2010 midterms

When we cover the progressive youth movement here at Future Majority, we often report, summarize, and analyze current events, whether those occur in all levels of government, within political parties, at colleges or universities, or elsewhere. What we sometimes neglect is the history and context informing much of the terrain we do cover. I wanted to take a break today, at least for this post, from our contemporary political scene and look back 40 years to a critical moment in the youth movement: the passage of the 26th Amendment that lowered the minimum voting age from 21 to 18. While we often take this amendment for granted, re-visiting the story behind it reminds us of the importance of the youth vote and bolsters our efforts as we prepare to defend our rights against those who wish to disenfranchise us.

History:

I had assumed that the story of the 26th Amendment commenced during the Vietnam War, however I was surprised to find that President Dwight Eisenhower was the first president to argue in favor of lowering the voting age. In his 1954 State of the Union address, Eisenhower made his case by citing the discrepancy in being old enough to be drafted and deployed to a war zone but not old enough to vote for people making these policy decisions.

For years our citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 have, in time of peril, been summoned to fight for America. They should participate in the political process that produces this fateful summons. I urge Congress to propose to the States a constitutional amendment permitting citizens to vote when they reach the age of 18.

Unfortunately, no amendment passed. As the 1950s came to a close, and the country elected a new president - John F. Kennedy - America was in the middle of the Cold War, pursuing a strategy of containment in an effort to stifle communism around the world. Intent on protecting South Vietnam from communism, the U.S. committed an increasing amount of resources to fighting the North Vietnamese, deploying the first combat troops in 1965. In 1968, North Vietnam launched the Tet Offensive against the U.S. and South Vietnamese forces; the unforeseen attack didn't jibe with statements from American leaders claiming that the end was near. The anti-war movement strengthened.

In 1970, at the height of student activism, President Nixon re-visited extending voting rights to those Americans between the ages of 18 and 21. With increasing numbers of Americans opposing military action in Vietnam and the death toll mounting every day, the discrepancy between soldiers being conscripted for military service while being unable to influence the political process through voting became more apparent. Nixon felt the pressure. On June 22 of that year, Nixon signed an extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, lowering the minimum voting age to 18. He did so, though, noting that the courts might deem some of the provisions unconstitutional. After Oregon and Texas challenged the new law all the way to the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that while Congress had the power to lower the voting age in federal elections, the provisions in the law regulating state and local elections were unconstitutional (Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 [1970]). Faced with the possibility of having two separate voting rolls in some states, one on the federal level that allowed 18-21 year olds to vote and one on state and local levels barring them from voting, Congress and state legislatures moved to pass the 26th Amendment to the Constitution.

On March 10, 1971, the Senate voted to propose an amendment guaranteeing that the standard minimum voting age would be 18 (94-0). Then, on March 23, 1971, the House of Representatives voted 401–19 to pass the amendment. After only four months from the time Congress submitted it to the states, the amendment had been ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. This was the fastest any amendment had been adopted by the states. The Amendment reads:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Following the passage of the amendment, President Nixon issued the following statement:

As I meet with this group today, I sense that we can have confidence that America’s new voters, America’s young generation, will provide what America needs as we approach our 200th birthday, not just strength and not just wealth but the “Spirit of ‘76’ a spirit of moral courage, a spirit of high idealism in which we believe in the American dream, but in which we realize that the American dream can never be fulfilled until every American has an equal chance to fulfill it in his own life.

I can't tell what strikes me more about this - his hypocrisy or the significant difference in rhetoric and ideology between this Republican president and today's GOP.

Tracing Youth Voting Rates Since 1971:

In 1972, for the first time in the nation's history, 18 year olds were able to vote in a presidential election. 55.4% of the 18-29 age group voted that year, which continues to be the highest turnout on record. Both the 1992 election (52%) and the 2008 (51.1%) came close to matching this rate. (See CIRCLE PDF here.)

After 1972, the youth vote was consistently attacked as being unreliable. This attitude led to a cycle in which candidates refused to pay young adults attention on the campaign trail, and young adults, feeling ignored, disengaged from the political process by not voting. We also know that generational dynamics also came into play. Generation X, coming of age in the 1980s and 1990s, was deemed cynical, individualistic, and alienated; this further led to a downward trend in the youth vote.

However, the Millennials followed Generation X and differed in their attitudes toward voting significantly. While Generation X disengaged from the process altogether, Millennials - known as a civic generation according to generational theorists Howe and Strauss - welcomed community engagement. While discouraged by the complex and hostile nature of politics, they repeatedly expressed that being involved in their respective communities was important to them. As they came of age, the youth voting rate began to rise. This graphic, depicting both college and non-college voting rates, illustrates the upward trajectory of the youth vote in the last several presidential elections after its plummet in the mid-1990s.

