Boomers

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.

A New York Times piece published this morning sheds light on the generation gap present in views on immigration.

In the wake of the new Arizona law allowing the police to detain people they suspect of entering the country illegally, young people are largely displaying vehement opposition — leading protests on Monday at Senator John McCain’s offices in Tucson, and at the game here between the Florida Marlins and the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Meanwhile, baby boomers, despite a youth of “live and let live,” are siding with older Americans and supporting the Arizona law.

This emerging divide has appeared in a handful of surveys taken since the measure was signed into law, including a New York Times/CBS News poll this month that found that Americans 45 and older were more likely than the young to say the Arizona law was “about right” (as opposed to “going too far” or “not far enough”). Boomers were also more likely to say that “no newcomers” should be allowed to enter the country while more young people favored a “welcome all” approach.

This makes sense given what we know about the diversity in the Millennial generation. The New Politics Institute's 2007 Report, "The Progressive Politics of the Millennial Generation," cites Census data showing that nearly 40 percent of Millennials do not identify as being white. "[A]bout 62 percent of Millennial adults are non-Hispanic white, 18 percent are Hispanic, 14 percent are black and 5 percent are Asian," the report notes. What sharpens the debate is that many of the areas having the most diversity among youth also have fairly homogeneous white Boomer/Silent populations.

Given their demographic diversity, Millennials hold progressive opinions about immigration compared to the rest of the population. The Times piece, for example, provides some anecdotal evidence ensconced in the opinions and stories of youths Meaghan Patrick and Nicole Vespia.

Meaghan Patrick, a junior at New College of Florida, a tiny liberal arts college in Sarasota, says discussing immigration with her older relatives is like “hitting your head against a brick wall.”

[...]

Nicole Vespia, 18, of Selden, N.Y., said older people who were worried about immigrants stealing jobs were giving up on an American ideal: capitalist meritocracy.

“If someone works better than I do, they deserve to get the job,” Ms. Vespia said. “I work in a stockroom, and my best workers are people who don’t really speak English. It’s cool to get to know them.”

Her parents’ generation, she added, just needs to adapt.

“My stepdad says, ‘Why do I have to press 1 for English?’ I think that’s ridiculous,” Ms. Vespia said, referring to the common instruction on customer-service lines. “It’s not that big of a deal. Quit crying about it. Press the button.”

The stories are backed up by data on Millennials. In his 2008 book/project Generation WE, Eric Greenberg cites data revealing Millennials' open attitudes on immigration.

Generation We also has an open and positive attitude toward immigration, much more so than older generations. In the Pew Gen Next poll, 18- to 25-year-olds, by 52 to 38, said immigrants strengthen the country with their hard work and talent, rather than are a burden on the country because they take our jobs, housing, and healthcare, compared to very narrow pluralities in this direction among Gen Xers and Boomers and 50–30 sentiment in the other direction among those 61 and over. In a 2004 Pew survey, 67 percent of 18- to 25-year-old Millennials thought the growing number of immigrants strengthens American society and only 30 percent believed this trend threatens our customs and values—again, much stronger positive sentiment than among any other generation.

Unfortunately, most Boomer-run news outlets do not pay attention to Millennial opinion on this issue. With older Americans voting at higher rates than young people, the age and views of Congress and other officeholders reinforce the fear-driven status quo. Just like many other issues, to change this reality, youth must vote in higher numbers, be willing to run for office themselves, and pair this with some organized, non-traditional resistance to mount a strong opposition.

It might be convenient to take a John Mayer approach and wait for the world to change, but how many hard-working families who already embody American values will suffer in the meantime? This is yet another issue on which we must begin making change now.

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."

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'.

A back and forth with a commenter on my personal blog this week made me reflect on this topic over the last few days. The offending post was the "lazy journalism" piece that I wrote and published here last week. The commenter mostly took issue with the introduction of the post, in which I offered a general commentary on the Millennial generation, noting our generation's penchant for civic involvement and the necessity of a strong, independent press to get the most out of our high level of engagement. The commenter's main issue, after several back-and-forth comments, was my "lauding" of Millennials, as he sought to downplay Millennials' activism compared to the military service of the GIs and Boomers in World War II and Vietnam respectively. Such a comparison is obviously ill-conceived, and it demonstrates a hierarchical view of service, in which military service is valued over other civic opportunities, something I wrote about last summer when McCain showed signs of subscribing to this point of view.

