Politics

News for the Millennial Generation is what HyperVocal does best. They are launching a new political comedy show with James Kotecki they're broadcasting on UStream.

Via HyperVocal:

"Tune in as Kotecki takes all your questions and discusses the state of the 2012 silly season, having just returned from the New Hampshire primary. Where do we go from here? What's not being covered properly, or at all, by mainstream news organizations? What's he going to cook for dinner? It's Kitchen Table Politics with James Kotecki, and it's coming to your computer as you wolf down your lunch."

Watch here:

America is about to enter a presidential campaign that promises to be filled with divisive rhetoric and sharp differences over which direction the nominees want to take the country. This will be the fourth time in American history that the country has been sharply divided over the question of what the size and scope of government should be. Each time the issue was propelled by vast differences in beliefs between generations that caused the country to experience long periods of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), before ultimately resolving the issue in accord with the ideas and beliefs of a new generation.

Every eighty years America engages in this rancorous, sometimes violent, debate about our civic ethos. The first occurred during and after the Revolutionary War and resulted in the most fundamental documents of our democracy: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

The second took place during the Civil War. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments codified the outcome of that debate --- this time in favor of the federal government asserting its power over state laws when it came to fundamental questions of personal liberty and civil rights. It took the Civil War and a massive increase in Washington’s power to accomplish the end of slavery, although it would be another century until the rights of freedom and equality were fully extended to African-Americans.

And in the 1930s, the economic deprivations experienced by most Americans from the excesses of the Industrial Revolution, and the collapse of corporate capitalism, led to support for a “New Deal” for the forgotten man that placed the responsibility for economic growth and opportunity squarely on the federal government. The government demanded by the GI Generation (born 1901-1924) greatly surpassed the conventional views of earlier generations.

In each case, the resolution of these debates depended on the emergence of a rising, young civic-oriented generation that thought the nation’s dominant political belief system should contain a strong role for government, overturning the more conservative and limited-government views of the older generations then in power.

Now, as previously, the highly charged ideological arguments on both sides of the issue generate great agitation and anger among older generations, especially Baby Boomers, who have driven our political life towards ever wider polarization. As a result, the resolution of today’s debate over the nation’s civic ethos is not likely to come from older Americans who seem incapable of and unwilling to compromise their deeply held values and beliefs.

This time around, the largest generation in American history, Millennials, (born 1982- 2003), that will comprise more than one in three adult Americans by the end of this decade, are destined to play a decisive role in finding a consensus answer to this critical question. If the United States is to emerge from this most recent period of FUD, it will have to look to the newest civic-oriented generation, Millennials, for both the behavior and the ideas that will bridge the current ideological divide and spur the country into making the changes necessary to succeed in the future.

Millennials believe that collective action, most often at the local level, is the best way to solve national problems. Using social media, Millennials are organizing groups like the Roosevelt Institute’s Campus Network, to present a very different vision of America’s future. In this Millennialist future, the idea of top down solutions developed by experts in closed discussions will give way to bottom up, action-oriented movements. This will topple institutions as dramatically as Napster upended the recording industry, or the Arab Spring changed the Middle East. Just as their parents set the rules within which Millennials were free to exercise their creative energies when they were growing up, the new generation will continue to look to the federal government to set national goals or guidelines, as has long been the view of Boomer progressives. However, the way in which these guidelines are implemented will not be determined in remote and opaque bureaucracies, but by individuals in local communities across the country. In this way, Millennials will embrace progressive values, but with approaches that may be welcomed by many conservatives.

In the midst of the country’s current period of FUD, it is easy to despair that the nation will be unable to resolve its divisions and come to consensus about a new civic ethos. But throughout its history, when America has been equally fearful of the future, a new civic generation has risen to foster the necessary transition. In the end, this emerging generation served both itself and the country well. Now it is the Millennial Generation’s turn to serve the nation and move America to a less fearful and less divided future.

Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are fellows of NDN and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of the newly published Millennial Momentum: How a New Generation Is Remaking America and Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics.

Photo by Kevin Dooley.

