Ask Not What Obama Can Do For You, But What You and Obama Can Do Together

Over the weekend, Craig linked to an open letter to young voters written by Jonathan Darman for Newsweek entitled "Ask Not What You Can Do for Barack Obama, but What Barack Obama Can Do For You." The piece is somewhat unique in the current media narrative in that, rather than announce young voters' emergence as a new power block, it challenges them to wield that new-found power to serve their own interests.

The cynic in me says that this is all very mavericky, and makes for great copy if you are trying to scoop competitors and "offer a fresh take." Darman even has the street cred to write this (he's a Millennial), and enough snark to appeal to the Gawker set.

And really, if we're honest, that's all you've done this year—show up. You voted (umm … you're supposed to vote). You didn't get hung up on a candidate's race (umm … you're not supposed to care about race). Your one lasting gift to political posterity this year: the text message. Greatest Generation, watch your back.

The problem is that his piece is neither aware of the political realities surrounding the youth vote, nor does it offer a coherent theory of change by which young voters could answer his call to arms. Without those, his open letter is just so much concern-trolling, a new form of the youth apathy narrative put out by the traditional media for so long. Whereas before we had "youth don't vote," now we are confronted with "youth vote, but . . . "

Darman's analysis falls short in a number of places:

1. He fails to realize that the youth vote is still in a politically fragile place, and it's power is not yet proven to the political class and media.
2. Darman identifies only policies youth should push, he does not identify any means by which such a push can/should occur. He fails to identify a vehicle for change. Perhaps this is because the youth vote has fewer institutions supporting its interests and through which it can push for its own self interests. Darman must know this, but calling attention to that and working through a theory of change would destroy the thesis of his letter.
3. Despite those difficulties, there are youth organizations beginning to work on this problem. Darman is unaware of or completely ignores their work.

Taking these point by point:

Youth Turnout: Darman operates as if the youth vote is a completely proven and viable constituency with equal power to other, older constituencies. This is not true. While I agree that young voters are turning out in record numbers and we will continue to do so, not everyone is convinced of this within the political class and the media. What's more, the youth vote will sink or swim with the Obama campaign. If Obama wins, the youth vote's place as a powerful constituency will be solidified. If he loses, it will instantly collapse. That's why this quote by Darman is so disturbing:

I do not mean to suggest that asking questions of Obama will help him get elected. Some of them will probably hurt his chances. An Obama defeat is an outcome many of you cannot fathom and most of you would like to avoid. But if our generation fails to hold Obama to a higher standard in the final weeks of this campaign, it will most likely get what it deserves: a decidedly ordinary President Obama and a new generation's descent into cynicism. This would be a tragedy, for, in truth, there is one thing that makes our generation special. We still have the power to believe.

How nihilistic. If Obama wins, our generation descends into cynicism. If he loses, we "get to believe," but no political operative or journalist will ever take the youth vote seriously again.

While I agree with Darman's overarching point that we need to hold Obama accountable, our ability to do so increases an order of magnitude after election day when 1) our ability to organize and turnout and deliver votes is proven; and 2) when there is actual legislation on the table to organize for or against. Right now the youth vote has enormous potential political power. It's not until November 5th, after an Obama win, that such power becomes real. In many respects, Darman's letter puts the cart before the horse.

Policy vs. Pathways: Dorman identifies a laundry list of policies on which young voters must hold Barack Obama accountable if we are to be considered "truly engaged and credible" as a constituency. Yet he offers zero information on just how such accountability works. Worse, he writes as if young voters had the same avenues of expression and leverage available to them as older demographics.

There is no youth AARP. There are no lobbyists out there working day and night to advance the interests of young voters. There are no media stories about how taking a certain policy position will be politically dangerous for Obama with the youth vote. In short, young voters have zero leverage in this conversation. More so because, as I stated above, the youth vote will sink or swim with Obama. An Obama loss would be disasterous for the political power of young voters. With our interests so inextricably linked, it's hard to exert any leverage over the candidate.

Movement in the Making: This is not to say that some groups out there are not working on smart ways to organize in support of Obama and in support of a youth policy platform. Generation Vote, a collaboration of USSA, The League, Young People For, Choice USA, Center for Progressive Leadership, The Ruckus Society, Generation Change, Campus Camp Wellstone, the Hip Hop Caucus, Black Youth Vote, the Youth and Campus divisions of NAACP and Planned Parenthood, the Hip Hop Congress, Youth Speaks, the Youth Voter Coalition, and the Bus Federation recently released a youth policy agenda, for which they are calling for signatures of support. Power Vote, a project of the Energy Action Coalition, is currently collecting 1 million signatures behind a comprehensive energy reform package. So far they have collected almost 150,000 signatures.

I can also attest to the fact that there is much chatter in the youth vote world about beginning to organize around legislative priorities and a youth agenda come November 5th. Darman makes no reference to any of these activities in his piece.

In closing, I also find it ironic that, when addressing a generation noted for it's sense of community, teamwork, and selflessness, he would choose selfishness and self-interest as the framework for his open letter. Perhaps the more constructive frame would have been "Ask not what Obama can do you for, but what you and Obama can do together."