I think it's first important to recognize that whether one is serving his/her country overseas in combat, or doing so on one's homeland, it's still service, and it's still valuable. The famous Kennedy call-to-service ("Ask not what your country can do for you...") doesn't discriminate by whether or not one is fighting overseas. It implies that service of all varieties is a universal value, and certainly an American one. Yes, incredible bravery and patriotism is required to put your life on the line for your country. But distinguished patriotism can also be seen in soup kitchens across the country. It can be seen in community organizers, in hospitals, in non-profits, in school districts, in colleges and universities, in those more fortunate paying taxes to invest in our country's future. One of the best things about America is that everyone has a gift and is able to give back to society should he/she choose to do so.

But if we are going to accept the commenter's argument asserting the importance of military service, let's dig in. Yes, the GI Generation largely fought World War II for America, staring the Nazi's down and defeating them. And young Boomers formed the crux of the American effort in Vietnam, with Elwood Carlson, in his book The Lucky Few, suggesting that Boomers lost 50,000 from their ranks while fighting.

But let's not forget the wartime military service of Millennials. As of last fall, 1.7 million Americans had fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Millennials made up just over 1 million of that number. Ross Cohen, the Director of Civilian-Military Partnerships at Be The Change, Inc. (an organization encouraging citizen-based activism to pursue systemic change), estimates that out of the 185,000 currently deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq, approximately 139,000, or 75 percent of those deployed, are Millennials. On top of these numbers, Millennial veterans also face numerous issues upon their return to the United States. For example, over sixty percent of employers admitted to not completely understanding how military experiences translate into relevant job qualifications. The mental health stigma attached to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans only makes job prospects worse, and that's before the current jobs environment is even considered. So while the wartime efforts of GIs and Boomers should be celebrated, Millennial military service and its undesirable consequences should also be acknowledged.

In the end, whether or not one serves as an activist, a soldier, or in some other way, the important thing is that they're serving. And that brings us back to Kennedy's proclamation made nearly 50 years ago. Kennedy's oft-quoted statement exhorting Americans to serve is well-known, but the following sentences are usually cropped from historical footage.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love...

In other words, America only works when the government believes in it citizens, when the citizens believe in the government, and when the citizens of the world believe in the United States. This relationship is based on a compromise: American citizens, in doing all that they can for their country (through military service and a strong sense of civic engagement), will be promised that their representatives serving them will replicate that effort in their own work, nationally and globally.

The experiment that is America spans many generations, and, as we know from Howe and Strauss, Winograd and Hais, and other generational scholars, each generation possesses distinguished talents and faces unique challenges. When I write about generations here and other places, I'm not saying that one (Millennials) is better than any other; I'm simply commenting on the skills our generation has that, in partnering with other generations' talents, can help make America better.

A few things to check out this evening...

• Barack Obama has created an online community, Renew America Together, linking those serving their respective communities.
• Winograd and Hais give their take on Renew America Together, calling it a "down payment to Millennials."
• McClatchy Newspapers looks at whether the torch has been passed again with Obama's victory.
• Many commentators are arguing that the GOP needs to step up their use of technology to court the youth vote. Spurning C-SPAN isn't a good start.
• Obama, meanwhile, won't let go of his BlackBerry.
• Want a job with the Obama administration? An ex-Clinton appointee gives you some tips.
• The Times profiles Pittsburgh's resurgence after it experienced its own recession a few decades ahead of the rest of the country.
• Campus Progress interviews Kathy Dahlkemper, a freshman Democrat from Pennsylania's Third District, who recently defeated Republican incumbent Phil English. Dahlkemper talks about youth involvement and has a pretty interesting story (I live in the Third District and had an opportunity to talk with Dahlkemper at one of the college meetings she references -- a good person for this district and for young people).
• mcjoan at DailyKos examines the national parks as an opportunity for job creation, a la the Civilian Conservation Corps in the '30s.
• Blagojevich will swear in the Illinois State Senate, which will then promptly put the governor on trial. What great political theater, eh?