Politico published an op-ed piece this morning examining both parties' use of younger messengers on television to attract the 35-60 crowd. Martin Frost, a former Democratic representative from Texas and the author, attempts to rationalize this.

Both parties know that the key electorate in the 2012 is voters between the ages of 35 and 60. Younger voters are likely to stay with President Barack Obama, but older voters are a battleground to be fought over on traditional issues like Social Security and Medicare.

It is these voters between 35 and 60, increasingly identifying as independents, who are expected to be the true battleground in both Obama’s re-election and the Democrats’ effort to re-take control of the House.

Emphasis is mine.

It's pretty simple: if the Democrats and the Obama campaign make similar assumptions about young voters and the campaign takes the youth vote for granted, the 35-60 year old vote won't matter.

Well, another day, and another unknown guy lamenting the horrible things happening to our generation and our supposed complicit behavior.

This rando, some Gen Xer named Rob Long, writes that young people are being ripped off thanks to a "a vast, Madoff-like Ponzi scheme," in which payroll taxes are immediately shuffled off to help seniors pay their medical bills. He can't believe that young people are letting this go and are not more alarmed, Glenn Beck style.

And yet: no protests in the streets. No marches. No student sit-ins. No youth agitation at all, really, except for a couple of College Republicans in blue blazers. What? Are they stupid? After all of that college tuition? Are young people in their 20's just dumb?

I appreciate your phony concern, Rob. But if you're truly advocating for a strong quality of life for Millennials, you'd come to terms with what must be a painful truth for you. Your party, while railing against imaginary deficits in the future, blatantly ignores the fact that many of us are struggling to make end's meet today. One of your party's governors, in the name of fiscal responsibility, cut $30 million from childcare centers. And "after all that college tuition," the Republican House proposes to balance the budget by taking Pell Grants, and therefore the prospects of higher education, away from us at the worst possible time. This is at the same time that we're being crushed by trillions of dollars worth of student loans. Fellow FM writer Karlo Marcelo used a great analogy to frame this reality back when we were debating the stimulus.

Millennials will face new challenges when caring for the Baby Boomer generation as they near towards retirement. What they don't need are unnecessary financial burdens that make it difficult for them to succeed early on in their adult lives. Young people are already saddled with a "burden", and the GOP needs to recognize and respect that reality.

Imagine for a moment that you are trying to traverse a hill. The hill represents how much taxes you expect to pay over your lifetime. One end of the hill is the start (the beginning of your life), the top of the hill is middle-age, and the other end of the hill is, well, six-feet-under. At both ends of the hill, you pay relatively little in taxes, and the top of the hill is when you pay the most in taxes. This is what tax-paying looks like throughout the course of one's life. For some generations, traversing this hill was made easier (but not faster), because the government helped invest in the well-being of the tax-payer very early on in life.

This is not the case with Millennials. The rising cost (PDF) of college and beyond has not resulted in a proportionate increase in services or resources. When you place this fact of rising costs into the context of rising college attendance, the effect is magnified. The share of young people that have attended college has increased 21 percentage points from the 1970s to the present (PDF, pg. 5). What's more is the fact young people with post-graduate degrees on are on the rise, too. What all this amounts to is a more difficult (but not slower) journey over the hill. It's almost as if Millennials have to carry a heavy backpack (read: student debt) and still keep pace with everyone else. Now add to that the fact that the end of the hill for Millennials is much farther away than it is for previous generations due to longer life expectancy.

So, if you're seriously concerned about our collective future, do us a favor: get off your high horse and hop on a time machine back to now and start working on these problems.

Mr. Long, you're not done. Please sit back down. Let me explain another thing. And I'll go slowly, because this might be hard for you to understand:

Millennials. Like. Government.

Seriously, we do. You can see that here, here, here, or even here. According to NDN, a Washington think tank, 58% of Millennials actually favor larger government, as opposed to one that “stays out of society and the economy.” It might be surprising since we've been let down by government so often (especially from 2001-2006 when the GOP ruled Washington), but it's the truth.

