political Wire:
Romney Way Ahead in Texas, OklahomaA a href="http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-elections/uttt-poll-runoff-prospects-loom-us-senate-races/"Texas Tribune poll/a finds Mitt Romney crushing President Obama in the Lone Star ...Political Wire:
Obama Defends Attacks on Romney's Business ExperiencePresident Obama said that attacks on Mitt Romney's experience at Bain Capital were fair game and that Romney's years heading the private equity firm were "worthy of serious debate," the a ...The Caucus:
Republican Officials End Relationship With Adviser Tied to Ad ProposalRebecca Donatelli was listed as a member of what was called Your Recommended Team of Pirates in a proposal for an ad campaign aimed at blocking President Obama's re-election.The Plum Line:
Jonathan Bernstein: Happy Hour RoundupSo the Senate did vote on Ninth Circuit nominee Paul Watford and confirmed him by a count of 61-34. That leaves just two vacancies on the Ninth Circuit. Just two? That’s two too many. And lots of ...Think Progress:
Limbaugh Sees Ratings Dip Following Attacks On Sandra FlukeThe ratings for Rush Limbaugh’s radio show have dropped significantly in key markets since he attacked Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke as a “prostitute” and a “slut” ...
Featured Video
Recent Blog Posts
-
We've seen that members of the Millennial generation tend to fall on the left side of the political spectrum, but there are of course exceptions. A good indicator that you may be one of those ...by: Kevin Bondelli | 0 comments
-
This post was originally published for the 2010 election cycle. I thought it would be valuable for campaigns in 2012 who may have missed it. INTRODUCTION TO PEER-TO-PEER Peer-to-peer campaigning is ...by: Kevin Bondelli | 0 comments
-
The College Republican National Committee, Young Republican National Federation, American Crossroads, and the Republican State Leadership Committee have launched an independent expenditure superPAC, ...by: Kevin Bondelli | 0 comments
-
Romney and the GOP have made some motions indicating they want to make a play for the youth vote, but today's block of the Democratic bill to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling is ...by: Kevin Bondelli | 0 comments
-
The Young Democrats of America have announced the dates and location of their 2012 Summer National Conference. It will be held in Philadelphia, PA at the Radisson Plaza-Warwick Hotel from June 29 to ...by: Kevin Bondelli | 0 comments
Blogroll
- Ablogistan
- Apophenia
- Bad Subjects
- Burnt Orange Report
- Campus Progress
- Campus Vote
- College Democrats
- Culture Blog
- The Daily Background
- The Daily Taylor
- Ezra Klein
- Everyday Citizen
- For Which It Stands
- Generation Next
- Got Democracy
- It’s Getting Hot in Here
- Kevin Bondelli
- Kid Oakland
- Kossacks Under 35
- Left in the West
- Liberal College Kid
- The Low Post
- Matt Ortega
- Michigan Liberal
- Michigan Youth Political Alliance
- Millennials Changing America
- Open Left
- Penn Progress
- Planting Liberally
- Policy Farm Team
- Political Teen Tidbits
- Prose Before Hos
- Pullman Progressive
- Pushback Network
- The Raw Story
- Rethinking Youth
- Rock the Vote
- Scoop 44
- Tapped
- Think Youth
- Young Democrats
- Young MO Politico
- Young People For
- Young Philly Politics
- Young-Politics
- Youth and Politics
- YouthinkLeft
- WireTap
- Wonkette
If you have a blog written by or for young progressives, and you would like to be listed, contact Mike.
Young Progressives
- 21st Century Dems
- Black Youth Vote
- The Bus Federation
- Campus Climate Challenge
- Campus Progress
- Campus Wellstone
- Center for Progressive Leadership
- College Democrats
- DNC Youth Council
- DMI Scholars
- Forward Montana
- Future 5000
- Generation Change
- Generational Alliance
- The League
- Kossacks Under 35
- Lose the Label
- Minnesota Youth Caucus
- New Era Colorado
- Oregon Bus Project
- Progressive U
- Roosevelt Institution
- Run For Office
- Students for a New American Politics
- Swing Semester
- USSA
- Washington Bus
- Young Democrats of America
- Young Elected Officials Network
- Young People For
- Young Voter PAC
Cultural Capitalizers
- All Ages Movement Project
- Billionaires for Bush
- Drinking Liberally
- Free Culture
- Head Count
- Hip Hop Summit Action Network
- Ironweed Films
- Justice Through Music
- Laughing Liberally
- Lokahi Outreach
- National Hip Hop Political Convention
- ONE Campaign
- Progressive Book Club
- Rock the Vote
- Screening Liberally
- Vera Project
- Youth Movement Records




















With all due respect...