What's at Stake:

Though Millennials are generally more engaged than the generational cohort behind them, we still have work to do. We can always do a better job of recruiting more young people to run for office and increasing voting rates in off-year elections. We saw the importance of this just last year, in 2010, when a whiter, older, wealthier, and more conservative electorate voted, sweeping Republicans to a House majority and into control of many statehouses.

Unfortunately, the consequences are also directly impacting the youth vote. Many states, at the behest of new Republican governors (like Scott Walker of Wisconsin, pictured) and Republican legislatures are constructing barriers to keep youth from voting, effectively deconstructing the 26th Amendment we're celebrating today. States are either establishing or preparing to establish poll tax fees to support a voter ID system, or enacting strict photo ID standards that would restrict students and members of the military from voting (or both!). Rescinding same-day registration and motor voter laws in order to curb "voter fraud" (the idea of which has proved to be a fraud itself) is underway in several states, specifically impacting students, the poor, and many working people. As if this wasn't enough, new Republican majorities, preoccupied with the debt instead of investing in its people, are cutting billions of dollars from the education of our young people (especially civic education).

So, as we take time today to remember how the youth vote was expanded with the passage of the 26th Amendment 40 years ago, we would also do well to acknowledge that youth voting rights aren't safe and are, in fact, under attack.

Celebrating the 26th Amendment:

In closing, I wanted to highlight a few statements and an effort in support of the 26th Amendment's 40th anniversary. We thank everyone involved for commemorating this important day, but also urge all Americans to understand the importance of safeguarding and expanding youth participation in our democracy.

• The Overseas Vote Foundation is organizing a Twitter event in support of this historical milestone, saluting America's young people by engaging U.S. voters around the world in a dialogue about "why you vote" - in 140 characters or less. The organization is holding a daylong conversation on the Twitter channel #WhyUVote beginning at 9:00 am Eastern Standard Time on Friday, July 1, 2011. They're hoping you tweet your TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE and and include #WhyUVote. Join in and follow the worldwide Twitter conversation moderated by Youth Vote Overseas Program Coordinator Michael Casey Bonfield here
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz issued a statement of support for the 26th Amendment:
  

  Since 1971, young voters have played an indispensable role in the electoral process. Their spirit and activism help guide the country and their belief in the power and promise of America continually inspires us. Young voters are a reminder that America’s greatest resource will always be the ability of generations to rise up to the challenges of their time. That is why the Democratic Party and President Obama have actively sought to include young voters in the electoral process and make sure their voice is heard at the voting booth. Youth activism has been particularly important to me--having gotten my start in politics in college and having run for office for the first time at the age of 25, I know first hand how important it is to foster enthusiasm and commitment to public service in young people.

  Unfortunately, recent legislative actions by Republicans are threatening to limit young people's ability to participate in the electoral process. While Republican governors and legislatures across the country attempt to hinder young people from voting, the Democratic Party will continue fighting to expand the electorate and make sure young voters are able to exercise their Constitutional right to vote.

• House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also issued a statement:
  

  “Forty years ago, our nation opened the doors of democracy to millions of Americans. By extending the right to vote – the most fundamental right of a citizen in a democratic society – to Americans age 18 and older, we offered our youth the responsibility and opportunity to participate; we placed the power of the ballot in their hands, empowering generations of students and young people to determine their own destiny.

  “The 26th amendment ensured that the leaders of tomorrow – our future workers and business owners, entrepreneurs and public servants – recognize that elections are as much about them as their parents and grandparents. Whether it’s making health care more affordable; investing in schools and student aid; creating jobs or balancing the budget – Americans of all ages have a stake in the decisions of their elected representatives.

  “Four decades after the ratification of the 26th amendment, the fight for voting rights goes on. Today, state legislatures across the country are pushing new legislation that threatens to disenfranchise millions of voters, especially students and minority communities. These actions contradict our core democratic principles and betray our values as a people.

  “Democrats will stand firm for the basic right of every American to vote and choose their own leaders. We will uphold the central promise of the 26th amendment: that ‘the right of citizens of the United States…to vote shall not be denied or abridged.’”

Update: Other statements have come in, so I am posting those, as well as links to two pieces that connect the anniversary with Republican-led efforts to disenfranchise young voters today.

• A proclamation from President Barack Obama:
  

  Forty years ago, the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution took effect, lowering the universal voting age in America from 21 years to 18 years. Millions of young Americans were extended the right to vote, empowering more young people than ever before to help shape our country. On this anniversary, we remember the commitment of all those who fought for the right to vote and celebrate the contributions of young adults to our Nation.

  The right to vote has been secured by generations of leaders over our history, from the women's groups of the early 20th century to the civil rights activists of the 1960s. For young people, the movement to lower America's voting age took years of hard work and tough advocacy to make the dream a reality. Yet, once proposed in Congress in 1971, the 26th Amendment was ratified in the shortest time span of any Constitutional Amendment in American history.

