millennials

An interesting blog post at Newsweek's "The Gaggle":

The other issue, I think, is the way health insurance has been sold and positioned. In general, we talk about the outcome of health care reform in two ways: the micro impact on individual citizens and the macro impact on health care costs. Neither has struck a cord with Millenials [sic]. Like I said, the individual impact strikes us as unimpressive. The large-scale economic outcomes take a lot of effort to understand. They seem distant, probably to Millenials [sic] and the rest of the population, and easy to lose sight of in a Twitter-size news cycle.

Instead, the more attractive part of health insurance for Millennials, these poll numbers indicate, is the moral underpinnings of the bill: that all Americans ought to have access to insurance, that this is our responsibility as a nation. While 47 percent of Millennials generally support health care reform, 70 percent support the idea that all Americans should have access to affordable health insurance, the highest number for any demographic. Maybe we’re just young and idealistic, maybe we have genuinely different viewpoints than our parents; either way, that provision really strikes a cord with younger Americans. But the bill has not been sold that way--if it had, perhaps more Millennials would strongly support health care reform instead of the kind of, sort of support we see now.

Yes, the expertise gap is tough for us to navigate. But I think what's worse for youth engagement is the heavy presence of traditional Washington behavior. Untelevised hearings. Deals behind closed doors. Inaccessible jargon. A lack of political courage. All of these elements and more preclude young people from focusing on the moral principle at stake.

We live in the United States -- all of us should should have access to affordable health insurance. But when the discussion is misrepresented, shrouded in Washington-speak and timidity, we lose that right to health care and we (young people) understandably lose patience with the process.

A fantastic paragraph written by Alejandro Ribó from Personal Democracy Forum:

Young Europeans do not want political parties in their lives. Only 4% of young people (15-29 year olds) participate in a political party or trade union (on Euronews (2:02 mark) from Eurostat statistics). This is a clear figure of what young people want or do no want. Political party politicians and their acolytes would quickly blame the education system, capitalism, the television or even the Playstation for the lack of interest in politics of young people. They are blinded by their group thinking and narrow perspective of what politics is. Politics is not only, and not even mainly, about what political parties and their representatives (the so-called "politicians") do. This fact, many people, including young people, know very well. I recommend the party people to go one night around bars in any city or town in Europe, to listen to what people are talking about. They talk about politics beyond political parties and their captive public institutions. They will be surprised to hear that there is political life outside the party. For politics is mainly about people and what they do, and not about organisations of any kind. That is why we need to reform the system to give chances to those who want to talk and participate in politics, but do not want to be captive of an organisation that has its own interests, often different than the interests of the rest of us.

Yes, it's Europe, but it's applicable. This is a reminder Washington needs. Because our political arena is so intensely focused on parties, we lose focus on myriad facets of politics: the people, their needs, the dialogue itself.

We saw the ramifications of this approach in New Jersey and Virginia, as both Democratic gubernatorial campaigns forgot that each political campaign is different with different candidates and different constituencies. Obama didn't win because he made young voters think Democrats were cool; he won because he engaged young voters through his campaign's bridge-building. Youth issues were identified, specific elements of the youth culture - like texting - were embraced, and he informed them he expected them to work not for him, but for their country. When a sitting governor and a gubernatorial candidate fail to do most of this yet expect results because they are Democrats too, they might as well retire. It won't (and it didn't) work.

Underneath all the pithy statements to the press regarding inconsequential events or subjects, the American people converse. Some can't afford health insurance. Some youth, led into college thinking it would lead to success, have graduated and discovered employment is little more than a pipe dream. Many have lost their retirement thanks to the greed of those on Wall Street and their enablers in Washington. Yet who among those "important" people in our system hears this? Judging by their actions, I'd suppose no one.

This restoration of "politics" is one of the main tasks our generation will need to complete. As the excerpt above suggests, the emphasis of politics is people, not organizations. Once we begin associating politics with everyday conversations among everyday people, we'll have a chance to actually improve America.

