activism

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.

President Barack Obama has told his supporters that the 2012 presidential election will be about two contrasting visions of the nation's future. In his vision, "everyone pays their fair share," so that there is "shared sacrifice and shared opportunities" and the government plays a big part in helping the private sector prosper.

By contrast, the newest Republican candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, pledged to those listening to his announcement speech to free the nation from "the grips of central planners who would control our healthcare, who would spend our treasure, who downgrade our future and micromanage our lives" and to "make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential as possible."

These starkly different messages make it clear that America is now engaged in the fourth debate in its history about the size and scope of government and doing it with all the rancor and heated rhetoric that have characterized each of the previous debates.

The issue was at the heart of the debate over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution when newspaper printing presses were destroyed by those who disagreed with editorials on the issue. Eighty years later, it caused the nation to be torn apart during the Civil War. And 80 years after that, the Supreme Court declared minimum wage laws unconstitutional until a political consensus was framed around FDR's New Deal that not even the court could resist.

Each time the issue of what the nation's civic ethos should be has exposed vast differences in beliefs between generations. And, each time the country experienced a long period of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt before the debate was resolved in favor of a new generation's ideas and beliefs. This historical pattern suggests that the best way to predict the outcome of today's debate is to examine the beliefs and attitudes of America's newest generation of young adults, millennials, born 1982-2003.

In 2012, one out of every four eligible voters will be members of this generation. More than 40 percent of millennials are nonwhite, creating the greatest racial and ethnic diversity in the nation's history. Twenty-five percent of them have an immigrant parent.

The generation was raised on messages of inclusion and equity and has translated those teachings into their political beliefs. A majority of millennials (54 percent) favor bigger government with more services, over a smaller government with fewer services (39 percent), almost the exact opposite of older generations' opinions on that choice. Sixty-nine percent of the generation is accepting of homosexuality and believe that a growing number of immigrants strengthen American society, in stark contrast to the beliefs of their elders.

While older generations are split on the question of government regulation of business, millennials come down squarely on the side of regulation by 51 percent to 43 percent.

While these attitudes suggest which way the debate over the country's civic ethos will ultimately turn out, it is the millennial generation's belief in consensus decision-making and pragmatic solutions to problems that hold out the most hope that the tone of today's political rhetoric will also change.

Millennials believe that collective action at the local level is the best way to solve national problems. Just as their parents set the rules within which millennials were free to exercise their creative energies, millennials look to the federal government to set national goals, even to establish mandates for required behavior. However, in the millennial era, the choice of how to comply with these requirements will not be determined in remote bureaucracies, but by individuals in local communities throughout the country.

In the middle of the vitriol of the current debate, it is easy to lose sight of the possibility of the dispute being resolved in favor of some larger and different national consensus. The millennial generation offers the country that hope. If America is to emerge from its current period of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, it will have to look to its newest generation, for both the behavior and the ideas that can bring the debate to a conclusion that the country can support.

Follow Michael Hais and Morley Winograd on Twitter here.

Editor's Note: This piece originally appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on August 29.

Erica Williams is a social and political commentator and serves as the Senior Strategist at the Citizen Engagement Lab, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that uses digital media and technology to amplify the voices of underrepresented constituencies. This piece was crossposted with permission from Erica and was originally published at the Huffington Post.

Watching the debt insanity these past few weeks, I've had one question ringing over and over again in my head: What do we do? Not what kind of short-term lobbying and marches and calls will save our economy. The question for me has been about the longer term: What do you do when your government can't govern?

As a Gen Y-er, a product of hip hop culture and a young person in this economy, I've been conditioned to determine my own destiny, and, for all intents and purposes, hustle. So the answer is simple: When your government can't govern, you govern yourselves.

I'm no longer electing representatives to create a vision and run the country on my behalf, since it appears that on average, they can't. No, instead I'm dreaming my own vision and electing people to work for me, doing what I tell them to do. That shift in outlook and on our role as master not servant in the political process, is a change both in the theory and in practice of our engagement. Fundamentally, it shifts how we view the election and what we do after.

It makes me confident that if I have a vision for a country -- maybe one in which education is affordable, people earn a living wage, health care is free, people pays their fair share of taxes, the economy works for everyone, etc. -- I have effectively written a job description that I now have the power, with my friends, family, community, and generation to hire for. And it is then our responsibility to be the boss and ensure that the job gets done.

That is the admirable confidence of the tea party. They shouted loudly and proudly "We want our country back!" And as frightening and divisive as their rhetoric has been, their belief that they have a stake in the future of this country and therefore a right to help determine its direction is dead on. 