UPDATE: I'm listening to this again, and I'm thinking this might just be a horrible joke on the show gone awry, especially after finding out that very little can be taken seriously on this show in the first place.

But I certainly do not put it past someone like Brokaw to make that statement and mean it, especially given his poor analysis through most of this campaign. Which is why I posted this in the first place.
-------------------

In my youthful naivete, I once assumed Tom Brokaw was a decent journalist. I figured that since he was on NBC each night, he must know what he's talking about.

I must have been pretty dumb.

Brokaw was a guest on "Wait Wait...Don't Tell me!," a quiz show on NPR hosted by Peter Sagal. Prior to asking Brokaw trivia questions, Sagal broached the generational conversation (about seven minutes in):

Sagal: Tom Brokaw we have asked you here to play a game we’re calling “The Dorkiest Generation.” So, you’ve written a book about the World War II generation, you’ve written a new book about the generation of the sixties — the boomers. We don’t think you’re going to be writing one about kids today. They won’t even clean up their bedroom for goodness sake. But we also think that because they have been wasting their time…

Brokaw: I’m waiting for a member of this generation to write one that’s simply titled “My Generation Sucks.”

Sagal: The problem is we think these kids these days, these kids in their twenties and thirties — are they kids? I don’t know — they’re wasting their time playing collectable card games these are the games in which you buy decks of custom cards and play them against their friends. It’s like Cribbage for kids who can’t get dates.

Brokaw: Right.

These losers obviously have no clue what they're talking about.

I'm more interested, though, in Brokaw, because he's actually someone that people listen to (sorry Sagal), and he poses as an expert on generations with no apparent knowledge of any of the theory behind the subject.

Every time one of these esteemed journalists or pundits stereotypes simply because it's easy to do (this generation is too quiet, this generation won't vote, there's no such thing as the Millennial Generation, etc.), their own laziness and vanity, revealed in their criticism, immediately disqualifies them from contributing to any rational political dialogue in the future. Why? Because the thing is, it's not hard to be well-informed on the rise of the Millennial Generation, a group any serious political observer should now be taking seriously. Like Mike wrote earlier today, the 2008 youth vote narrative has been far smoother than 2004's, as many of these stories, studies, and articles seem to be written from Future Majority blog posts. All it takes is a few Google searches, and you've got a few pages chock-full of statistics right in front of you.

Of course, if Brokaw took the time to do this, he'd see we don't suck. We're the next "Greatest Generation." Unlike the individualistic Boomers (Brokaw is one), Millennials are civic in nature, confident enough to tackle big problems, and pragmatic and collaborative enough to piece together big solutions. The political dialogue will be changing because of the exhaustion with what Obama described as the dorm room fights taking place in the '60s. A new discussion is already emerging that takes back the meaning of "moral values," applying it to genocide, poverty, and climate change, as opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage, and creationism versus evolution. The results of this election, in which Millennials increased our turnout rate yet again -- the highest rate in 36 years -- demonstrate this civic responsibility and potential. Yet we suck, according to Brokaw, and we're "wasting [our] time," according to Sagal.

We're getting to a point now when it's not so easy to make a lazy assumption about young people anymore. This election, data from other studies, and simple anecdotes are beating back this "young people don't care" bit. It's just too bad that crusty journalists like Brokaw haven't caught up with the times. Perhaps Brokaw should listen to some Dylan.

(h/t to L. Russell Allen at pushback)

As we move closer and closer toward Election Day, I’ve found myself zooming out of the daily back-and-forth of the campaign, focusing on the larger meanings of this election. Since Obama began to seriously challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, I have observed a few different dynamics that, should Obama go on to win the election, would lead to a groundbreaking shift in American politics. I’d like to examine these over two posts -- one today and one next Saturday -- with the understanding and acknowledgment that we still have much work to do and that nothing in presidential politics (including an Obama victory) is a given.