This month’s off year elections sent one message to Washington that has been heard loud and clear. Voters expect Congress to focus on the economy, especially employment, and take decisive and affirmative steps to deal with both the causes and ravages of the greatest economic downturn in the U.S. since the Great Depression. As the Obama administration considers a variety of new proposals to help bring down the unemployment rate, one key constituency is raising its voice and asking for a return on the investment it made in his presidency.

Members of the Millennial generation, born between 1982-2003, who were eligible to vote in 2008 went for Barack Obama over John McCain by a 2:1 margin and made up over 80% of the President’s winning margin. They continue to support his presidency and identify as Democrats by similar margins. A late October Pew survey indicates that Millennials identify as Democrats over Republicans by almost 20 percentage points (52% vs. 34%), well above the 8-point Democratic advantage among older generations. In the latest Research 2000 weekly tracking survey conducted for Daily Kos, 80% of Millennials had a favorable opinion of the president; only 14% of everyone in this generation viewed him unfavorably. This compares with a 55% vs. 39% favorable/unfavorable ratio among the entire electorate in both the Research 2000 survey and in a series of November surveys conducted by organizations ranging from ABC News and the Washington Post to Fox, although some other polls put the President’s job performance ratings closer to 50%.

But despite the clearly stronger support the President has among their generation, Millennials are increasingly restive about the lack of action in Congress to address the economic problems they face – both now and in the future.

Recent Pew research studies underline the major impact that the recession has had on individual Americans and their families. Thirteen percent of parents with grown children told Pew researchers that one of their adult sons or daughters had moved back home in the past year. Pew found that of all grown children living with their parents, 2 in 10 were full-time students, one-quarter were unemployed and about one-third had lived on their own before returning home. According to the census, 56 percent of men 18 to 24 years old and 48 percent of women were either still under the same roof as their parents or had moved back home.

The lack of jobs was particularly acute among adult members of the Millennial Generation (18-27 year olds), 61% of whom said that they or someone close to them was jobless recently. A clear plurality (46%) says that the “job situation” rather than rising prices (27%), problems in the financial markets (14%) and declining real estate values (7%) is their major economic worry.

As a result, the number one concern among Millennials is the state of the economy and the need for jobs, but they have a unique perspective on how to deal with this issue.

Millennials believe there is a clear link between education and employment and are increasingly concerned that the pathway through the educational system into the world of work is becoming increasingly more difficult and expensive to navigate. Last week, about one hundred of the nation’s top private sector and government leaders gathered for the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council also identified education as the nation’s top economic priority.

For Millennials, the problem is personal. A smaller share of 16-to-24-year-olds – 46 percent – is currently employed than at any time since the government began collecting that data in 1948. A job market with Depression-level youth unemployment (18.5%) and a wrenching transformation in the types of jobs America needs and produces makes the implicit bargain of education in return for future economic success harder for Millennials to believe in every day.

Recently Matt Segal, Executive Director of the Student Association for Voter Empowerment (SAVE) and Founder and National Co-Chair of the “80 Million Strong for Young Americans Job Coalition” presented some ideas to the House Education and Labor Committee on what Congress could do to address this challenge. He advocated increased entrepreneurial resources be made available to youth; more access to public service careers through internships and loan forgiveness programs; and the creation of “mission critical” jobs in such fields as health care, cyber-security and the environment that would tap the unique talents of this generation. Since two-thirds of Millennials who graduate from a four-year college do so with over $20,000 in debt, debt, his testimony also urged immediate Senate approval of the student debt reform bill recently passed by the House.

There is more that can be done beyond these excellent recommendations. This summer, the President's Council of Economic Advisors released a report outlining the importance of community colleges in making America's workforce more competitive in the global economy. "We believe it's time to reform our community colleges so that they provide Americans of all ages a chance to learn the skills and knowledge necessary to compete for the jobs of the future." The report urged Congress to pass House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larsen’s bill, The Community College Technology Access Act of 2009, in order to help meet President Obama’s goal of graduating five million more Americans from community colleges by 2020.

Millennials, like their GI Generation great grandparents in the 1930s, are facing economic challenges that caught them by surprise and for which no one prepared them. But Millennials aren’t looking for a handout or sympathy. Instead, in the “can do” spirit of their generation, they are organizing to overcome the challenges created for them by their elders. It’s time for the Democrats who control Congress to recognize these concerns and to act decisively on their behalf.

Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are fellows of the New Democrat Network and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press: 2008), named one of the 10 favorite books by the New York Times in 2008.

On Thursday, October 29, over 20 organizations (including my employer, Advocates for Youth) that work across the spectrum of global health advocacy and practice came together on Capitol Hill in partnership with the Congressional Global Health Caucus to offer support and recommendations for Members of Congress and the Obama Administration on how to best realize the goals of President Obama’s Global Health Initiative, announced last May with the release of his Fiscal Year 2010 budget request.

During the briefing, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-4-MN) (Appropriator and Founding Chairman of the Congressional Global Health Caucus), Rep. Diane Watson (D-33-CA) (Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Democratic Chair of the Congressional Women’s Caucus) spoke to their commitment to the United States’ engagement with the rest of the world through investments in global health.

Rep. Watson put this messaging in context when she noted that throughout the war in Iraq, the United States has spent approximately $15 billion per month. “You do the math,” she said, emphasizing the disparity between our expenditures on military engagement overseas and our expenditures on global health (which are by no means small, but in comparison to the military, are quite meager). Rep. Watson stressed the need for the United States to engage with the world not with a gun but with a supportive hand, noting especially the need to “train and educate young people,” while Rep. McCollum noted the need to offer young women access to education and health care services so they can make responsible decisions for their future.

These points could not be more important to note in the entire reshuffling process that’s occurring right now in U.S. foreign assistance—from the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) at the State Department, to the President’s Study on Development (PSD) and the President’s Global Health Initiative (GHI) at the White House, to the re-write of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 being ambitiously undertaken in the House and Senate. With so many moving parts, all with the intent of ensuring that U.S. engagement with low and middle income countries is responding to so-called “21st-century challenges,” policy makers must seize this opportunity to engage the world’s three billion young people under the age of 25 in their efforts to make the United States’ foreign assistance have a sustainable and deeply-seeded positive impact for the long term.

The engagement of Millennials in the United States in the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and global health policy is crucial. Young people in the United States, especially students, many of whom have taken to degrees or minors in international affairs and/or global health, have been a driving force in raising the profile of global health policy and programs among fellow Americans in recent years. (See organizations such as the Student Global AIDS Campaign, Global Justice, University Coalitions for Global Health, Globe Med, among many others.)

In addition to those studying the subjects, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the number of American students studying abroad increased 150 percent from 1996 to 2006, and the number remains on the rise (though it has been constrained by a decreasing dollar value and increased higher education costs). Further, others fortunate to secure financial means to do so have participated in international volunteer trips and have contributed to development of healthcare infrastructure and provision of services in their volunteer work. Having been privileged enough to study abroad myself, this experience can transform one’s notion of what is “foreign,” making it clear that no matter where one was born, without health, it is very difficult to fully realize one’s dreams or one’s rights.

For many Millennials, it should be noted, these opportunities—both to study international affairs/global health and/or participate in study/volunteer/work abroad programs—are out of reach, due to any number of obstacles. And for many young people, the challenges faced by their local community—ranging from lack of access to education, healthcare, and civic engagement, among others—can be more pressing than anything beyond our country’s borders.

However, even these Millennials constitute part of the majority of young people who are making an indelible mark on the legal and philosophical and civic fabric of the U.S. approach to health policy through a strong belief in access to health care as a human right, not as a luxury good. According to a 2008 American National Election Study (ANES), “60 percent of 18- to 29-year olds support universal health care, compared to 48 percent of all other eligible voters.” In this sense, they are joining the leagues of young people around the world for whom healthcare is not perceived as a privilege, but as a right. This marks a sea change in American political thought and represents the emerging vision of the world that Millennials are building.

That vision for universal access to quality, affordable health care is the basis of the recommendations laid out by the civil society organizations at Thursday’s briefing. (The details of the briefing panel and the full report and recommendations made by the civil society group are available at The Global Health Initiative.) To date, U.S. financial contributions to global health have been larger than any other country on earth in absolute terms. Through U.S. leadership, our country has helped turn the tide in access to healthcare services, information, and education in many places on the planet.