Unfortunately their swag is unmatched on our side. Most progressive leaders don't effectively represent the constituents that will soon make up the majority of this country: young and/or of color. And conservatives know that when we do rise up and take our place as leaders, our sheer numbers, if put behind a bold progressive vision, can cause a true revolution.

That's why over the past year as Democratic pundits, operatives, intellectuals and organizations ran around fretting about Obama's approval ratings and whether or not they had been invited to the White House, Republicans were plotting out a 2012 strategy that has nothing to do with the issues. Instead of trying to win the young, black, and brown votes they focused on making it harder for us to vote at all. A "war on voting" is well underway, with Voter ID laws that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, disenfranchise huge numbers of people of color, the young and the elderly, popping up in states across the country. Republicans unleashed a targeted and deliberate strategy to chip away at a person's ability to vote, bit by bit. Why?

Because they understand that a vote is more than a show of support for someone or something. They get that a vote is more than a moment to claim your identity, raise your voice, make yourself heard, or any of the other corny, clichéd slogans that we hear around election time. They understand that a vote can be an indication that we're hiring who we need... to do the job that we want... for the country that we deserve.

Knowing that what's at stake in this election isn't the possibility of another year with a black president but instead the opportunity to make government work for the rest of us, should be enough to get us to push past all of the hurdles, help folks get their IDs, mobilize, turn out and do what we should have been doing all along: governing our nation. 



The past two years, especially the debt ceiling debate, should have taught us a valuable lesson: Doing the work to hire someone -- knocking on doors, going to concerts, wearing t-shirts, making viral videos, and checking a box -- is a complete waste of time if you don't stick around long enough to train them, give them their marching orders, and monitor them.

So for me, Election 2012 -- and every single day afterwards -- is about taking back my power to move my country and my community in the right direction. "Hope" comes from my faith, not my politics, and I'm exhausted with the idea of "change." No more slogans, no more buzzwords. I'm tired of looking for "leaders" -- new crowned princes and princesses who are able to bundle Democratic dollars, make rich people love them, talk about young people and black folks and poor folks, and then do the same old same old. We ARE the leaders. And it's pretty simple: our vote is a powerful statement that from now on, we run this, in spite of every effort that's been made to prevent us from doing so. So let's gear up to do just that.

Follow Erica Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ericawilliamsdc

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.

A couple weeks ago, we highlighted the Briefcase Brigades project organized by young people across the country. Sarah summarized the project and its rationale quite well:

...[Y]oung people are dressing up for an interview and bringing briefcases to demand Congress comes up with a plan to deal with the youth jobs crisis. Since Van Jones mentioned the idea for these Briefcase Brigades at Powershift, over 31 groups have sprung up in 22 states.

Briefcase Brigades speak to the challenges we face that politicians just aren't listening to. We are the most educated and tech savvy generation, yet unemployment for Americans under 30 is 16.7%, double the national average. The average student loan debt facing graduates today is over $24,000. Our generation is graduating off a cliff - each year, graduates are stuck facing off in the labor market with unemployed graduates from the prior year.

Following the first round of brigades held on April 27, SparkAction has released a video capturing youth making their voices heard around the country.

Congratulations to everyone involved with this project, and a special thanks to Van Jones for suggesting this idea at Powershift. Let's keep this momentum going!

You've read about this movement before here.

And now, it's taken another step forward.

After a failed student campaign a year ago, William and Mary students put together an organization called Students for a Better Williamsburg (SBW), an organization engaging local government in order to provide the best outcomes for students. This effort led to the amendment of a housing ordinance, making it more student friendly and eliminating an issue that divided the town and gown factions in the community for years.

This past spring, a student ran for a Williamsburg city council seat once more. Last Tuesday night, Scott Foster, a graduating senior, dominated the contest.

Foster was elected to the Williamsburg City Council on Tuesday night, becoming the first William & Mary student ever to do so. The 22-year-old said his win was a victory for town and gown relationships.

"Today, the people of Williamsburg demonstrated that our city is truly unified," Foster said Tuesday night. "When I decided to run for City Council, I hoped to receive the student vote. Now, I have been additionally honored and humbled to have received such strong support from across our City."

Foster received 1559 votes in the election, 741 more votes than the next finisher, Planning Commission Chairman Doug Pons, who also earned a seat on the council Tuesday night. Five candidates, including one incumbent, ran for the two open positions. According to Foster's campaign, approximately 67 percent of his votes came from students and the remaining votes came from residents.

Over 1000 William and Mary students voted for their fellow student in the election, ensuring that college students will have a strong voice in the city's government. Between this victory and the aforementioned organization of Students for a Better Williamsburg, William and Mary students have provided students across the country with a model for organizing within the system to produce positive outcomes.

