change

The last ten years have seen a lot of changes for average Americans. Internet is faster. Networking is easier. The world has watched us and laughed...and lately, looked on us for guidance with a new respect. For me, the biggest change has been taking an interest in my government and what it does. Since I was only 7 when this decade started, I think I can be forgiven for my lack of civic involvement.

Adam Rogers, at change.org, has an interesting post out with his Utopian vision for the next decade of gay rights. He's got everything; a handful of openly gay Governors, Tammy Baldwin as Speaker of the House, President Linda Sanchez, SecEd Jared Polis, and marriage equality secured in most states. He also threw in the demise of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and a few federal laws and regulations that have been a long time coming.

Kristin Ivie, with Social Citizens (whose quiz tells me I AM, in fact, a Social Citizen!), compiled a list of thoughts and comments from leaders like Maya Enista, Ben Rattray, and Jason Rzepka.

Rzepka, Vice-President of Public Affairs at MTV, makes the point that in 2000 nobody really could have predicted the huge changes that were made in the last decade. Which made me realize it probably isn't a good idea to try to make specific predictions.

I had grand ideas of writing a big ol' post about everything I think might happen in this country over the next ten years. I also considered writing about the last ten years (as E.J. Dionne has - and he did a good job, too). But, instead, I'm just sharing with you these few articles on the past and the future...on our failures and our hopes.

As for me, I am optimistic. A lot of young progressives are doubtful about 2010. They're worried about what will happen over the next few years - what if 2008 was a one-time-deal? I'm confident that this decade will be a good one for us. We may not win every battle but in the overall struggle, we are always inching forward. The 2010's will be no different. I know this generation will not accept that we have come this far - we have achieved so much - to stop now. We will continue to fight. We will meet the challenges that face us head-on, and we will find success in this new decade.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After looking at the built-in demographic advantages the Democrats enjoy, Michael Hais ties his post back to today's Democratic strategy.

The United States is a changed and continually changing nation. Taken together, these changes have made America a more diverse and more open nation. To a large extent these changes occurred because of Democratic efforts over Republican opposition. This should let the Democratic Party face the future with confidence and courage rather than the fear and paralysis that seems to be gripping it a year after the election of Barack Obama and a large congressional majority. But, the Democratic Party's opportunities cannot be taken for granted. The first step in taking advantage of those opportunities should be looking toward the America that is and will be and not looking back to the country that was.

Emphasis is mine. I suppose this is an echo of Colin's post below. There's a popular saying in hockey -- skate to the puck. Meaning, anticipate where the puck is going to be, not where it is. The decision-makers, particularly those within the Democratic Party, would be well-served to find their inner hockey player and follow that advice.

This video's gotten plenty of traffic this week, especially since Seth Godin discussed it on his blog, but I thought it was worth posting here as well.

The set-up: a lone dancer decides to express his appreciation for the music being played at a music festival. Hundreds of other festival-goers sprawled on the ground surrounding him either try to ignore him as much as possible, or they simply tune him out, not interested in his counter-cultural behavior. Except for one person. He decides he wants to join the dude, even if it's because it looks like a good time and he's doing it for the enjoyment of his friends. Some time passes before a third person arrives, dancing, and obviously enjoying himself. You'll see that eventually the counter-cultural dancer becomes the new leader of a dominant culture - a carefree dance party that happens to be attending a music festival.

As we move down the road toward big change in our energy and healthcare policies, there is an increasing number of calls for change in our education system. And I'm not referring to the cliched change we hear from every politician running for an office. I'm talking about actual, systemic change that many might consider radical.

Harry C. Boyte from the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship, housed in the university's Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, wrote a post on Wednesday which referenced a few other works that, one by one, challenged integral parts of our education system, including our core philosophy as a country. Boyte rightly laments the increased specialization of our education system, in which students, once pursuing what they wish to pursue, are trained to silo themselves off from the rest of the academy. Boyte wants to return to "civic education."

How do we develop citizens and citizen leaders who work with others to solve problems and build a flourishing democratic society? This question, the heart of civic education, was once at the center of American schooling, from kindergarten through higher education. In recent decades it has been increasingly neglected. We are faced with the challenge of breaking out of gated communities of our minds and work identities that are as sharply drawn as those of our neighborhoods. In recent months, a growing number of leaders in higher education have called for far ranging change in our institutions to address this.