But we have also faltered in a few ways as our global health policies and programs have evolved:

1. our policies regarding that immense funding have, in certain instances, fallen prey to petty battles for political capital usually stemming from politically controversial issues within U.S. politics—notably resulting in policies which limit provision of sexual and reproductive health care and which limit comprehensive sex education for young people;
2. global health programs are appropriated by Congress according to different issue sets and conditions such as maternal and child health, reproductive health and family planning, HIV and AIDS, neglected tropical diseases, healthcare workforce, etc. While all of these issue areas and specific conditions need particular attention, people’s lives, just like ours here, do not revolve around one health condition—and therefore we have to ensure U.S. global health programs are linked on the ground to provide integrated service delivery;
3. given the amount of money we spend engaging with low- and middle-income countries, the proportion of our funding spent on global health is but a miniscule fraction of what we spend on other efforts to engage with the world, especially the military. This does not mean military spending is not important, but that investments in global health aimed at the reduction of despair and empowerment of local individuals and communities may support and actually reduce the need for military interventions over the long term through constructing environments where people are not driven to violence for survival.

These faults are not unfixable. And in fact, a high-profile Senator from Maine said it well in reference to her vote on the proposed healthcare reform legislation in the Senate, “the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of action.” Millennials get this. And we get that if we want our world to be more equitable, more secure, and more empowered when we’re no longer 18-29 year-olds, we have to act now to improve our policies and seriously invest in what works.

Originally posted on Amplify

In the work that we do as part of the progressive youth movement, vote drives aimed toward young people can easily take on a message like "vote for voting's sake." The result? A media and society that just assume youth are going to vote regardless of what is going on around them. It's a convenient dualism for the establishment: if youth don't vote, call them disengaged; if they do vote, it's due to either a hotshot candidate, issues on the line directly impacting their lives, or because they're supposed to since everyone else is doing it. This is ignorant, though, and just as the world is much more complex than most two-way issues, the same goes with youth voting.

Let's now look at one of the two approaching gubernatorial elections.
New Jersey's race has been topsy-turvy. Incumbent Democratic governor Jon Corzine, hamstrung with a rough economic environment and voters increasingly unhappy with their state's corrupt reputation, trailed Republlican candidate Chris Christie from the start, though he has pulled even as of late given Christie's own problems.

Where do young voters come in? Let's use the New Jersey race as an example.

The New York Times published an article today titled, "Corzine Courts Obama Backers in All-Out Push." And yes, within the "Obama backers," the Times paints young voters as being the heart and soul of the group; it's great if they come through. But what if they don't?

We might be able to see a preview in the article. Check out this academic's view:

“If Corzine can activate the Obama surge vote in New Jersey, that would suggest that last year was more than just a flash, that it has staying power,” said Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University. “It will show that Obama’s support was about more than just one candidate’s charismatic personality, and give him a chance to transform American politics.”

Did you get that? Only if young voters show up in New Jersey does "Yes We Can" mean anything. As if 2004 and 2006 didn't happen?? Perhaps, just maybe, Lichtman is missing something.

The article goes on:

The first-time voters are described by campaign operatives from both parties as more likely to be African-American, Latino and urban than the overall electorate. But the group also includes younger voters, so in addition to canvassing in places like Newark and Camden, Mr. Corzine’s campaign has obtained some voter data and contact information from Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign Web site, and is trying to reach them through online appeals and social networking.

“In 2005, Jon Corzine didn’t even have a Facebook page,” said Joseph Cryan, the state Democratic chairman. “But now, with the help of the president’s voter lists, we’ve got people following us on Twitter, and we are reaching out to them in ways we hadn’t ever done before.”

With turnout unlikely to exceed 2.5 million on Tuesday, Corzine officials estimate that if they draw only a quarter of first-time Obama voters to the polls, they could gain the edge they need.

But even the governor’s most ardent supporters acknowledge that selling Mr. Corzine to Obama admirers has not been easy. On the surface, it would be hard to imagine two political figures more different. Mr. Obama is charismatic, eloquent and stylish, while Mr. Corzine is self-effacing, and an often meandering public speaker. And more significant, Mr. Corzine bears the burden of the state’s gloomy economy and reputation for corruption.

