A Young Voter's Response to The Democratic Strategist

Cross posted at MyDD and DailyKos. Recs. appreciated.

The Democratic Strategist has an interesting piece in this month's issue on how the Democrats can capture the partisanship of the "MySpace Generation."

From an historical standpoint, its a great article. Lots of information about partisan ID of young voters between 1976 and 2006. Watching the youth vote swing from Democrat, to heavy Republican, and back again is fascinating (yes - in the 1980's, the Republicans owned the youth vote). It also reiterates a few key points that have been made before on Future Majority:

• Most political activity by youth comes through contact with nonprofits, not the Democratic Party
• A lot of the progressive swing we are seeing among young voters is do to Bush and the war, and may evaporate post 2008. There is no Millennial Ideology with which Democrats can forge a longterm connection with young voters.
• We are approaching the first of many thirds, but partisanship is not yet a lock, even among this first wave of Millennials. This is a rolling process that must continue beyond any one election.

At the end of the article, the authors pose a series of questions asking how Democrats can reach out to and capture the partisanship of the Millennial Generation. Here are my answers to those questions, as well as a question of my own that I pose to the authors:

We know how young people feel about different issues--they hate the war in Iraq, care about the environment, want government to help people, and want improved public education--but is there a core set of values that defines Generation Y? What divides younger people--and are they the same issues that divide older people--and what brings them together? Is there a core identity for this generation that moves beyond the individualism and atomization that characterizes much of this cohort's experience?

This is the million dollar question - not just for millennials, but for progressives generally. There is no clearly articulated underlying philosophy with which to rally progressives - young or old - coming from the Democratic Party. All we've seen are laundry lists of policy proposals which end up watered down and ineffective by the time they get passed into law (if they do at all).

What is clear, is that this underlying philosophy won't be decided by a few strategists holed up in an Capitol Hill office surrounded by polling data. It will need to come from a conversation that is already happening in the blogosphere, FaceBook groups, community organizations, cultural communities, and campus activists. It will require a radical embrace of transparency on the part of the Democratic Party and our government to fully empower and gain confidence among Millennials that whatever philosophy is embraced by the party is the real deal and not some fancy marketing camouflaging politics as usual.

Finally, it is a mis-characterization of Millennials to say that our experience is individualistic and atomized. In fact, it is the opposite. Looking at the major cultural touchstones of recent years - social networking, remix culture, hip hop. At their most basic level, none of these are atomistic or individualized. At their foundations lay a greater desire to overcome atomization by connecting to larger peer and affinity networks, to build community, contribute to a shared culture and communicate via a shared cultural experience. In many ways, Millennials are team players with an implicit understanding of The Commons and The Public.

Additionally, research by both Robert Putnam and generational theorists Strauss and Howe all point to greater community service and civic mindedness among Millennials. Combined with rising turnout rates, the explosion of youth run and youth-focused political groups in 2003/2004 (and running through today), and the growing anti-war movement that is in part fueled by an unlikely coalition of young people, and you get a picture of Millennials as the most community minded generation in decades. We are reviving social capital and using it to transform both the culture and the way we engage in politics and political activism. This is also why the term Generation Y is particularly odious to us. It implies a linear progression from Generation X, which embodied those very atomized and individualistic qualities that we reject.

We need to map how young people see themselves politically, allowing for the possibility that their often apolitical or anti-political orientation can still have political consequences. Volunteerism, which is high for this generation, is a critical part of their self-identity, and young people are finding ways to connect to community outside of traditional institutions. For example, younger people are more likely than older people to boycott products if associated with bad labor practices or detrimental environmental impact. Is it possible to harness this energy into more traditional or partisan politics or do Democrats need to think about a new kind of politics?

This is already starting to happen, but to narrow it to purely "community service" minded individuals or activities is unnecessarily limiting in scope. Young people in general are forming and joining cultural communities. We are reviving social capital - online and offline. Tapping into those communities and engaging them in political activity is where Democrats should set their sites.

It's time for the Democratic Party to rethink how it wages politics among young people. The good news is, there are a lot of groups out there that are already doing this (and have been for years). Here are some examples:

• Living Liberally: The group uses social and cultural situations like bars, book clubs, comedy shows, and film screenings to meet and engage politically minded people. Frequently younger folks are a part of the scene. While it is not the explicit mission of the organization, Living Liberally events frequently end up funneling young people into direct political activism.
• The League of Young Voters: There is a whole generation out there that falls outside the traditional "youth vote" category. (ie, they are not white or affluent college students). Many of these folks are politically engaged through community organizing. Frequently this is seen as part of social justice work - not progressive or political work. The League builds bridges between the community organizing/social justice world and the world of progressive electoral politics. It's a short leap from there to Democratic politics, but organizations like the League need resources to do this job. Progressive political organizations that target youth of color get even less resources than do other progressive youth groups, making their work highly unsustainable, despite the high turnout and democratic partisan identification of African American and Latino voters.
• Democrats Work: An organization dedicated to promoting community service work as Democrats. Members clean parks, feed the homeless, etc. while wearing t shirts labeling themselves as Democrats. They are helping the party build a brand and appeal among those who prefer direct action in their communities through projects typically labeled as "community service."
• Independent political organizations like the Bus Project or Forward Montana are successful precisely because they know how to engage young people - by making politics fun and culturally acceptable to a broad range of young constituents, and focusing on issues that matter to young people
• Elementz/CONTROL - community organizations like this are the epitome of what this model looks like: a culturally based (hip hop) community organization that involves young people in local politics - year round, regardless of the election cycle.
• Music for America - (which I helped to start) organizes young people through the music communities they belong to all across the country.