One of the pieces Boyte uses to support his argument is written by Mark Taylor, the chair of the religion department at Columbia University. Taylor trashes today's system of higher education in the United States, noting that the gap between today's academic specialists and the tools and knowledge needed to solve our largest problems is expanding at an alarming rate. Taylor calls for tenure to be abolished and for an end to the organization of academia by discipline. Instead, Taylor believes that we should produce a list of problems to conquer. Not afraid of generalities, Taylor offers his own example of a list: "Mind, Body, Law, Information, Networks, Language, Space, Time, Media, Money, Life and Water." Taylor envisions these problems as opportunities forcing academic disciplines to converge and use their special knowledge in collaborative actions as opposed to exclusive ones.

The reason I like this idea so much is why Boyte seems to dig it. Our capacity for solving large problems in this country is diluted because of the deterioration of civic thought. Developing citizenship and citizen leaders, as Boyte labels it above, seems to have flown under the radar of those formulating the curriculum and solidifying the structure of American education. Months into Obama's presidency, buzz surrounds the importance of service-learning and political engagement in the media. Fortunately, there are examples of the service piece of citizenship being taught and practiced within the classroom. But unfortunately, you'll notice that many of the examples journalists use of young people engaging in political activity cite college students who had to take time off school in order to participate. Young people had to be politically involved despite their education. Furthermore, there's a missed opportunity when service is not connected to politics: to serve is a political act. What's needed is the solidification of a link between education and patriotism/citizenship: to be educated is to be a problem-solver. This is why Barack Obama's line comparing dropping out of school to dropping out on one's country in his joint congressional speech in February was both effective and encouraging. By dropping out, someone is resigning themselves to allowing problems to overwhelm the country.

Education should be seen for what it is -- a public good. Education is not merely our supertrain to be used to catch up with China and India. Before we even entertain the thought of that, perhaps we need to know who we are as a people and how we can use the knowledge we gain to solve the gargantuan problems we face. Those designing our education system would be well-served to keep JFK's advice in their heads -- the education system should help us recognize and pursue what we can do for our country. It's common sense, but that is the change in higher education we need to see.

From www.juniorpolitics.com

A few days ago I overheard my coworker discussing the elections with one of his buddies over the phone. He was speaking quite loudly, so it’s not as if I was eavesdropping. It provided me with the rare opportunity to figure out what political party he backs. Now, I’ve heard of people who do not like Obama, either they do not like what he stands for, they don’t think he’s qualified enough, etc. But this guy is talking about Obama like he’s going to bring the end of the world. I’d never heard harsher terms directed at him. In the meantime I’m thinking to myself, what is this guy talking about? He’s just another guy with a fresh perspective, what’s so bad about that?

Republicans in the ideal would prefer less government to more. This guy made that perfectly clear: he does not want more government in his life. I can understand that. However, I think it’s incredibly selfish to say that government should stay out of people’s lives. The government is there to protect us. Without government survival of the fittest would surely kick in and then wouldn’t everyone just have a blast… Anyhow, there are those that need the government’s protection. I mean we’re not paying taxes into the system for nothing, right? Those who haven’t been able to find a job in a while (and yes it can happen, and no those people are not being lazy) need government action to help them. The poor need the government’s assistance to pull them out of the downward spiral they are in. There are always going to be those less fortunate than ourselves, we can either let them drown or help them up. How is helping others the end of the world?

Yes Obama is going to try to change the status quo America has set up for itself. Yes change can be scary, especially to the older folks, but it shouldn’t have to be that way. No one who has run for the office of the presidency in the United States has been evil in my lifetime. Everyone has good intentions, and yet bias gets in the way of people’s thinking, as do emotions. Fear comes from misunderstandings, misconceptions, and from ignorance. To be fearful of Obama is to be misinformed as to who he is. Here is my advice: read up on every candidate running for office. Especially focus on McCain and Obama but it wouldn’t hurt to look up the candidates running on the libertarian ticket or another independent ticket. If anything, it’ll help you to sound a little more intelligent if you ever need to go toe-to-toe with someone in a political debate.