  In the midst of the Vietnam War, our Nation bestowed upon our young people the ability to change the status quo and entrusted them with a new voice in government. Today, young adults across America continue to exercise this enormous responsibility of citizenship. Countless young people are involved in the political process, dedicated to ensuring their voices are heard.

  Ideas from young Americans are important to my Administration, and they will help shape the future of our Nation. We are committed to supporting and developing young leaders from all beliefs and backgrounds, and from urban and rural communities alike. This year, I launched "100 Youth Roundtables," an initiative to facilitate substantive dialogue between my Administration and young Americans. We hosted a Young Entrepreneur Summit to listen to budding entrepreneurs and better assess their needs. And this summer, we are beginning a "How to Make Change" series for young Americans from all walks of life who are seeking change in their communities and our world.

  Young adults have been a driving force for change in the last century, bringing new ideas and high hopes to our national dialogue. Today, we remember the efforts of those who fought for their seat at the table, and we encourage coming generations to claim their place in our democracy.

  NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim July 1, 2011, as the 40th Anniversary of the 26th Amendment. I call upon all Americans to participate in ceremonies and activities that honor young Americans, and those who have fought for freedom and justice in our country.

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.

  BARACK OBAMA

• From Rod Snyder, President of the Young Democrats of America:
  

  "Today the Young Democrats of America (YDA) joins all Americans in celebrating the 40th anniversary of the ratification of the 26th amendment to the Constitution, which extended the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age and older.

  "The ratification of the 26th amendment was an important moment in our nation’s history where we recognized the inconsistency of asking young Americans to fight in wars on foreign shores while not affording the basic right to participate in our democracy at home.

  "Over the past forty years, young people have helped shape the future of our nation, with youth participation notably on the rise during the past decade. YDA and other youth organizations have played an important role in ensuring that young Americans have the opportunity influence the political process.

  "Yet on the anniversary of this important step forward, voting rights are facing calculated attacks by Republican state lawmakers across the country. GOP-controlled legislatures are seeking to systematically erect barriers to the democratic process and deny millions of Americans the right to vote.

  "Make no mistake, Republicans are attempting to disenfranchise groups of voters that they have failed to win over in the ballot box, including students and minority communities. Our democracy cannot survive if politicians are permitted to select their voters rather than voters selecting their leaders. Our most fundamental constitutional rights should never be subject to partisan politics.

  "These recent Republican attacks are a reminder that we cannot take voting rights for granted. YDA applauds the group of U.S. Senators led by Michael Bennet (D-CO) who are urging the Department of Justice to review new restrictive voting laws at the state level."

• The League's Executive Director Biko Baker has a piece in The Hill - "The War on Voting Weakens Youth Power"
• Campus Progress is up with a piece warning us to enjoy the 26th Amendment while it lasts.

This week The Hill published a piece by Juan Williams claiming that the GOP can win over the youth vote for the 2012 election.

Here's the funny part: the whole piece is about how Democrats have passed laws that specifically help young people, how the GOP and the Tea Party specifically is more attuned to the Baby Boomer generation and as such is supported more by Boomers.

"In the first two months of the new Congress the budget debate that has dominated the agenda is skewed to the older crowd. The only mention of young people comes when politicians warn against burdening the young with huge budget deficits. . .

"GOP freshmen in the House, fueled by support from the seniors who dominate the Tea Party, have been busy cutting discretionary spending on Head Start, grants for higher education and job training programs."

Williams goes on to say that even on the issue of jobs and the economy the two parties have a generational divide with Republicans who typically seek to cut taxes because older folks are more concerned with "immediate cost of living" issues. Democrats by contrast are more concerned with creating jobs; more specifically Williams says a "tight job market’s long-term impact on their ability to buy a home or save for retirement."

The same day that Williams piece hit The Hill, the Washington Post released a piece about the White House's new attempt to re-engage young people just in time for election season. The one demographic that has consistently supported the President and his agenda, even without outreach on health care or the environment or education reform, has been the Millennial Generation.

It's like Williams is doing the Democrats' jobs for them in proving that the GOP isn't right for youth. But where he does win some points is in saying that the GOP is positioned to win the youth vote because Republican voter registration among 18-29 year olds has increased from 30% to a whopping 40% and Dem registration has drooped from 62% to 54%. If you remember, Obama won the youth vote with nearly 70%. Meaning that a good portion of those 30% agreed with Williams that Democrats have more of a grasp on issues that matter to young voters.

Another point Williams makes that we've made on here several times is regarding the building a stronger bench of young progressive candidates.

"There are 32 members of the House who are 40 or under. Of those, 22 are Republicans and 10 are Democrats."