Setting the Stage – Nixon’s Contribution

Earlier this summer I read Nixonland by Rick Perlstein, and I found it fascinating (if you’re at all into politics and current affairs, you must read it). Perlstein looks back at our modern political history, tracing the culture war dynamic present in our politics to Richard Nixon’s campaign for president in 1968, and eventually clear back to his childhood. Prior to running that campaign, the curiosity of Nixon’s strategists was peaked by a memo written by a young, former aide of conservative Bronx congressman Paul Fino named Kevin Phillips; the title was “Middle America and the Emerging Republican Majority.” The effects of that memo have shaped the political battlefield of the last forty years.

The language was new, but the theory was as old as the crusade against Alger Hiss: elections were won by focusing on people’s resentments. The New Deal coalition rose by directing people’s resentment of economic elites, Phillips argued. But the new hated elite, as the likes of Rafferty and Reagan grasped, was cultural – the “toryhood of change,” condescending and self-serving liberals “who make their money out of plans, ideas, communication, social upheaval, happenings, excitement, at the psychic expense of ‘the great, ordinary, Lawrence Welkish mass of Americans from Maine to Hawaii.’ (Perlstein 275-76).

As Perlstein would go on to note, the cultural resentment fostered by the Nixon campaign capitalized on the humiliation many Americans were feeling at not being able to defend what, to them, were obvious American values: “Nixon described the ‘silent center’ as ‘the millions of people in the middle of the political spectrum who do not demonstrate, who do not picket or protest loudly.’ They were loud. You were quiet. They proclaimed their virtue. You, simply, lived virtuously” (275).

Emphasis original. At a time when a crevice was already developing within the electorate, Nixon sought to create a canyon. And he was successful. We all know what happened at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and the 1968 election was one of the closest decisions in history: Nixon nabbed 301 electoral votes to Humphrey’s 191 (George Wallace had 46), but the razor-thin margin in popular vote told the story. Nixon received 43.42 percent of the popular vote, while Humphrey collected 42.72 percent. America was divided, and Perlstein, throughout his book, demonstrates the coalitions’ hardening into the two red-blue political camps we see today.

Gridlock – Red Versus Blue

These red and blue camps, formed in the 1960s, have organized our political culture for the past forty years. If you’re a Millennial, it's all that you have experienced. The two sides slug it out: the party’s candidates and his/her supporters are seen as the “cultural elite.” This candidate is portrayed by the other side as out of touch, and his/her followers are painted as weak and un-American. The other candidate and his/her supporters are seen as stupid fools, voting against their own self-interest and doing it proudly, while lining the pockets and inflating the egos of the conspiring elites.

The most important dynamics in presidential elections since 1968 have not been stances on issues; the “game-changers,” instead, have been the results of the rational-efficient approach taken (the Republicans have been better than the Democrats at applying it, winning seven out of the ten elections over the last forty years). Cheating, preying on fear, and limiting the political discourse to symbols and character assassination have all been incorporated in these campaigns at one time or another since 1968. Republicans, in particular, have their own greatest hits album of win-at-at-all-costs, short-sighted politics (mainly because they've been the party to benefit from this approach): Watergate; Reagan’s “bear” ad in 1984; the Willie Horton ad sponsored on behalf of the Bush campaign in 1988; Pat Buchanan’s speech pushing the culture war at the RNC in 1992; the Bush ad emphasizing the word “rats” in connection with Al Gore in 2000; the “Swiftboating” of John Kerry in 2004; and, in 2008, the attempt to paint Barack Obama as a mere celebrity, and therefore, “not ready to lead.”

The shrinking of the political dialogue is not limited to presidential campaigns. In numerous confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill (especially those of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas), in the filibuster showdown that erupted in 2005, and in Dick Cheney’s directing the phrase “Go f**k yourself!” to a Democratic senator, we have seen the breakdown of the collegiality and devotion to the common good needed in order to make any kind of political progress.

Let’s be clear: the Baby Boomer generation’s relationship with this approach to politics is symbiotic. We know, from Neil Howe and William Strauss, that Baby Boomers inject morals into their politics. Fiercely ideological, they will dig in and refuse to compromise for the greater good, because, to them, the greater good is their cause. Nixon’s emphasis on cultural warfare while in pursuit of drilling a chasm within American society played to the Boomers’ moralistic and individualistic tendencies. And with the political dialogue repeatedly calibrated to Boomers’ minds, the Boomers reinforced, again and again, their brand of politics.

