framing

Over at her personal blog, Erica Williams, the Policy and Advocacy Manager at Campus Progress, has a thoughtful post reporting on a recent policy summit held by the Generational Alliance, a coalition of organizations from different sectors of the progressive movement (policy, leadership development, electoral) focused on young people. If that sounds rather delicately phrased, it is, and you'll soon understand why. In her piece, Erica makes four main claims, three of which I'd like to respond to:

1. The idea of a "youth" movement is disempowering and may in fact be counterproductive to what we all want to achieve in the policy realm.
2. Whatever this "movement" is, it is stacked with some awesome people who are passionate and smart (no argument here).
3. BUT, we all suck at policy.
4. Obama, not issues, is the main reason youth went to the polls this year.

I agree with some of this to varying degrees. However, I think Erica offers an incomplete overview of each of these topics and I'd like to flesh out some of it a bit more and pushback a little bit in other places. I'd like to address each of them one at a time. In this blog post, I want to talk about Erica's first point:

There isn't and should not be a separate "youth movement" based on age as the main identifier: Erica sums up her concerns here succinctly when she says:

The fact that I opened my post by characterizing the event as a gathering of “progressive leaders of the youth movement” rather than “young leaders of the progressive movement” says something. Reveling in our youth and our power actually does very little to develop and hone that power in a way that creates concrete policy goals and victories. The way to change the perception of young people as they relate to political power and change isn’t to state over and over again who you are (young) but instead to do what needs to be done (change policy, create new structures, enter and innovate the system) while you are who you are.

To my mind, there are two questions here, one of operations and infrastructure, and one of framing:

1. Are we or are we not building new structures, innovating within the system and changing policy? (Operations and Infrastructure)
2. To what degree, if at all, does the term "youth movement" detract from our ability to accomplish our operational goals? (Framing)

Operations and Infrastructure: When I hear the term "youth movement," I don't think of it in terms of a traditional social movement like Civil Rights or even the student movement of the 60's. It wasn't a movement at all in that sense. Rather, it has been a concerted effort on the part of young people to create progressive infrastructure at a time when few in the larger progressive movement or Democratic Party were serious about engaging young people in their activities. The term recognized a deficit in the field, leadership development and messaging work of the Democratic Party and Progressive Movement, and operated as a shorthand for a decentralized effort to create infrastructure to address that deficit.

Six years ago, if you were a young person looking to become involved in progressive politics, your options were fairly slim. You could become a canvasser, burn out within 6 months, and never work in progressive politics again. You could stuff envelopes and answer the phone for a campaign. You could participate in an underfunded College Democrats and a do-nothing version of the Young Democrats, or join a mish-mash of ineffectual campus issue groups.

Today there are at least a dozen new avenues for involvement in anything from electoral work (revamped YDA, Bus Federation, League of Young Voters) to leadership development (Young People For, Center for Progressive Leadership) to policy work (Roosevelt Institute). Erica's own organization, Campus Progress, comes out of this infrastructural boom of the last half decade.

So we are building new structures and addressing a gap in the larger progressive movement that neither progressive organizations and coalitions, nor the Democratic Party, were effectively filling. These structure are successful to varying degrees. I think we've done quite well on the electoral front and in leadership development, less well at policy (though there were far fewer opportunities in the Bush years) and not very well at all when it comes to integrating all of our work into the goals and activities of a larger progressive movement (more on that in a minute).

Framing: It's worth remembering that we didn't necessarily choose to be labeled as young people - that was assigned to us by political hacks, pundits and the media who routinely dismissed the potential power and engagement of anyone under 30. Because of that conventional wisdom, and the apathy of Generation X, young people had a terrible brand in American politics even a year or two ago. That in itself was a disempowering situation that needed to be corrected.

It's also worth recognizing that organizing around an age demographic is not in and of itself disempowering or nonsensical. No one argues that seniors or the AARP are ghettoizing themselves or stifling their own power because they use their age as an organizing principle. On some issues, age can in fact be a good organizing principle. The difference seems to be not in the framing of the organizing, but in the relative political clout of that constituency (or their political brand). That clout is in turn based on the constituency's ability to organize itself and exact a political price on anyone who opposes their policy positions. Seniors voted at a reliably high rate for decades while the youth vote floundered, creating a situation in which politicians depended on seniors to win elections. That created a positive political brand upon which the AARP capitalized in order to provide seniors a seat at the main policy table.

Thanks to the work of the "youth movement" - labeled as such - young people have a revitalized political brand and are now gaining a measure of political clout and respect. Indeed, we made up a higher share of the electorate this year than did those supposedly reliable seniors. It's up to us to translate that electoral power into policy victories and a seat at the table of major progressive organizations and coalitions.