I've personally argued that Democrats neglect the youth vote, even take it for granted, expecting us to show up without doing the proper outreach or even any at all.

Fellow FM writer Kevin Bondelli pointed out a key point in Mike Connery's book Youth to Power

"the conservatives have a much stronger leadership development infrastructure and support their young talent. Unfortunately on the Democratic/Progressive side the gains we have made in this area are minimal. While the Democratic Party's policies and ideology is much closer to those of young Americans, the Party still predominately views youth as potential voters (which sadly is only a new development) and not as current candidates for leadership positions."

I would go further and say that even the voter registration contrasts between the two parties during 2010 were stark. It's been typical that, for one reason or another, progressive organizations and parties do much much more during presidential elections than midterms.

One thing is for certain in 2012: the Obama campaign will spare no expense in doing outreach before Election Day, and at the same time non-partisan groups will do huge voter registration drives while both parties work to register and re-register their own people. As much as the GOP would like to believe they're gaining ground with the most diverse generation in history, it's hard to beat the President's success in 2008 when your bench of potential Presidential candidates continues to be the same old white faces that we see election after election.

Left, or right, one thing that every politician- at least rhetorically- can agree upon is that we should improve our schools. America used to have the best primary school system in the world; unfortunately, this is no longer the case. While both sides of the aisle can agree that we should strive to re-capture our status as number one in the world, there is broad disagreement over how to accomplish this large and incredibly important, task.

Much of the debate has focused on issues such as charter schools, school vouchers, teacher performance pay, and standardized tests, but I feel that missing from the debate is the central issue that divides good schools from bad. There are schools in this state where students are not only expected to go to college, but are expected to graduate from high school with extra-curricular activities and numerous AP credits, and there are schools in this state where students aren’t even expected to graduate. Why do we have such disparities? Why do we have so many schools and school systems failing to live up to the promise of free, equitable schooling for the good of our nation? At the crux of it, the answer is money (and I’m not talking about in the schools, but, rather, in the homes).

This is not to suggest that I am against charter schools. In fact, I believe they can play pivotal roles in improving our public school system by serving as incubators for innovation in the classroom. However, they are not an answer in and of themselves. Simply turning public schools into private schools, may benefit certain entrepreneurs, but, unfortunately, will not solve our nation’s education woes. Similarly I think that improving testing standards (particularly to include survey data on things such as student happiness and motivation) can have positive impacts on education and that teacher performance pay is an idea, at least, worth exploring. However, one key variable (that every education study for the past 40 years has demonstrated to be highly correlated to student achievement) is missing from this equation: household income.

Should we continue to fiddle at the edges of reform? Absolutely, improving education is never finished. But, we, as a nation, need to recognize and address the role poverty has on student performance. If a student’s development is stunted by a lack of nutritional health because the parent(s) can’t afford healthy food, this has a negative impact in the classroom. If a parent has to decide between keeping the lights on and going to the doctors office, the stress of this decision will have a negative impact on school performance. If a lack of money causes a mom to leave a child with his alcoholic uncle instead of enrolling him in a pre-school with a positive learning environment, this will have a negative impact on student achievement. If a child has to traverse dangerous streets to go to the library in order to access the internet, instead of going to her bedroom- this will have a negative impact on education outcomes. I could go on, but I think the point is clear: poverty hurts educational development. If we want to see America regain its status as having the best classrooms in the world, we need to focus on reducing poverty.

Before I lay out my vision for addressing poverty, let me add why it is important that our education system improves. This may seem obvious, but beyond education being an end in and of itself, an investment in education is an investment in our nation’s future. This is particularly true as our nation has moved away from a natural resource dependent (i.e., manufacturing) economy and toward a human capital (i.e., service industry) economy. If we have a more educated workforce, we will have a stronger economy.

So, what is the best way to address poverty (thus, ensuring a more educated populace and stronger economy)? In my estimation, there are two main ways. One is to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. This makes each paycheck more valuable by adding additional value through an annual tax refund. To expand it, we can increase the means test and raise the credit limit. Second, we can invest in holistic community development programs that aim to increase the health of entire communities. President Obama deserves plaudits for beginning down this road with his Promise Neighborhoods initiative; however, a few million dollars is not nearly enough to uplift every impoverished community in America. If we are to truly address poverty, we need to be willing to take bold steps. Thirdly, I would like to add that there are myriad other ways to address poverty and I would encourage input on the subject from experts and interested parties from all sides of the political spectrum, but that first we- as a society- have to agree that, to address our faltering education system, we need to invest in poverty alleviation.

I feel obligated to point out that following my recommendations (particularly regarding increasing and expanding the EITC) would likely result in significant positive effects for our economy. Getting more money into the hands of our most needy citizens has a multiplying effect. Because poor people spend higher percentages of their incomes, such a policy initiative would have a stimulatory effect on economic growth.