And we do protest. Your fellow unknown Ted Nugent also made the mistake of assuming young people don't get mad and act on it, and we provided these examples (these just being a few that one simple Google search turned up):

Students across USA protest over college funding, tuition
March 4, 2010

Dickinson College students protest school's handling of sex assaults
March 3, 2011

Cerritos College students protest proposed summer cuts
May 18, 2011

Half-naked college students protest coal
April 15, 2011

‘Students are not ATMs'; college students protest budget cuts
March 15, 2011

College students, staff protest budget cuts
April 13, 2011

College students protest higher fees
January 12, 2010

Three Arrested at Hunter College Protest
March 4, 2010

College students protest death penalty
March 27, 2010

College students protest PA budget cuts
March 30, 2011

'Ramen' protest highlights community college fee increases
March 2, 2011

California college students protest higher ed budget cuts
April 13, 2011

High school, college students to protest state education cuts
March 19, 2011

PSU students, State College mayor protest funding cuts
April 5, 2011

College students protest HOPE cuts outside State Capitol
March 2, 2011

Vt. college students protest planned cuts
March 16, 2011

Phoenix high school, college students organize Capitol protest
March 4, 2011

Michigan College Students Protest Higher Ed Cuts
March 24, 2011

College Students Protest Voter ID Bill
April 4, 2011

Allegheny College students protest education cuts
March 18, 2011

College students protest strip mine plans
September 14, 2010

Carthage College students protest anti-gay speaker
February 24, 2010

College students protest HB 176
February 24, 2011

Emory protesters arrested during student protest
April 26, 2011

TUSD on image control after student protest cancels meeting
April 27, 2011

Supporters rally for students arrested at SB 1070 protest
November 16, 2010

Thousands of students flock to Capitol to protest SB1070
April 22, 2010

Wisconsin Students Protest Governor's Attack on Unions
February 15, 2011

Zombie protesters lurch for voter, student rights
June 8, 2011

Based on the list above and the little we do know of you, it would appear you're merely grumpy because we don't protest the same things that your Tea Party friends do.

Do us a favor and can the fake outrage. If you're genuine, you'd be doing what you could to keep conservatives from defunding our collective future so that fat cats can keep flying their corporate jets.

In my work with college students, one of the things I have observed is that anytime students hear the word "politics," they tend to exclusively link it with our national political discourse. With our national political dialogue and process failing to solve the large problems we face, we shouldn't be surprised that many students consequently develop a negative attitude toward politics and believe the political world is unproductive and difficult to access and navigate. Basically, trying to get through the large mess isn't worth the effort.

These observations have led me to question a few things.

First, isn't everything political? Politics isn't merely a game we play (the notion of someone "playing politics" is false and misleading); it's a reality that, if analyzed, reveals the power dynamics at work in our society that impact everything, from our national budget to whether a student or an administrator reads the morning announcements in a high school. If everything is political, we all bear responsibility as citizens to examine and critique not only the large-scale debates -- about job creation (for young people especially), education, climate change, voting rights, and social justice issues -- but also the smaller, seemingly insignificant and taken-for-granted aspects of our life. One does not need to be in, or thinking about, all things Washington, D.C. to be an activist or create positive change.

So, if we as young people adopt this view of politics -- that it's everywhere -- don't we produce more opportunities for engagement in politics, on a smaller, somewhat more manageable level? One challenge that young people and activists often face in working with local governments to create change is the community's adherence to tradition: "It's always been done this way, and who are you to drop in and suggest we change it?" Local elected officials have the least to gain personally from transforming the way they operate, as they believe they will be shouldering the blame for whatever might go wrong in the future. Yet, sadly -- and in a way, luckily -- the dire fiscal status of many local governments can serve as an opportunity to try new things. As the idea that moving forward in the same direction is no longer comforting to local officials, but actually a threat, innovation suddenly becomes more enticing.

In order to recognize and take advantage of these strategic opportunities, though, I propose that we need to begin with our local media, especially newspapers. Last week, a federal study reported that state and local reporting had severely weakened over the last few years, as news operations shifted their priorities elsewhere.

“In many communities, we now face a shortage of local, professional, accountability reporting,” said the study, which was ordered by the Federal Communications Commission and written by Steven Waldman, a former journalist for Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report. “The independent watchdog function that the Founding Fathers envisioned for journalism — going so far as to call it crucial to a healthy democracy — is in some cases at risk at the local level.”

On Thursday, Mr. Waldman is to issue a number of recommendations, none binding. Those include making actual in-the-field reporting a part of the curriculum at journalism schools, steering more government advertising money toward local instead of national media and changing the tax code to encourage donations to nonprofit media organizations.

Unfortunately, as the article goes on to note, many of today's local media outlets simply relay a politician's press release word for word, strengthening the government's power in its relationship with citizens, whether this official is a member of Congress, or a city council member. The lack of youth reporting in local media outfits is also troubling, and I believe this blame lays at the feet of young people, as well as these media operations. We need to wise up and understand that reporting on local news is just as civically critical as teaching in a challenging classroom environment or working in a low-income setting; simultaneously, local media also need to look for ways to shift funding to allow for a younger, fresher reporting staff, more familiar and comfortable with technology. Further, I would argue the copy-and-paste fest also leads to heightened use of Associated Press content rather than local reporting.

The problem with these tendencies is that citizens do not play on a level playing field with their representatives. Community members, lacking the "expertise" about local public affairs, self-select out of the political process because they receive little information about community issues, and the information they do receive is not properly vetted by the media.

If we as young people want to take advantage of these difficult economic times to create positive change, we must embrace our responsibility to critique, infiltrate, and strengthen our local media. We must be willing to voice our displeasure with its current product, pointing out where and how coverage could improve. We must accept strong, quality journalism as a critical component of active citizenship, incentivizing young people who choose to give back to their community through reporting on local current events. And we must beef up local journalism, exploring better ways to deliver local, scrutinized information to citizens to encourage their engagement (even if these local outlets are operated by larger conglomerates).

A more robust local media would enhance our efforts to beat back the tradition-minded crowd by allowing for the articulation of challenging questions and the examination of new ideas in our local politics. Politics is not an episodic game in which we can choose to participate or not participate. We are all engaging in politics whether we admit it or not. Improving the quality of our local media will make it easier to embrace the role we all have in our democracy and ever-present political world.

At a Thursday Senate hearing on mobile privacy, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) told us how he really feels.

In an exchange with Facebook's Bret Taylor, who was testifying in front of the Senate Commerce Committee, Rockefeller told Taylor he did not believe Facebook CEO and Founder Mark Zuckerberg had consumer privacy in mind when starting the website and company. Why? Well, you see, it's apparently connected to young people's lack of social values. Or at least that's what Rockefeller thinks:

"It's my general feeling that people who are 20, 21, 22 years old really don't have any social values," Rockefeller told Facebook's Bret Taylor, who was testifying at a Senate hearing on mobile privacy Thursday.

"No, it's true," he added after the audience laughed.

No, it's not true.

Is it just me, or is it getting old watching people make decisions about this newfangled technology who either don't get or don't want to accept the paradigm shift that comes along with it?

As Taylor explained in his testimony,

'Facebook is fundamentally about sharing, and adopting overly restrictive policies will prevent our social features from functioning in the way that individuals expect and demand.'

I respect Rockefeller's passion for addressing privacy issues, but passing the "Do Not Track" bill, which would create a "universal legal obligation" for companies to honor users' opt-out requests on the Internet and mobile devices, and would enable the Federal Trade Commission to act against non-compliant companies, carries consequences.

While Facebook has indeed had its share of privacy issues--rolling out and then canceling a controversial data sharing service to advertisers called Beacon, and then developing the News Feed that published each user's activity for their friends to see--the fundamental premise of the site is indeed sharing. That extends to every piece of the Web 2.0 infrastructure. And so, when one takes a hammer and wails away at large problems, like privacy, the effort's not going to be as effective as it could be if she or he took time to understand the peripheral issues. Perhaps Rockefeller, who loves wielding that gavel, could ask one of the 81 people on Facebook who like him (one of them is bound to be young and soulless) what some of those complications might be.

Of course, we know that young people--those who served on his campaign, those who staff his office, those who serve in the military, those undertaking entrepreneurial efforts to raise quality of life, those teaching and serving abroad and at home--do have social values. In fact, all over this site, one can see that if it weren't for the social values of young people, Barack Obama wouldn't be President.