News flash to the Corzine campaign: for as much as the Millennial generation likes to be online, likes to post pictures wearing scandalous Halloween costumes on Facebook, likes to watch funny videos on YouTube, and likes to organize political events and/or service projects, we need to be talked to in order to get our vote.

Yes, Barack Obama's organization did a great job in the campaign at connecting with us on social networks like Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, and a host of others. But he also talked about our issues, and his team made sure we were seeing friendly faces in addition to friend requests and emails. His style matched ours, and the issues he discussed resonated with us. Yes, he asked us to vote for him, but he also asked us to give something back, to get involved, and reminded us that there's got to be a place at the table for us if this country is to take steps forward in the 21st Century.

But Corzine's campaign is willing to settle for a certain number of youth (not suggesting that Obama's camp didn't have their targets in 2008, but they respected us enough to avoid coming out and saying it). This sends a perception that the youth are just the bloc the governor needs to retain power, nothing more. Why? Because if the governor was actually interested in what the youth of New Jersey had to offer, or what they might want to see in his platform or next term, he wouldn't be clinging to Obama.

Yes, it's important to have a Democratic governor in New Jersey, but it's also important for campaigns to understand that youth don't vote to vote. They do so because they're asked for something beyond the vote. The vote isn't a literal, routine act. It's pregnant with significance. It signifies that we see a piece of ourselves in the candidate, that we believe that person will make decisions with our best interests in mind. Part of that is accomplished when people our age support and defend the candidate to us.

You can't buy that. You can't get that feeling from young voters unless you try. And you don't try by spamming their Facebook accounts a week or so before Election Day.

So let's turn to this: say the youth, because the Corzine folks rarely engaged us, don't turn out and the media lambastes them for only voting for personality (codeword for Obama). What is our plan? How do we respond?

Unfortunately, given the lack of funding for many progressive youth organizations, the communications efforts aren't there. By no means am I an expert in progressive youth infrastructure, but I do want to raise awareness of this. Because I have a feeling that the Corzine campaign's inability to engage youth on a peer-to-peer level is going to have some rough consequences, I believe we're going to be facing the "youth are disengaged" meme that will affect our preparations for 2010 and 2012. What are we going to do?

Over at New Majority, a youth conservative site similar to Future Majority, Rachel Hoff argues that there is an opportunity present for the GOP to make inroads with young voters. All they have to do is stay on message and talk about what young voters want to discuss: jobs and the economy.

And yet, President Obama still gets his strongest support from young Americans, with 60 percent of people under 30 still approving of the job he is doing. But the recent economic and public opinion trends provide a huge opportunity for Republicans to make up some ground with the youngest generation of voters. The GOP’s challenge, however, is to stay on message as they sweet talk young Americans.

[...]

A survey by the Young Republican National Federation at the beginning of this year showed that 23 percent of Young Republicans wanted their party to focus on job creation and the economy. Only 6 percent of these young party activists thought the GOP should focus on social issues. (And social conservatives were well represented in the survey.) For young voters of all social stripes, it seems it is a matter of priorities.

Recession or no recession, young Americans care most about jobs. And if Republicans take advantage of this opportunity to talk competently and confidently about the economy, the party has a chance to break young America’s love affair with Obama and win these voters back to the GOP.

It's great that young conservatives have so much optimism. But here are a couple realities that can't simply be pushed aside:

1.) Young people don't like the GOP. In the most recent Daily Kos/Research 2000 tracking poll, only six percent of 18-29 year olds rate the GOP favorably, while 79 percent favor President Obama. I'm not sure where Hoff's 60 percent figure originates, but youth clearly side and trust Obama on these issues.

2a.) Social issue junkies run the GOP, and they can't kick the habit. Yes, it might be exciting for Republicans to think they can force the breakup between Obama and young voters, but those who might share Hoff's correct view that youth want to talk about the economy are outnumbered by those who celebrate Glenn Beck, Michael Steele, and crazy teabagging parties. God, guns, and gays still consume too much of the GOP's attention for any kind of substantive discussion of quality of life issues to take root. As long as this is the case, young voters aren't seeing red.