There will be those that say such a task is too big and too impractical. Other may say that only a naive idealist would suggest such an outlandish step to improve our school system. They may suggest that if we just abolished teachers unions, or we just ended standardized testing, or we just made this small tweak here, or that one there, that everything would come together, our school systems would improve, and all would be right in the world of education. Personally, I think short-sighted approaches to education reform show true naivety. I care too much about this country’s economic health, and too much about equal opportunity, to watch another generation of kids raised without the opportunity to gain a quality education. My personal philosophy of governance is that every child, no matter the circumstances they are born into, should have as close to an equal opportunity in life to succeed as possible. To turn this vision into reality, let’s end poverty.

Andrew Gall
Democratic Candidate for Congress (MD-05)
www.andrewforcongress.org

Michael Swartz, a writer for the Baltimore Examiner, recently wrote up a response to my offer to drop out the race if Hoyer pushes H.R. 1826 (Fair Elections Now) through the House of Representatives, in which he argued that money in politics isn’t a problem and that I’m not a principled voter. I strongly disagree with Mr. Swartz first assertion and take exception to his second one.

MONEY & POLITICS: In his article, Mr. Swartz stated that “Money in politics is not the problem.” Well Mr. Swartz, I reckon we have stumbled upon a fundamental philosophical divide. You see, there’s an old saying around these parts that goes something like this: follow the money. The reasoning behind this is rather elementary. I think we can both agree that politicians want to be re-elected. The rarity of politically courage and the incredibly high rates of re-election speak to this truth. So how do politicians get re-elected? Through political campaigns of course. And how are political campaigns won and lost? Well political campaigns can be lost many ways- from a speaking gaff (à la George Allen) to a poorly designed strategy (e.g., Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign), but they are generally won by creating a good organization, effective advertising, and voter outreach- all of which take money. Consequently, politicians do as much as they can to boost their campaign treasuries. Because we have a system of privately financed elections, this means politicians must appeal to deep-pocketed political donors. Who are big political donors? Well, generally they fall into two categories: rich people and vested interests. The result of this is that rich people have more sway in our democracy than poor people. This goes against the fundamental purpose of democracy- where every person is entitled to an equal say in governance. This skewing of power is also replicated in the second category of vested interests. Because large corporations and industrial alliances have more money than small businesses and emerging industries, the balance of political power is tilted toward the former. This bias is then translated into a skewing of the free market system towards large entrenched interests and away from small businesses and start-up companies. In other words, our economy gets tilted toward propping up existing (and in some cases dying) industries and away from nurturing new businesses that drive economic growth and job creation.

Mr. Swartz is a self-professed right-winger, and right-wingers generally pay homage to the rhetoric of free-markets. If he truly believes in a free market economy, where we don’t have special tax loopholes and giveaways from politicians to their corporate interest donors, then he would support Fair Elections Now. However, perhaps Mr. Swartz, like many Republicans, is more concerned with propping up and serving the rich than he is with actual economic growth and truly free markets.

PRINCPLED VOTER: Mr. Swartz, I take no offence at your analogy of going all in with a “trey- deuce” (in fact I found in rather amusing). After all, I am told I can’t win on a daily basis. But I’m not running because I think the odds are in my favor. I’m running because my principles and values tell me that it important to stand up and try my best to hold Hoyer accountable for him immoral vote to invade Iraq, to stand up and hold Hoyer accountable for his writing into law that telecommunications companies can skip going to trial for breaking the law (a decision which goes against the fundamental American principle of equal justice), and to try and push forward the idea of free and fair elections so that our politics aren’t dominated by a small wealthy elite, but rather are governed by we the people.

It is my principles and my values that guide everything I do professionally, so I do take umbrage with this statement:

Blind ideology will come before principle, so I'm betting Andrew will get with the program and do as he's told like a good liberal Democrat by voting the party line.

Mr. Swartz, if I do vote for Hoyer this fall, it will because I believe our country will be better off with him in the House than with his opponents’ in there. Mr. Swartz, it is my principles that guide my decisions- not blind ideology. If you looked at what I have done and thought about what I am doing, I am confident you would see that.

It was my principled belief of serving the poor- to make life a little bit better for those that need the most help- that led me to serve our country in AmeriCorps VISTA. This principle can also be seen in my guiding philosophy of governance: every child, no matter the circumstances they are born into, should have as close to an equal opportunity in life to succeed as possible. It was my principled belief that Barack Obama would make the best president that caused me to give up a year of my life to work for his campaign. While I’m confident you would disagree with this assessment, you should be able to see that it was not blind ideology, but a principled and deliberative decision. After all, if I was a blind ideology guy, I would have signed up with the Democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton. Most clearly of all, it is principles and values that lead me to my current state as underdog challenger to Majority Leader Hoyer. My principles and values say not to support someone that will vote to send our military off to die without just cause, that will turn his back to the fundamental American principle of equal justice, and that won’t work to reign in the power of special interests in our government. It is my principles and values that push me not wait for someone to fill the void, but to rather take action myself and stand up for that which I believe.