Interestingly, it was only three and a half years ago when Rockefeller disregarded his espoused value of privacy and proceeded to lead the effort to give immunity to those telecommunications companies who warrantlessly spied on Americans. How's that for a flip-flop?

In the end, Rockefeller can fight for the legislation he's championing--even if he doesn't understand the consequences. But to say that young people lack social values when you don't even know what yours are is ridiculous.

We have discussed the short shrift Millennials get in traditional polling operations due to their cell phone-only tendencies, but here is a CDC report that underscores it:

In a first for any age group, more than half of Americans age 25-29 live in households with cell phones but no traditional landline telephones.

A report on phone use by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also found that the younger children are, the likelier they are to live in homes that only have wireless phones. That suggests that younger parents are showing increasing comfort relying only on cell phones even as they adjust from being single to a more settled family lifestyle, according to one of the report's authors.

Of course, given Millennials' Democratic tendencies, failing to take them into account in campaign polling operations leads to an increasing GOP bias, as this Daily Kos diary discussed in October.

Some other data from the study, conducted by CDC's National
Center for Health Statistics:

• The households likeliest to rely only on wireless phones consist of adults who are poor, renters, Hispanics or who live with unrelated housemates.
• Only 13 percent of households have landlines and no cell phones — down from 24 percent in early 2007.
• Though people age 18-29 are the heaviest cell phone users, they comprise only 40 percent of all wireless-only adults. That's because young adults make up only about one-fifth of the total adult population.
• Only 16 percent of Northeasterners live in cell phone-only homes, the lowest of any region. The highest frequency of wireless-only households is in the South, where 29 percent live that way.
• About 2 percent of households have no phone service at all, a figure that has changed little in recent years.

As we move forward toward the 2012 race, I suspect we'll be seeing even larger numbers of Millennial cell phone-only households.

Clear back on February 4, 2009, Mike wrote a post about being asked whether or not Michael Steele, Chair of the RNC, could serve as a bridge to the youth vote for the Republican Party. A story posted this morning on TPMDC sheds some light on Steele's struggles with the youth vote, even within his own party.

22 year old Thomas Shultz, a student at Brigham Young University, is fed up with Michael Steele, so he's starting a petition drive to kick him out of the chairmanship of the RNC.

On Monday, Shultz launched ReplaceMichaelSteele.com, an online petition he hopes will centralize what he sees as general opposition to Steele among rank-and-file Republicans across the country. He, like a lot of establishment Republicans here in Washington, said Steele's tenure has done more harm than good to the GOP as it gears up for the presidential election in 2012.

[...]

Shultz is not a voting member of the RNC, nor are young Republicans like him expected to play much of a role in the selection of the next RNC chair, whomever it may be. But for Steele, who has sold remaking the party as more accessible to groups who traditionally stay away from the GOP -- like young voters for example -- a cornerstone of his tenure, Shultz' view that the RNC chair is bad for the party can only be seen as a setback, even if only a minor one.

Shultz wasn't ready to say that young Republicans have turned on Steele entirely, but he said the ambivalence toward the RNC chair wasn't reserved for higher age brackets.

"I think there's definitely a consensus that's building that he needs to go," Shultz said. "He's a solid individual. I just question his ability to lead us to victory in 2012."

The story here isn't necessarily that Michael Steele is in turmoil; that's a perpetual state. This development is discerning, rather, given Steele's habit of playing up what he claims to be a connection with grassroots voters, resolving "to [build] an enduring majority party -- from the grassroots up," and his plans for an "off the hook" hip-hop makeover of the GOP.

This development suggests he's not even winning the Brigham Young vote - quite troubling for someone dedicated to attracting youth to the party and growing the GOP's grassroots.

Some reading to get you through Friday and on to the weekend. Enjoy!

• Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert announced their Rally to Restore Sanity to America last night (October 30, 2010 in Washington D.C.). The event is now posted on Facebook.
• Related, Stewart and Colbert both enjoy unparalleled credibility among the 18-49 crowd, as illustrated in a news consumption survey released by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press:
  

  In terms of age, the “Colbert Report” (80%), “Daily Show” (74%) and New York Times (67%) have the biggest percentage of viewers and readers in the coveted 18-49-year-old demographic. Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly (35%) and Sean Hannity (33%) have the smallest.

• The National Conference on Citizenship and the Corporation for National and Community Service released the first Civic Health Assessment on Thursday, finding that millions of Americans are working together to solve problems. Read the full report here.
• Nick Troiano, a Georgetown student and an advocate for technology and open government, comments on the goings-on on the first day of the National Conference on Citizenship from DC.
• "Young people lead the way in volunteerism," writes Mikhail Zinshteyn from Campus Progress.
• Young people don't support the Tea Party movement, as surprising as that may be. (Please recognize my sarcasm.)
• What, exactly, is the Tea Party?
• NPR explores conflicting Millennials views: optimistic about their long-term ability to be better off than their parents, but worried about the myriad problems they face.
• Rock the Vote poll of 18-29 year olds: If you problem-solve, you'll be supported.
• Two college students from Colorado lobbied their senator, Sen. Michael Bennet (D), to end Don't Ask Don't Tell by recording themselves leaving him a voicemail on YouTube and posting it. Bennet recorded his own YouTube video in response. Watch here.
• What should Obama do? John Della Volpe, Director of Polling at Harvard's Institute of Politics, says engage Millennials. Now.

Well, here we go again.

The New York Times published a story today out of Colorado looking at whether or not young voters could be turning away from the Democratic ranks -- two years after serving as one of the bedrock groups in Obama's voting coalition. The story seems to be fairly balanced in its views, as there are some younger voters proclaiming their continued allegiance to the President and the Democratic Party, but there are also young voters souring on the Democratic leadership.

One young voter was particularly descriptive in explaining her conflicted views.

Kristin Johnson, 23, like many other students interviewed here in recent days, said that a vote for Democrats in 2008, however passionate it was, did not a Democrat make. But she bristles just as much at the idea of being called a Republican.

“It’s like picking a team when you really don’t want to root for either team,” said Ms. Johnson, a communication studies major, who said she was undecided about parties and politics going into the general election campaign.

If Democrats are letting voters like Ms. Johnson get away from them across the country, the ramifications of this blunder will be felt for a long, long time. But that's another topic for another day.

I wanted to focus on another passage from the article, one that reflects exactly what we have been facing throughout the last few special elections and what we will be fighting back through November and beyond.

How and whether millions of college students vote will help determine if Republicans win enough seats to retake the House or Senate, overturning the balance of power on Capitol Hill, and with it, Mr. Obama’s agenda. If students tune out and stay home it will also carry a profound message for American society about a generation that seemed so ready, so recently, to grab national politics by the lapels and shake.

While Kirk Johnson, the writer of this piece, does not go into specifics as far as what he means by a "profound message," I think the odds are good that these few lines illuminate the common misunderstanding that Johnson and other journalists run with when writing these stories. They go with the surface level content, mindlessly reporting that youth did not show up at the polls and, thus, are not interested in voting. Apparently, we're just not prepared.

But what about the other possibility: perhaps youth, suckered into this idea that politicians - maybe just once - might care about our issues, might be willing to talk big, think big, dream big, and for once exercise some pragmatic idealism, are let down. After being counted on to move this Democratic administration and congressional leadership into power, perhaps we are pissed off and making a political statement by refusing to be taken for granted.

That's where this article falls short. There are other possibilities for why youth might not be voting. Not because we are apathetic, or turned off to politics. It's because politicians gave us their word, we gave them our vote, and aside from a watered down health care bill, a stimulus that was too small, and maybe a few other bills, the work hasn't been done, and the to-do list is getting longer. Furthermore, we are left hanging in the breeze, waiting for an honest explanation... still.. waiting.. for that honest explanation.

So don't get us wrong: we're still ready to shake some lapels. But in order to be most effective, we need candidates who are uncompromising in their tenacity on confronting big issues, but flexible in crafting solutions to our problems. And we need them to engage us.