Now, one could certainly argue that in order to effectively accomplish that work, we need to pivot away from the "youth movement" framing. I think the argument in favor of that option goes something like this: the terminology limits us in how we think about ourselves and our work, implicitly and artificially cutting us off from "the big table" (vs. the "kiddie table"). The term may also drive away potential supporters and activists within our own generation who, like Erica, "didn’t move into this segment of my life work to be a youth activist."

It is true that much of our work over the past half decade was sectioned off from the work of the rest of the progressive movement. We've spent the last five or six years building our organizations into sustainable structures, and learning how to cooperate and work amongst ourselves through coalitions (like the Generational Alliance and c3/c4 Tables today, or the Young Voter Alliance in 2004). This has, perhaps, been to the detriment of a greater focus on how we fit into the progressive movement as a whole.

Let's recognize, though, that revitalizing the youth brand was a necessary first step towards becoming a player in that larger progressive movement. Until very recently young leaders did not have the political capital to command the respect and attention of the larger progressive movement as anything other than token supporters. The rest of the progressive movement didn't particularly care about us before this year because we were still a totally unproven political force with a negative brand.

These two concepts - the revitalization of the youth brand and moving our work into that of the larger progressive movement - remain entwined. You can't do one without the other. To the extent that a new frame for our work will break down barriers towards greater collaboration with other progressive organizers, that's a conversation I'm happy to have. Indeed I think Erica is right to point out that it is a conversation we must have if we want to stay relevant and accomplish our policy goals - the very reasons why we started to organize young voters and build all these structures in the first place. But I think that conversation must include the context provided above so that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Organizing young people is important - especially at the electoral level. The Democratic Party doesn't do it. The state parties don't do it. Campaigns like those run by Obama, Tester and Webb, which focused on young people, remain anomalies. If we want to continue to build a positive political brand for young people - and reap the policy rewards that come with such a brand - then there needs to be young activists who focus on organizing their peers, however we choose to frame that work.

I'll have thoughts posted about Erica's comments on policy later today, and a response to her claim about Obama tomorrow.

I'd like to follow up on yesterday's post about how conservatives are attempting to stoke inter-generational strife in an attempt to hijack the debate over Social Security and Medicare and drive a wedge between young voters and the Democrats.

The more I think about it, the more it seems like a likely scenario that conservatives will adopt this tactic to erode Democratic gains among young voters. There's a lot of reasons for this:

1. As I noted yesterday, the electoral math is changing. Millennials are very progressive and there will only be more of them in the electorate in coming years. The entirety of the Millennial generation won't be eligible to vote until around 2014-2016 (depending on where you put the final birth-year). Without making more inroads, Republicans potentially face even larger losses in upcoming elections.
2. They've tried this tactic in the past in an effort to reach out to youth, notably with the work of Americans for Generational Equality during the formative years of Gen X - a generation that tended to be more economically and politically conservative. AGE revived itself recently and is already working on this.
3. Social Security in particular is an area where conservatives have the most traction with Millennials. Today, young people are worried about the economy and their fiscal prospects. There is room for conservatives to exploit those concerns.
4. We've already seen a little bit of this from McCain, who has railed against Social Security to youth voters, and who has specifically framed his comments about America's youth in terms of victimization (at the hands of liberal policies).

On November 5th, conservatives are going to need to make major inroads with America's youth if they are going to survive as anything more than a regional party of xenophobes. Barring a massive uprising by young evangelicals who hold more progressive views on the environment and social justice issues, this is going to be their only viable line of attack that could actualy gain them votes (the alternative is to declare Obama's election illegitimate because it is based on voter fraud, and a surge of "uninformed, unintelligent" young voters who didn't know what they were doing).

So what can we do? I say we play offense. Not on November 5th, but now. If young people are as determinative a factor in electing Obama as we all know and hope they can be, then we are going to be a hot commodity on November 5th. The big question will be - young people elected a President for the first time ever. Now What?

We should all be ready to go with an answer to that question right now. Jessy Tolkan and Billy Parish should be writing and pitching an op-ed about green jobs and climate change. Caitlin Howarth and Nate Loewentheil of the Roosevelt Institution should be writing op-eds about social security and health care. Anya Kamenetz should be writing about the economy; the Student PIRGs and Project on Student Debt should be writing about higher education reform; GOTV and civic groups like YDA, Mobilize.org, and us here at Future Majority should be writing about service learning and election reforms to permanently increase youth participation; state-based groups should be writing about local issues; and Campus Progress-funded newspapers should be writing about the challenges facing the next President and Congress.

These op-eds should all be framed in a way that defuses a narrative of inter-generational strife, demonstrates the intellectual bona-fides of our young leaders, and emphasizes just what Obama has said all along: that we need to work together to solve the challenges our nation now faces, not pit one generation against another. These op-eds should all outline a problem, what needs to be done, and how we can all work together to solve it.