So Mr. Swartz, am I “young and idealistic”? Yes, you are correct about that. Am I ever going to put “blind ideology” before principle? No, you are absolutely wrong about that. Mr. Swartz, challenge my experience, challenge my intelligence, but don’t challenge my principles because I am as principled a candidate for office as you will ever see.

I am throwing down the gauntlet: if Majority Leader Hoyer passes the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826) out of Congress, I will drop out of the race. This bill, which focuses on removing the influence of special interests from our elections, has 156 co-sponsors including Maryland’s own Elijah Cummings, Donna Edwards, Dutch Ruppersberger, John Sarbanes, and Chris Van Hollen.

I am not a single issue voter or candidate: I want to hold Hoyer accountable for his cowardly vote to invade Iraq, I believe that young people should have a hand in shaping our futures, I want to pass climate change legislation, I want to pass a law mandating net neutrality, I want to place increased focus on improving our schools, I want to pass comprehensive legislation that focuses on building healthy and economically diverse communities, I want to pass an infrastructure bill that will bring our nation forward for the next century and create jobs now, I want to curb excessive deficit spending, and I want to change our tax system to encourage entrepreneurship and close unfair loopholes. Nonetheless, I am running first, and foremost, because I want to create as much positive change as possible, and I believe the greatest change we can make is to change how our elections are financed; this is the reform that will pave the way for all other reforms to happen.

The Fair Elections Now Act sets forth a path for public financing of elections to address the quid pro quo politics of privately funded elections. Currently our system skews our free market system toward wealthy entrenched interests, limits the opportunities for regular working people to hold elected office, and costs American taxpayers billions of dollars through paybacks to corporate donors via subsidies, no-bid contracts, pork, regulatory loopholes, and tax breaks. To get politicians to serve the public interest instead of focusing on pleasing their corporate donors, we need public financing of elections.

Noticeably absent from the long list of Maryland congressmen that support Fair Elections Now is Majority Leader Hoyer. If Hoyer had- like the majority of Democrats- voted against invading Iraq, or not lied about his intentions to cut a deal with companies that spied on American citizens, or been a strong supporter of Fair Elections Now, I wouldn’t be challenging him in the Democratic Primary. Unfortunately he did vote for the unnecessary war in Iraq, and he did hypocritically cut a deal to prevent telecommunications companies from going to trial, and he continually fails to stand up to the undue influence of special interests in our political process. Hoyer’s rise to Majority Leader was primarily predicated upon his ability to raise tremendous sums of money which he, in turn, lavished upon other legislators to build allegiances. As such, he is perhaps the greatest symbol of status quo politics- a status quo politics where politicians such as Hoyer get money from corporations like Goldman Sachs in order to push legislative agendas that are in line with said corporation’s interests. This play-to-pay politics works great for wealthy, entrenched companies such as AIG, but does little to cure the ills of the common man or move our country forward in a coherent fashion.

As a clear benefactor of the current system of quid pro quo politics he has no incentive to change how our politics currently work. He has no reason to challenge a political system dominated by moneyed interest. He has no interest in wresting away political control from these interests and restoring our democracy to one of the people by the people for the people. As an outsider and a regular American citizen that cares about the future of my county, I, on the other hand, do. Consequently, I am challenging Hoyer to shift the balance of power away from corporate interests toward the public good.

I want to be as clear as I can: I am not interested in self-aggrandizement, but rather in creating as much positive change as possible. My proof is in the pudding of my offer to drop out. I view Fair Elections Now as the most effective way to create positive change- whether I create this change by becoming the next Congressman for Maryland’s 5th District or by dropping out, is of no consequence to me. Representative Hoyer, I have now provided you with incentive to join the other 156 co-sponsors to pass H.R. 1826. If you do, I will gladly drop out of the race; if, on the other hand, you make no concerted effort to move forward with this bill, I will take it as further proof that you are more interested in personal political gain than creating the change our country needs.

Sincerely,

Andrew Gall
Democratic Candidate for Congress (MD-05)
www.andrewforcongress.org

Perhaps this is just one conservative know-little's analysis, or maybe it's a sign of a recycled talking point to come.

John Feehery, a political pundit who has experience under former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, writes in The Hill that Republicans might be the best fit for Millennials based on the youth's love of free markets. Feehery tries to make his argument based on the Pew Research Center's recent report on Millennials.