How did Foster do it? Well, in textbook Millennial fashion. Foster used online social networking to spread the news, and then benefited from a student-coordinated voter registration and GOTV effort on William and Mary's campus.

Foster benefited from a coordinated get-out-the-vote campaign by William & Mary students. Earlier this year, student organizations, including the Student Assembly, worked to encourage students to vote in the election through a series of registration efforts. Approximately 300 students registered this year as a result of the drive. More than 2,100 students are registered to vote in the City of Williamsburg and early estimates indicate that roughly 50 percent of registered students voted in Tuesday's election.

On election day, the Student Assembly provided transportation for students between the Sadler Center and the Stryker Building voting location. Sarah Rojas ‘10, outgoing president of the assembly, also sent an e-mail to the College's students, encouraging them to vote in the election.

[...]

Much of Foster's campaign was run by students who utilized a website and social media outlets such as Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube. Foster also spent a good deal of time meeting city residents.

After his upcoming graduation, Foster plans to continue his studies at William and Mary in 2011, attending the William and Mary Law School.

If you have followed Future Majority over the last couple years, you will recognize that Thomas Friedman's hit piece on Millennials, labeling them "Generation Q" for being too quiet, serves as the foundation for many a post. His Boomer paradigm interferes with his ability to understand how Millennial activism differs.

Friedman argues that Millennials may be "too quiet, too online, for its own good, and for the country's own good." The problem most of us had with Friedman's writing was that he was unable to see that one could be mad, could be online, and could be productive all at once. Another issue was the power Friedman ascribed to symbolic and yet meaningless acts. What good is chaining one's self to a bulldozer actually going to accomplish long-term? Very little.

With that in mind, we now have some more information regarding college students' heavy use of social media, and it is easy to see how our activism has changed course. The International Center for Media and the Public Agenda (ICMPA) at the University of Maryland released a study revealing the considerable depth of students' connections to social media.

200 University of Maryland (College Park) students, as part of a class assignment, were asked to abstain from all media for 24 hours straight. Following this time window, they were then asked to describe their experiences in private blogs. Perhaps the most interesting nugget of information this study yielded was just how interwoven social media has become in 18-21 year olds' lives.

"The students did complain about how boring it was go anywhere and do anything without being plugged into music on their MP3 players," said Moeller. "And many commented that it was almost impossible to avoid the TVs on in the background at all times in their friends' rooms. But what they spoke about in the strongest terms was how their lack of access to text messaging, phone calling, instant messaging, email and Facebook, meant that they couldn't connect with friends who lived close by, much less those far away."

"Texting and IM-ing my friends gives me a constant feeling of comfort," wrote one student. "When I did not have those two luxuries, I felt quite alone and secluded from my life. Although I go to a school with thousands of students, the fact that I was not able to communicate with anyone via technology was almost unbearable."

The student responses to the assignment showed not just that 18-21 year old college students are constantly texting and on Facebook -- with calling and email distant seconds as ways of staying in touch, especially with friends -- but that students' lives are wired together in such ways that opting out of that communication pattern would be tantamount to renouncing a social life.

Bringing this back to the Friedman contention that students should cut out the online crap and do something meaningful with their lives, this survey points to how misguided Friedman actually was in his writing. Social media is so pervasive and such a large part of our world that it is rewiring our brains. As the piece argues above, there is no exiting the social media world to "act" in the real world. To the wide majority of young people, social media is reality. If one had to renounce his or her social life in order to please Friedman, the activism would not mean anything.

Another enlightening conclusion was the impact the abstention from media had on these students' information-gathering capabilities. Participants in the study reported that they normally do not read the newspaper, watch mainstream television news, or listen to radio news, yet they were informed enough to discuss specific news stories. During the study, though, participants remarked on how uninformed they felt.

..."To be entirely honest I am glad I failed the assignment," wrote one student, "because if I hadn't opened my computer when I did I would not have known about the violent earthquake in Chile from an informal blog post on Tumblr."

"Students expressed tremendous anxiety about being cut-off from information," observed Ph.D. student Raymond McCaffrey, a former writer and editor at The Washington Post, and a current researcher on the study. "One student said he realized that he suddenly 'had less information than everyone else, whether it be news, class information, scores, or what happened on Family Guy."

"They care about what is going on among their friends and families and even in the world at large," said McCaffrey. " But most of all they care about being cut off from that instantaneous flow of information that comes from all sides and does not seemed tied to any single device or application or news outlet."

Students clearly rely on social media for information. Given our knowledge -- going clear back to Thomas Jefferson -- that information is vital in managing our country's affairs, dispensing with internet-based activism would be foolish and regressive, breeding even more disengagement and misinformation.