...I find this post, and the "controversy" over the Summit a bit troubling. How is it that it is not okay for nonprofit organizations trying to build dialogue to actually *have* dialogue? Aren't progressives working toward a world in which party lines no longer prevent us from getting good stuff done? Aren't progressives working toward a world in which folks who differ from one another can sit across the table from one another in civility? Call me naive (as I'm sure many will), but I -- a self-identified progressive -- want to live in a world where young people (and youth-serving organizations) are driven by dialogue, not the same old, tired rhetoric of divisiveness that we've grown accustomed to.
Maybe there was a flaw in the framework or the framing question of the Summit. Maybe there was a flaw in how supporting organizations explained the Summit to their supporters and to the progressive world. Maybe there was a flaw in the structure or the speakers or the agenda for the Summit. I can see all of that as quite possible. What I don't get is why there's a flaw in sitting down and talking to (and listening to) those with whom you might differ.
Props to Mobilize.org and others for trying to break out of the box of conventional politics that says liberals and conservatives shouldn't talk to one another. It's too bad that Rock the Vote just pulled out of the Summit, rather than using their involvement as a forum for further dialogue.
Dialogue requires good faith participation
Heather,
There's nothing wrong with sitting down and talking with the other side about policy provided that both sides are talking in good faith. Granted, I did not attend the conference, but nothing about the participants or agenda leads me to believe that this actually was such a good-faith dialogue with both sides of the table adequately represented.
Real dialogue on this requires that both sides of the issue be adequately and equally represented. So I ask again, where is the Center for American Progress? The Economic Policy Institute? The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities? I see lots of conservative to moderate groups, and I see that the keynote and one of the major partners are all committed conservative activists to privatization and ending "entitlements." What I don't see is anyone representing the economic policies of the left.
How is that a good faith dialogue?
I can also appreciate what Mobilize.org is trying to do and I've got lots of respect for Maya, David and the rest of their staff. I just don't think that this event at all represents what it claims. Admittedly, I am a partisan. I think that the Democratic Party has better solutions to these policy issues than do conservatives. Yet I don't see my own views reflected anywhere in this "dialogue." As someone who this event claims to speak on behalf of (young voters), I find that troubling.
Good faith participation requires good faith engagement
Thanks for fleshing this out a bit more, Mike. I *completely* agree that dialogue requires good faith participation -- and I fully understand the critique that the organizations most deeply involved with the planning of the summit could have (and probably should have) been more intentional about ensuring that the voices at the table represent a balanced picture of a complex debate. Having one side dominate another, either in presence or in "air time," is certainly not a true dialogue in my mind.
That being said, giving constructive criticism also involves doing the hard work of having conversations with the organizers, getting a good sense of their thinking, and then providing feedback and criticism as needed. Lambasting organizations that, for all intents and purposes, are trying to do the right thing and invent a new kind of politics is less than what the conversation (and the slate of organizers) deserves.
My frustration in all of this is not that there was criticism issued -- I think that's a moral imperative if we're to have a healthy democracy. My frustration is that criticism was issued (on this blog and in other forums) without engaging with the organizers, attending the summit, and -- as a result -- without providing an opportunity for a learning moment.
I hope Mobilize, Roosevelt, Rock the Vote, and others will weigh in on this conversation -- I'd love to hear their perspectives and learn from their experiences.
*In the interest of full disclosure, I'm in the midst of conversations with Mobilize about joining their board. I am not on the board at this time, and these views in no way reflect the perspective of the organization.*
Engagement and Partisanship
That's fair. For what it is worth, I did bring this up briefly with Mobilize before writing what I did, and received a reply that promoted the summit - and its primarily conservative sponsors - as bipartisan. I didn't believe that to be the case. Now, that conversation could have been a more in depth and probably should have been, but my concern was made known to the organizers before I wrote this piece.
Part of the problem here is that, as a partisan, I have very different views about what we should or should not do in pursuit of better policy than does a nonpartisan group like Mobilize.org. They have an obligation to work with both sides of the aisle on an equal footing. And while I agree that we will need to work with conservatives to move policy, engaging with the most conservative activists on this topic at this particular political moment - in the name of a somewhat false bipartisanship - does not strike me as the proper course.
For what it is worth, I've let Mobilize.org know that they are welcome to post a response to what I wrote here at Future Majority. I'm happy to keep having this discussion because I think it is an important one, and I agree that Mobilize and any other youth org that attended the summit should feel free to weigh in.