While Republicans may seem out of step with Millennials, especially because their social conservatives have such hostility to gay rights and insist so ardently for traditional values, the free-market principles of the party, which stress a light touch on regulation and more freedom to allow a rapidly changing marketplace to evolve on its own, should work well with younger voters who see all of the opportunities that come from the Creative Revolution.

Perhaps Feehery skipped over broad swaths of the data. The release I read discussed Millennials pro-government tendencies. More than half (the only generation that can claim this) of youth favor government intervention and an activist government.

In case pictures aren't your thing:

Millennials are significantly less critical of government on a number of dimensions than are other age cohorts. This tendency has been seen on a variety of individual survey questions as well as on a three-question index of items from the political values survey; this index covers opinions about government’s effectiveness, government regulation of business and whether the government has too much control over people’s lives.

I applaud Feehery's argument that Millennials should be courted, but his analysis that Republicans have a shot at this generation based on non-existent anti-government views is just plain out of whack with reality. The "creativity" argument is creative, but it's wrong. It'll be interesting to see if the GOP tries to use it in a ploy to attract Millennials. Stay tuned.

Update: Andrew Romano of Newsweek makes the same faulty argument. Notice the lack of data simply discussing Millennials' views on government that I provided above.

The basic idea is less government, more liberty, which is far more consistent than the GOP's current platform—and has the added bonus of being far more appealing to the (largely anti-Bush) Millennial Generation as well. As compared to the average American voter, Millennials are less willing to agree that military strength is the best way to ensure peace (52–42 overall vs. 38–58 for Millennials). They are more liberal in their views on family, homosexuality, and civil liberties (especially as compared to the Silent Generation). And they are identical on questions about whether "it is the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can't take care of themselves," which suggests that with old age still half a century away—and with the Boomers threatening to bankrupt the country—they'd see entitlement reform less as a threat than as a precaution. What's more, "while the Democratic Party has a larger advantage among Millennials than it does among the two oldest cohorts, a greater proportion of the party’s support comes from people who do not explicitly identify as Democrats but only lean toward the party." They're Independents, in other words. They could be convinced.

A Pew Research poll released this week showed that Democrats may be losing their grip on Millennials.

The Democratic advantage over the Republicans in party affiliation among young voters, including those who "lean" to a party, reached a whopping 62% to 30% margin in 2008. But by the end of 2009 this 32-point margin had shrunk to just 14 points: 54% Democrat, 40% Republican.

Cue the pundits - even those young Obamaphiles are realizing the dangers of liberalism, right? While some local outlets are probably lazily reporting it this way, we're actually seeing quite the opposite.

Pew's research still shows a heavy tilt toward many liberal stances among Millennial respondents, particularly in the areas of expansion of government responsibility, favoring gay marriage, and resisting the continued military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Futhermore, Millennials are the only generation in the study to have more respondents identify as "liberal" then "conservative." 29 percent identified themselves as "liberal" while 27 percent identified as conservatives.

(We know that the whole notion that youth are liberal until they grow older is, to borrow the British term, poppycock. Research shows that when youth vote for a certain party or form certain political ideologies when they come of age, they tend to keep that voting behavior/ideology over time, despite what many people might think.)

With all this taken into account, young voters are growing disenchanted with the Democratic Party because right now it represents politics as usual. It's not because we fear Democratic liberalism; it's the opposite -- we want more of it! To get it, we need our senators and representatives to find some fortitude somewhere and get moving. The public option resurgence is something to rally around, but it faces formidable challenges in Congress, one of those being Democratic skittishness given the party's lackluster performances in the VA and NJ gubernatorial elections and the special election in Massachusetts.

The bottom line is that as long as Democratic representation in Congress follows a centrist line, it will not be representing the interests and values of the Millennials, leaving more Democratic defections among the demographic likely. 2010 is too important for that.

Update -- A friend correctly points out that the gripes here are with the negotiations in the Senate. The House bill treated young people quite well and on par with seniors. My apologies for failing to distinguish.

Original Post:

If one needed proof that the importance of youth has yet to really penetrate the minds of Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill, look no further than the deal cut on health care. Substantively, I'm one of those heretics who thinks that the public option had been so watered down that its removal doesn't condemn the bill. The insurance regulations -- preventing pre-existing condition discrimination and rescission, for example -- and subsidies plus the longer term efforts at cost containment make the bill a big net win for the country.

But as the public option was stripped out, Democrats saw a need to take care of at least one demographic:

Beyond that, the group agreed--contingent upon CBO analysis--to a Medicare buy in.

That buy-in option would initially be made available to some uninsured people aged 55-64 in 2011, three years before the exchanges open.

In other words, young voters got a public option...for their parents.

The fundamental decisions around this legislation shouldn't simply be about constituencies pursuing their own narrow interests. And, even without a public option, the vast, vast majority of young people will be significantly better off with the passage of this bill than they were without.