Friedman's Boomer lens assumes that we still have a critical mass of institutions that need tearing down, and that it needs to happen quickly. These Millennial college students, as Morley Winograd and Michael Hais point out, understand how decentralized our lives are, and, in role-modeling their "civic" archetype, they must rely on these anything-but-linear connections and the decentralized flow of information to reconstruct society.

Because idealist generations are unwilling to compromise on moral issues, they've always failed to solve the major social and economic problems of their eras. In the decades after the 1828 election, the country was pulled apart over slavery, ultimately leading to the Civil War. After the 1896 campaign, the United States couldn't find a way to help blue-collar workers and farmers to share fully in the wealth generated by the Industrial Revolution. It took the Great Depression to usher in the sense of urgency that led to Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Today, issues such as affordable health care or quality education or climate change are endlessly debated but never resolved by two sides unwilling to set aside their ideological agendas for the common good.

But now, with another civic generation emerging, the times, as boomer troubadour Bob Dylan sang, they are a-changin'. Civic generations react against the idealist generations' efforts to use politics to advance their own moral causes and focus instead on reenergizing social, political and government institutions to solve pressing national issues. Previous civic realignments occurred in 1860, with the election of Abraham Lincoln, and in 1932, when the GI generation put Roosevelt in office. It's no coincidence that these "civic" presidents, along with George Washington, top all lists of our greatest presidents. All three led the country in resolving great crises by inspiring and guiding new generations and revitalizing and expanding the federal government.

In their book Millennial Makeover, Winograd and Hais describe technology as "[enabling] these changes by creating powerful new ways to reach new generations of voters with messages that relate directly to their concerns" (p. 24). Yes, face-to-face interaction continues to have its place in our society. However, if we were to scrap our reliance on social media, we would be willfully ignoring the new generations of voters Winograd and Hais mention. This study's results underscore how vital social media is to our generation's civic health. If we were to purge ourselves of our internet activism, only then could we legitimately be considered "quiet."

This past weekend about 250 Young Democrats gathered in New Orleans for this years winter conference. The weekend was full of great trainings, discussion, the usual YDA drama, great food, and a ton of fun. Here is my wrap up for the weekend.

Thursday around 80 YD's participated in a community service project in New Orleans, they helped work on a home that was devastated by Katrina. I didn't get in until around noon Thursday so I instead got to roam the town and enjoy some of New Orleans great food and culture. Thursday night there was a Hip Hop caucus event that many YD's attended to talk about community and activism.

Friday the conference officially started. The State Presidents had two trainings that morning, one of campaigns and field work and the other was on finance. In the trainings we learned how to target and organize within our states, as well as how to raise money and budget on a campaign.

Then in the afternoon I had "the SPA business meeting" where we had an election for Vice Chair (Congrats to Melanie from TX) and discussed how we, as State Presidents, feel about issues within YDA and how they effect each of us. Friday night we had the General opening session where we heard from speakers and highlighted a service project in each region.

Saturday we started the morning with committee and caucus meetings. Then we had the great pleasure of having lunch with Lilly Ledbetter and DNC Secretary Alice Jermond. Lilly gave an awesome speech about her fight for equal pay in the workplace and about how we need to work together for equality. You can watch the video from the lunch here.

After lunch I attended the Rural Caucus meeting, where they had a Louisiana State Legislature as a speaker, he spoke about how to work in rural communities and methods that he used when campaigning. After the caucus meetings we had region recaps and then many of us went on a ghost tour of the French Quarter, which was really cool.

Sunday morning we finished up with a few meetings then General Session, after that we explored the town and left our YDA family.

Also I didn't know how to fit this in the post so here it is, but I felt that I couldn't leave it out. We frequented the famous Cafe Du Monde sometimes multiple times a day.

Remember the group of William and Mary students I wrote about a couple months ago who sought to better connect the student body with the community? They formed Students for a Better Williamsburg, an organization that seeks to engage local government in order to provide the best outcomes for students, and last week they already started to make change.

Until a week ago Thursday night, Williamsburg landlords were restricted by law from allowing more than three people to live in their properties. The consequences aren't hard to imagine. Realistically, if college students want a fourth person to live in a house, they're going to attempt it, which brings up the safety issue of not knowing who is in what residence. Furthermore, those houses with four or five bedrooms that by law can only hold three people lead to wasted space. Over 600 houses within Williamsburg contain four or five bedrooms. The three person rule was one of the main obstacles in the town-gown relationship between William and Mary and Williamsburg.