We’ve seen the divisive approach to politics in 2008, especially given the racial and sexual tensions in the nominating contests and the general election thus far. But with the emergence of 1.) the Millennial generation, the civic-minded counter-balance to the values-driven Boomers; 2.) various traumas to the country (9/11, The Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, the Financial Meltdown) that have combined to serve as Howe and Strauss’s “crisis,” and 3.) presidential candidates representing both brands of politics, a perfect storm may be about to strike that transforms the political landscape for years to come. What might this transformation look like?

Please read Part II next Saturday to find out.

Sources cited:

Perlstein, Rick. Nixonland. New York: Scribner, 2008.

Correction: I had written that Joseph was a junior at Stanford University in the original piece. Joseph let me know that he is actually a proud student at University of Wisconsin -- Madison. Thanks for letting me know; my apologies for the mistake! I've corrected this below.

In reading some things this afternoon, I stumbled upon this op-ed in the Daily Cardinal. Written by Joseph Koss, a junior at the University of Wisconsin majoring in secondary education in social studies, this is one of the more inspiring pieces of writing about youth voting I've read this election year. Koss really gets into it after reviewing the youth voting numbers since 1972. It complements what I wrote earlier today.

The baby boom generation has had their chance. They were supposed to be the generation that would indelibly shape the direction of the country for the better. Well, after 16 years of baby boom rule, our country is in the midst of some of our biggest challenges since the Great Depression. We face a dysfunctional political system that seems to be a “tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago—played out on the national stage.”

There is a growing X/Y generational divide forming between those under 40 and those over, and this election is a chance for new voices and new approaches to be heard. But the change must begin with you exercising this right, a right that has seen men spit in the faces of Kings to defend; that has seen free men endure lynchings and unspeakable atrocities to defend; seen grandmothers, mothers and daughters suffer decades of humiliation to defend; and seen Reverends giving speeches about dreams that bring tears to grown men’s eyes to defend. It is a right so easy to exercise that all you have to do is wake up one morning every two years with the determination to find your local polling place and cast a ballot. Yet it is a right so venerated, so exceptional, that people have died just for the opportunity to say they did it. Tuesday, November 4th is your opportunity to help shape this country in your image. Please vote.

To recap:

Yes, the importance of this election is unparalleled (we hear this a lot each cycle). But it's not just because of the problems mounting in front of us.

It's because those in power -- those who have their voices heard on a regular basis -- can't seem to get away from the small rhetoric that is simply not capable of fully appreciating the danger of these enormous challenges.

And it's also because, for once, we have a generation of Americans willing and capable of solving these problems. Young Americans, like Joseph Koss, are itching to put their optimism, their pragmatism, their obligation to civic duty and give back to others, to use. In order to get the most out of them, we need the right leader -- a facilitator-in-chief -- in office. We need someone forward-thinking. We need someone that knows how to rally young people, someone that understands young people -- and yes, that means being able to operate the internet and understand the leading edge of technology. We need Barack Obama.

But, as Joseph Koss wrote, none of this can happen without that trip to the polls.

Sunday reading material:

• The New York Times concern trolls a bit, as they explore whether or not Obama should worry because youth might be disappointed by his responses to the realities of his political situation.
• The GOP thinks they have young voters and that they will continue to add more once young people leave college -- "the bastions of liberal indoctrination." You'd almost think this was a parody.
• A note from the editor of the Jackson Free Press analyzing the movement for change in Mississippi and the demographics behind it.
• Bucks County, PA has launched an effort to increase the number of Millennial tourists with a new PR campaign.
• New Media versus Old Media in Denver: A conference attendee describes the conflict.
• A slightly ignorant analysis of the Obama campaign's use of technology and whether or not his "friends" will turn out to vote.
• What is news? The difference between Millennial news and Boomer news and how it impacts questions of Millennials' knowledge of public affairs.
• Another overview of "Generation WE" (or Millennials) and its impact on politics.
• The apparently necessary annual profile of incoming Millennial college students.
• The AP marvels at the diversity of the four candidates on the tickets of the two major parties.