2b.) As long as the GOP is talking social issues, youth aren't going to agree with them. The most diverse generation in American history simply does not agree with the GOP's backward-looking views on most social issues.

Many educational scholars and practitioners argue the importance of civic responsibility in higher education. With the outcome of students learning how to be good citizens in focus, colleges and universities talk a great deal about fostering an appreciation of social responsibility and civic engagement on their campuses, with some institutions doing more than others.

A survey released this week by the Assocation of American Colleges and Universities as a part of its Core Commitments initiative reflects the importance with which civic responsibility is viewed among students, faculty, and staff, but points to a large split between what students perceive to be happening in the way of civic education on campus versus the faculty, staff, and administration's view.

Here are some of the survey's findings:

There is a Gap Between Campus Aspirations and Campus Realities.

While 58 percent of students surveyed strongly agreed that contributing to a larger community should be a major focus of their institutions, only 41.5 percent strongly agreed that contributing to a larger community currently is a major focus at their college or university.

Campuses are Perceived as Promoting the Value of Community Involvement but Fewer Agree that Their Campus Actually Advances Students’ Knowledge and Awareness of Public Issues.

About half of all faculty and 45 percent of students strongly agree that their campus promotes the value of contributing to the community. Only 37.7 percent of faculty and 40.4 percent of students strongly agree that their campus actively promotes awareness of U.S. social, political, and economic issues.

Student Skepticism About Campus Focus on Civic Engagement Grows From First to Final Years.

The percentage of students who strongly agreed that contributing to a larger community is a responsibility that their campus values and promotes declines markedly from first to senior year. The number of seniors who “strongly agree” that their campus actively promotes awareness of social, political, and economic issues is roughly one-half of first-year students who “strongly agree” with that statement.

Campuses Offer Opportunities to Become Civically Engaged, but Few Students Take Advantage of Them.

About half of all students strongly agreed that their institutions offer opportunities for contributing to the larger community, but only one out of five (18.9 percent) students report frequent participation in community-based projects as part of their coursework. One in four (25.6 percent) report frequent participation in community-based projects that are unconnected to their courses.

The main message here is that saying and doing are two different things.

Yes, institutions like to use language like "civic engagement," "civic responsibility," "social responsibility," "engagement," and the like, and while some actually do put into practice these values, the reality is that the higher ed system doesn't reward it. Faculty actually lack the necessary incentives to incorporate civic education into their classrooms given the weight of published work in the tenure process. Student affairs educators are bound by time and the legitimate fear untenured faculty have of engaging in this style of learning. And as a result, students don't believe colleges and universities are providing them with the civic responsibility they are expecting. Unless we have a culture of intentionality and a structure encouraging authentic, collaborative learning among students, I believe those of us working/studying in higher education are always going to be stuck in this divide.

Students acknowledge there are opportunities present to connect to a "larger community" in their current experience, but their concept of a "larger community" apparently does not match the institution's. Perhaps the structure of the academy is holding itself and students back from properly teaching the importance of civic education to college students.

Haven't done one of these in a while, but there's enough reading material to warrant a quick hits post. So here goes:

• Millennials - What is your plan for the future? Inquiring minds want to know.
• Dean: We need youth involved in health care debate
• UCF Symposium to Focus on Challenges, Opportunities for Millennials in New Economy
• Rick Santorum - The next voice of the GOP? God, I hope so.
• A problem with youth activists is that we sometimes create organizations that replicate mission statements of other organizations. Think twice before starting a non-profit.
• Students believe their colleges aren't giving them enough civic education (even though colleges believe they are).
• If you wear baggy pants and a hoodie, you're apparently a thief.

Over the past few years, youth activists have confronted annoying memes suggesting that Millennial activists were just another continuation of Generation X, apathetic about the political process, not appreciating any opportunities for civic engagement. The elections of 2004/2006/2008 have helped with that, providing some proof that youth activism today is present, just not the same brand as the Boomer media/commentators are used to seeing.

Well, it turns out that some of these Boomers are still having a difficult time understanding the nature of our activism. Harold Pollack, a social scientist from the University of Chicago (who should probably understand generational dynamics a little more than he lets on), writes a particularly annoying diatribe lamenting the lack of participation among young people in the health care debate. Pollack speculates why young people aren't involved, and surprise, surprise: he thinks it's because we don't care about the debate.