But it is disappointing that Democrats would turn their back on a generation that placed so much trust in them. Beyond that, it is politically stupid. Democrats are preparing a narrative that won't work to reach one of their biggest target audiences. Given the heavy overlap between all three of the Rising American Electorate constituencies -- youth, unmarried women, and people of color -- the reality is that Democrats are setting themselves up in a less-than-great way politically.

So the question young people may want to ask themselves is, How can we get Democrats to pay attention to our self-interest? We can't even convince them to care about their own.

I want to follow up Sarah's post with another to underscore something she wrote:

The moral of the story continues to be that young voters will turn out if they are graced with the same outreach as older voters. That is, if you want them to turn out. Progressive candidates can win if they work to engage young voters in their district that connect to progressive issues. As a partisan hack my advice to the other side is to be more conservative and embrace the teabaggers.

We know that if young people are contacted by another peer and asked to register to vote, they're more likely to vote. We know that young voters are courted through peer-to-peer outreach methods by some campaigns, and more likely than not, those campaigns demonstrate success in getting youth to the polls. We just saw a GOP candidate successfully do this in Virginia.

What really concerns me is that Sarah even had to offer her "advice" to Republicans (the Democrat in me echoes it) at the end of her post. Laugh all you want, but if the Republicans continue to operate from a McConnell mode, and the Democrats continue to field campaigns like Deeds and Corzine, with no peer-to-peer operation or youth issues, it's not going to be pretty.

Yes, the mid-terms are still a little over a year away, and these gubernatorial elections pale in comparison to the scale of the mid-terms, but they definitely should be viewed as a lesson. If we start to assume young people are blue when running campaigns, we'll be left seeing red.

Ezra Klein riffs off a new book released by James Monrone and David Blumenthal on health care. I agree with both him and the authors that in 2010, Democrats need to focus on the voters on the progressive base. First, some backfill with Klein quoting Monroe on the topic of the 1994 midterm turnout:

Go back and look at the midterm tsunami that swept the Democrats out of office the last time. The turnout for that wave was just 36 percent. Moderate, fence sitting independents don't vote in midterm elections with a 36 percent turn out.

What really happened back in 1994? The Republican base — jubilant, mobilized and angry — turned out. The Democratic base — dispirited, disenchanted and demobilized — stayed home. As Democrats ponder which way to go in this latest round, they ought to read the political lessons more carefully: Short-term
electoral success rests with the base, the people who got excited about "change we can believe in." Long-term electoral success rests in designing and pushing through a program that then grows very popular.

And now Klein's analysis (emphasis mine):

That's well-phrased: The political danger is not just that a failure on health-care reform will anger the electorate. It will also change the composition of the electorate. Dispirited Democrats will stay home. Energized Republicans will press their advantage. Add in that the wave of young voters who were energized by Obama's campaign probably aren't going to turn out for the midterm election anyway, and you're looking at a pretty unfriendly landscape.

Young voter turnout, was one point lower in 2006 than in 1994, but the fact to really care about is that 2006 was actually an increase in midterm participation. First. Time. Ever. Ezra Klein is no slouch; this guy knows his wonk material. But bringing the negativity to a demographic that really liked the "Change" and "Hope" slogans is counterproductive and a poor strategy. That is, unless throwing in the towel is your thing. In a large part, this blog and the book Mike wrote are dedicatd to the yes we can philosophy. Not for Obama, but for the future of Millennials and our own capacity to take control of our political destiny.

Klein might have missed the analysis by Stu Rothenberg, which Mike blogged about last month, that basically calls for "Democrats to maintain the interest of the youth vote and African Americans." (The constituents who brought the excitement, energy and the votes to the Obama campaign.)

This sounds familiar, doesn't it? That's because it is the exact same analysis produced by Obama/DNC Pollster Cornell Belcher as a sort of "exit interview" on Howard Dean's tenure at the DNC.

Rothenberg goes on to point out that young voter turnout tends to drop precipitously during midterm elections (which is true), however he fails to note that 2006 was the first midterm election in decades in which youth turnout increased, and that young voters swung critical races including the Montana and Virginia Senate races (pdf).

Even party leaders like Chris Van Hollen have talked about the importance of young voters.

So, there's a lot of talk about the youth vote in 2010. What Ezra Klein probably also knows, and perhaps why he so easily slights the youth vote, is that he may know that the DCCC isn't doing youth outreach. Remember that youth turnout went up by three percentage points from 2002 to 2006; that's massive, and there's room for growth. Youth groups can't be the only ones doing field work; their budgets aren't what they used to be. The DCCC needs to step it up and put their money where their mouth is, because that is the path to victory in 2010. Youth outreach today is about winning in 2010 and the future. We'd much rather see our future majority sooner rather than later.