These groups are representative of a variety of different strategies, but they are just the tip of the iceberg. Take these as your models when you think about building new Democratic youth programs.

Younger people are voracious consumers of pop culture, but what exactly do they learn from it? Is it nothing but the "market" working, or are younger people potentially exposed to a progressive set of values though music or movies? The Democratic Party and its candidates often draw upon celebrities to reach out to younger audiences, but do they view celebrities as credible or authentic spokespeople? Are younger people more likely than older people to listen to celebrities, simply because they are young?

Well, I could talk about the incredible double standard implied in this question - that older people are no less captive to pop culture (Anna Nicole, anyone?), but instead I'll just point again to the study, which showed Daily Show viewers to be more politically informed than viewers of Leno, Letterman or O'Reilly.

On the question of celebrities, no. Sorry to say, we are not enrapt by celebrities as so many people think. Give us some credit for having half a brain. As a generation we're incredibly cynical when it comes to slick marketing. It's not that celebrities tell people how to vote or think, or that we will listen to what they say and thoughtlessly agree. It's that the cultural cache of someone like P. Diddy can legitimize a type of activity - voting, issue activism, etc. - and open people up to an experience they might have otherwise closed themselves off from. Vote or Die - in so far as it works - works because it primes people for a message and because it makes politics relevant and acceptable within the context of a young person's cultural lifestyle - Hip Hop.

But you still have to couple it with outreach - face to face contact with a peer that reinforces a message and drives that growing awareness and acceptance into a direct action. If all you do is adopt some slick spokespeople, you will fail. Celebrity spokespeople need to be backed up with genuine, authentic on the ground programs at concerts, bars, barbershops, on FaceBook - all the cultural spaces in which young people actually live their lives and participate in a community. Don't just market to us. Involve us. Put your money where your mouth is and invest the time and money into courting us that you do other constituencies.

All the studies back this up - young people will get involved if you ask them. The problem is, the Democratic Party stopped asking with any seriousness or cultural relevance more than a decade ago.

We need to do a much better job figuring out the right communication media to reach younger people. News agencies and newspapers are little used by Generation Y, and they are even moving beyond Meet-Ups and websites (though they remain important); people are text- and instant-messaging, downloading videos on their cell phones, and playing video games with people across the country. Would young people pay attention if we reached them through these media?

First off, there is no killer app. Stop trying to find it. Different media will work well for different types of people, and you'll need to have your fingers in all those pies. Mobile phones seem to work better for communities of color, but myself and my friends would tar and feather you if we started getting SMS Spam. Social networks garner support from multiple constituencies, but which social networks will you join? What about new apps that are rolling down the tubes of the interweb at a continuously faster rate? Lock yourself into one medium and you will be perpetually behind the curve and irrelevant. Pony up the resources to hire some (young) new media staffers and make sure you are using all new media to reach out to specific constituencies who most use that particular media.

For many young people, candidates and political parties simply lack credibility. Some of this skepticism reflects, in our view, a legitimate assessment of what the current political system has to say to them (i.e., not very much). But it also relates to style. Just talking about tuition tax breaks or global warming is not going to make young people Democrats. How can we develop a style that is sincere, genuine, and speaks to their desire for authenticity?

It all depends on what you say and how you roll out that program. Your first mistake is in thinking that its up to you to reach us. I'll quote Karl Rove from 1972, and just about every youth group from the 2003/2004 cycle: you can't have some 35 year old in the party figuring out how to reach young people. Young people have to reach young people.

Hire young people to design your outreach campaigns. Have them write the messages. Don't think that this problem can be solved by "the adults." It will be solved by involving more young people in the Democratic Party. Give them real positions of power where they have a seat at the table and can make their own programmatic decisions about how best to reach their peers.

Finally, a lot of smart young people have thought about these problems for years. All the while the consultants and party infrastructure ignored - or worse - spoke down to us. Thanks to their work, a coherent progressive youth movement is coalescing that seeks to address many of the issues you've raised here.

The question I pose to you is this: having now woken up to the variety of problems the Democrats face among young people - and recognizing the massive amount of resources the conservatives dump into their own youth outreach, will you ignore the work of the last 4 years and try to reinvent the wheel, or will you open your eyes, embrace what has been growing all around you, and put your money where your mouth is?