We can all offer some reasons why [youth don't get involved]: It's hard for 20-somethings to get excited about free colonoscopies or co-ops and the public plan option. Some of this stuff is mind-numbing in its complexity--particularly if you feel decades away from needing most of the medical care we are now discussing. Maybe my own move from HuffPo to tnr.com has soured the younger demographic. Maybe it's summer vacation.

Pollack apparently forgets that he's another kind of doctor, as he doles out prescriptions for youth to get more involved.

With all the shouting and recrimination, you may believe that there is nothing you can do. That's wrong. First, learn the facts. Go to nonpartisan websites that explain the similarities and differences among the different bills. Keep up with the New York Times or Washington Post every day, in print or on line. Follow experts such as Jonathan Cohn and Ezra Klein. The bills have complicated details, but the basic structure is simpler than people believe.

Then get involved.

Call or write your Representative or your Senator. Get some of your friends to do the same. You'd be surprised what a real impact this has.

Sit your butt down at a town hall or forum in your community. Be civil but unapologetic in standing up for progressive values. After you attend, write about your experience in a short and clear letter to your community newspaper.

Pollock's diagnosis, though, is inappropriate. He makes a diagnosis before more clearly evaluating the symptoms.

The acrimony is what is making us sick, sir. The "shouting and recrimination" is evaporating any kind of will or desire to participate in this discussion among youth. Why rehash run-down ideologies, debating 'til we're blue in the face, when it doesn't do anything?

Dr. Pollack expresses disappointment that nearly everyone he saw attending town hall forums on health care reform was over 50. Maybe that's because youth recognize that these "town hall forums" are a sham. Ironically, these days, those who seek to participate in these discussions actually set out to stifle discussion. Speaking from a civic-minded perspective, which is the way our generation tends to view things, we want to talk about topics and problems.

The reason young people are "strangely passive" to observers like Dr. Pollack is that they continue to view politics through their Baby Boomer generational lens, viewing every problem this country faces as an opportunity to exploit the political struggle to stage a debate judged on volume and tactics, not rationality. Today's young people aren't enamored with the debate because it's not legitimate.

And once more, so we're clear - the refusal to engage in the noise machine that makes up this debate does not equal apathy. We're not apathetic about this. We realize that 40 percent of those uninsured are between the ages of 19-29. We get it, trust me.

Dr. Pollack's only one in a long line of people his age who repeatedly try to castigate youth for not being involved. Perhaps they should re-evaluate whether their own involvement needs to be treated before addressing others'.

Another unemployment report, more bad news about American youth.

The first to be laid off in a recession, and the last to be hired following one, youth are stuck in a hell of a rut.

This August, the teenage unemployment rate — that is, the percentage of teenagers who wanted a job who could not find one — was 25.5 percent, its highest level since the government began keeping track of such statistics in 1948. Likewise, the percentage of teenagers over all who were working was at its lowest level in recorded history.

“There are an amazing number of kids out there looking for work,” said Andrew M. Sum, an economics professor at Northeastern University. “And given that unemployment is a lagging indicator, and young people’s unemployment even lags behind the rest of unemployment, we’re going to see a lot of kids of out work for a long, long, long, long time.”

The Times article also explained the cyclical problem for many youth, being "stuck at the bottom of the totem pole" in the American economy.

Economists say there are multiple explanations for why young workers have suffered so much in this downturn, but they mostly boil down to being at the bottom of the totem pole.

Recent college graduates, unable to find higher-paying jobs, are working at places like Starbucks and Gap, taking jobs once held by their younger peers. Half of college graduates under age 25 are in jobs that do not require college degrees, the highest portion in at least 18 years, Mr. Sum said.

Likewise, the reluctance or inability of older workers to retire has led to less attrition and fewer opportunities for workers to move up a rung and make room for new workers at the bottom of the corporate ladder.

At the end, the article points out that while going to college is perceived as some valuable time to shield teens from the rough economy, attending college itself requires those jobs that, for many, just aren't available.