Students for a Better Williamsburg (SBW) and the Student Assembly, though, came together and negotiated with members of the city council. Both groups, working with Vice Mayor Clyde Haulman, crafted a compromise ordinance approved at the council meeting last Thursday, December 10. The ordinance can be viewed here.

The amended ordinance requires that properties within Williamsburg’s four rental inspection districts exceeding 2000 square feet be eligible to allow up to four unrelated tenants with city approval. The properties are also required to contain four parking spots for each tenant. In addition, the same requirements would be extended to B-3 business districts. Landlords would submit their properties to secure the approval of the city’s zoning administrator. Some 49 beds would be added -- a minor change on paper -- but it's the start of a dialogue with the council that counts the most for students.

Michael Douglass, one of the co-founders of SBW, remarked upon the ironic contrast in behaviors between the opposed residents and the students supportive of the legislation in an e-mail. One of these residents, Bill Dell, a known opponent of the rule change, expressed unhappiness with the speedy process.

“You all have put things on the table that should be looked over,” resident Bill Dell said, interrupting the vote.

Yet in an August 19 article in the Flat Hat, William and Mary's student newspaper, one of the planning commissioners remarked upon the need for community participation.

Commissioner Jim Joseph seemed concerned that the community be given ample opportunity to speak.

“We need the participation, yet when the opportunity comes the participation’s not there, and therefore we have to stress that,” he said. “This is a very sensitive issue with a lot of feelings on both sides, and I think we just have to push that as hard as we can to make sure people do participate.”

And in the end, the students were the ones participating with an eye toward compromise.

SBW and the William and Mary Student Assembly demonstrated what can happen with some collaboration and a will to get things done. This is a fantastic example of our brand of youth activism, identifying a need and working the proper channels in a good-faith effort to make change. Yes, things do not always work this smoothly, but in this case, thanks to great leadership and hard work, it did.

Releases by SBW and William and Mary's Student Assembly are available to read, and video of the council meeting can be viewed here.

It's been a fair amount of time since I have written a truly meaningful blog post that is more than just me covering a story or talking about an issue. Well today I plan to make up for that with this post, this post wont be about any story, just my thoughts on what I think can move Kansas forward.

I am like many other Democrats in this state and haven't been the most thrilled with the recent happenings, out of professional courtesy I wont discuss which happenings these are, but I'm sure you can guess. One thing that is particularly dear to my heart is The Kansas Young Democrats. I took over as KYD President about 4 months ago now. I am very happy to say that we have honestly done a lot statewide. We have increased our number of chapters, took part in the planning of Healthcare Reform rallies held in Kansas City and Wichita, brought the first Young Democrats of America meeting to ever be held in Kansas (planned for Feb of 2011), done multiple community service projects and shown that young people have, want and deserve a voice in our state.

Here's the catch. I often get the question "What young dems would you say are best for working on campaigns?" or "Can your young dems organize an event?" which I don't mind being asked at all, but there seems to be an underlying assumption that KYD is simply a pool of labor for campaigns. I say false. The Kansas Young Democrats are a very motivated force of young people who want to invest in their state and help shape it for the future. We are more than the mules of the party, we are the future of the party.

I have a little over a year left of being President and here is what I would like to see be done. KYD could become a more powerful and better organized grassroots and netroots movement. Allowing for young people statewide to band together to support the candidates we want to help lead our state, working for the issues that matter to us, and having a strong voice in our communities. Build an organization not for the sake of having one but for the purpose of creating a better future. We can always work on campaigns, we can always organize events, but let's make this about us. Our candidates, our issues, or generation.

We are already naturally moving in that direction. Youth candidates are standing up and running, young people that have felt alienated over the previous eight years took a stand and voted for Obama and the promise of progressive change that he gave us. We voted for real healthcare reform to happen, we voted to end the war, we voted for clean alternative energy sources, we voted to change our country for the better. I may be preaching to the choir here but as young people we do have a voice, and we need to not only start using it but following up with it. We have to start doing more than just showing up on election day and counting on all the other young people to do the ground work for us. We have a great group of activist here in Kansas. Out of that great group a lot of them are young, but all of us activist can't do it alone all of the time.

We have to work for the change we want, we have to work together, we have to work for our generation, we have to work for our beliefs, and most importantly we have to work for Kansas. It has been far to long that we have taken second place in the battle over our beliefs, only we can bring the changes we want and need to Kansas. I guess we could view this post as a call of arms to democrats young and old, progressives, and activist. Let's work together to make it the Kansas we want. KYD can be that organization we build in order to create a better future, we are already working in that direction.

Like I said just my thoughts after some recent frustration both State and National, but I hope they hit home with some of you and if they do, I look forward to working with you soon.