Most importantly, we should be pitching these op-eds now, to national and state publications. Let these editors and publications know that should the youth vote surge, and elect President Obama, that on November 5th, they can be ready to run with an op-ed that outlines some aspect of the youth agenda. We should aim to have these published everywhere from the New York Times down to the local campus publication. We should flood the zone beginning on November 5th and put our frame into the media narrative before the Right does.

I'm tired of playing defense and reacting to bad media all the time. Let's play some offense.

Progressive framing guru Jeffrey Feldman has an interesting diary over at Daily Kos in which he discusses a possible frame that the Obama campaign - and independent organizations - can use to convince older rustbelt voters in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Michigan to vote for Obama. In a word, grandchildren:

In particular, I noticed that these districts most likely shared a common commitment to principle that economic security means doing what is necessary to take care one's family--even above and beyond taking care of oneself.

In particular, I suspect that "Emptying Nest" voters share a common, growing interest in the well being of their children's children.

When I tie this back to the current economic collapse, it leads me to wonder if these "Emptying Nests" voters are thinking not just about their savings accounts vanishing and the impact that may have on themselves as middle class retirees, but about the growing danger that their grandchildren may not be able to achieve middle class security in an economy crashed by the unregulated greed of a few at the top.

Feldman comes to this conclusion based on demographic data from a map - Patchwork Nation - researched and published by the Christian Science Monitor. The map breaks down the US into 11 demographic groups, and then marks every US county based on the predominant demographic. What emerged was a profile of the rustbelt that consisted largely of "Empty Nesters," and "Monied Burbs," two demographics whose members are likely concerned with the economic well-being of their children and grandchildren:

It's an interesting idea - make a generational, economic appeal to older voters on behalf of their children and grandchildren. We've already seen that an economic message is the one most likely to resonate with young voters this cycle. As the current economic crisis becomes a larger and larger issue in this campaign, this frame could certainly be an interesting way to solidify and tighten an economic message that appeals to both Obama's young base, and older, middle class voters he still needs to convince.

No posting from me for 2 weeks, and now 4 in one day. I guess I'm recharged after the madness of early November and a bad head cold.

I'm about to head out the door to drive down to DC for RootsCamp, but I had to small items two post before I go.

I posted this morning about the DailyKos Community's hostility toward young voters, so it's only fair that i now direct you to a post by Chris Bowers that glowingly reviews the current and future potential of the Millenial Generation to fueling the progressive movement. Nothing new to folks that have been reading us here, but a great piece none the less, and really nice to see it front paged on one of the bigger progressive blogs.

Finally, let me offer some constructive criticism once again to the College Democrats. Don't help your opponents get media coverage, and don't ever repeat their frame.

You probably heard that the College Republicans launched another outrageous stunt last week, offering a "white's only" scholarship at Boston University. The College Democrats responded with a press release.

So the College Republicans received national media attention and sparked debate among young voters and older voters alike. The College Democrats' responded, and got some national coverage. But for every news hit CDA got, they only gave the college republicans even more coverage.

We got whupped again by the more media savvy Republicans.

It's late, and I've got to be up in 6 hours, so this will be fairly short.

Apropos of my last post I find an article in the Pittsburgh Tribune noting an increase in youth turnout and quoting Mark Lopez of CIRCLE:

Lopez, CIRCLE's research director, said it's too soon to predict a trend in Pennsylvania.

"If this year has a bump up as well, we may be seeing the beginning of some sort of improvement in youth voter turnout," he said.

Nice to get some validation early in the morning. This meta-quote aside, the rest of the article is pretty standard. The only thing remarkable about it is that it doesn't make a single reference to YouTube, MySpace or FaceBook. And that, these days, is a rare thing.

In 2004, it was impossible to get the media to take young voters seriously. I can remember the frustration at MFA over the quality of the media coverage and the scarcity of stories about young voters. Sure The Nation and Alternet wrote a bunch of articles, and there was a minor wave of pieces about "Conservative Punks" (an astroturf movement that never materialized), but, for the most part, it was extremely difficult to get the mainstream political press to pay attention beyond publishing a few articles about how much money Rock the Vote was blowing on media buys.

Even after the election results came in, the "apathetic youth" meme kept on trucking, with most major media outlets and commentators pushing that same tired line. So its nice to see that the mainstream media is finally recognizing that A: young voters did turnout in record numbers in 2004, and B: that young voters could play a decisive roll in the upcoming midterm election.

More and more this is the story-line I'm reading, most recently at MSNBC and the Boston Globe. And more and more, the "apathetic youth" meme is relegated to B-level metro papers where the new conventional wisdom has yet to trickle down.

But to call this a new conventional wisdom is, I think, premature. Better to say that the narrative is in flux, and what happens in the next two months will decide how the media covers young voters in the 2008 Presidential cycle. This raises a couple of question: