civic participation

I wrote a post the weekend following the election that referenced "thick democracy." During the campaign, President Obama had signaled a paradigm shift in the relationship citizens would have with their government should he be elected. Citizens were not going to merely be spectators, shut out from the government's work. Instead, the new president would ask everyone to pitch in and problem-solve using whatever backgrounds they had to benefit the country. Democracy would be thickened by the infusion of substance. Voting would not serve as the only way to embrace civic engagement; things like serving others, being involved (campaigning, canvassing, etc.) in local politics, pursuing the highest degree attainable, and staying abreast of current affairs also are ways to strengthen citizenship and our country.

We're seeing much of this campaign enthusiasm translate into fulfilled promises and even more enthusiasm. For instance, the Serve America Act has tripled the size of AmeriCorps and increased the education award to over $5,000 per year. The number of applicants for programs like City Year and Teach for America, which was already on the rise before the election, has surged even higher. The increase in number and popularity of service opportunities is a great sign for the future.

But to continue progressing, we need to examine ways to improve opportunities for engagement, especially as these opportunities continue to surge in popularity among young folks. Jo Fullmer at Beyond Bread is correct: we need to continue building the service infrastructure in order to ensure its permanence over the long haul. Fullmer describes her experience in the Lutheran Volunteer Corps, an organization that's not officially related to AmeriCorps, but whose volunteers can receive education awards. Fullmer believes she was fortunate to have an experience that was so engaging and supportive, as many others' do not.

My own service was conducted through the Lutheran Volunteer Corps (which is not technically part of AmeriCorps, though we can receive AmeriCorps education awards). LVC also provides participants with additional financial support, a programmatic structure, and living accommodations within an intentional community. Through this community, I’ve found the support and inspiration to sustain a year of low pay and difficult work. And with the LVC’s support, Bread for the City has provided me the space and trust to try my hand at the work of social justice. As a result, I consider this year of service to have been a privilege.

And yet, that privilege itself is not as widely available and readily exercised by young Americans as it could be. Debt prevents so many from participating, and those who try anyway must struggle to attain loan relief. Even if a year or more of service can be financially feasible, many are daunted without a proper social network or access to a feasible living situation. Opportunities to serve are taken to best advantage when there is sufficient support inside the program.

Supportive living conditions; sustained and sustaining financial support; social engagement – these are the critical components of my successful service. Through improvements designed to foster these conditions, AmeriCorps could become an even more powerful engine of volunteerism and civic participation.

With Jo’s account, we are reminded that not every direct service opportunity within AmeriCorps might be beneficial for Americans wishing to serve, and that some change in that program might be a positive development. I wonder if it is forgetting the political element of service in its work. Service and politics are undeniably related. Common sense says that those participating in direct service to treat small-scale problems (community cleanups, working at a soup kitchen, etc.) care enough about the larger parent issue (the Green Movement, hunger and homelessness, etc.) to support larger, more proactive measures aimed at destroying them. But, to my knowledge (and please comment and correct me if I am incorrect), the majority of those working with/benefited by AmeriCorps have little to do with any larger political approach to solving problems.

But what if it did? How might that take shape? My girlfriend (who's been involved with and has some knowledge of the organization) and I quickly thought of a few changes that might strengthen the civic engagement involved in working with AmeriCorps. While this is by no means a closed list with no opportunity for feedback, I thought I would post what we thought of here.

The expansion of the AmeriCorps appointment from its current two year term to an extra year could improve a variety of problems. Jo discussed the absence of a supportive network in many positions; perhaps a longer term might help this a bit, opening the possibility of longer working relationships between the agency, the AmeriCorps member, and those. Also, another year of eligibility could allow for longer deferment periods on student loans. Finally, the lengthened term could lead to additional changes for the better, listed below.

With an expanded term, AmeriCorps members could be given the space to confront larger, more systemic issues and do so with more than just direct service. Instead of maintaining a static term in which the AmeriCorps member performs direct service each year of his or her eligibility, the term could be tiered: while the first year of service might be direct, AmeriCorps could then create a series of "Issue Advocate" positions for second and third year members of the program. Issue Advocates would become civic experts in their policy area, learning and teaching the ropes of government and non-profits, identifying and leveraging support for certain policies that reinforce the direct service work already being performed.

As it turns out, there's an excellent model for this kind of experience already in place. At the Congressional Hunger Center, the Bill Emerson National Fellows Program links the direct service with the additional issue advocacy needed to solve the massive hunger problem in this country. A description of the program's structure from the website:

Twenty Fellows begin the program in Washington, D.C. for a 10-day orientation and training session, and are then placed for six months with community-based organizations involved in direct anti-hunger and anti-poverty efforts, such as food banks, local advocacy organizations, community organizing groups and economic development agencies. Each host organization identifies specific goals and objectives for the Fellows and provides the supervision and resources necessary to accomplish them. In mid-February, the Fellows move to Washington, D.C. and regroup for another week-long training session before starting their policy placements. Policy placements are with national organizations involved in the anti-hunger and poverty movement. These placements give the Fellows insight into the process that shapes policy on the national level. The program ends in early August.

Someone who I consulted when writing this pointed out that such a holistic experience would be akin to receiving a master's degree in that policy area by the end of that person's direct service and advocacy work. Not only would our problem-solving efforts in various policy arenas be fortified with an expanded version of the Fellows program, but the nation's local communities could gain a considerable number of skilled civic experts.

In order to build the programmatic elements of AmeriCorps though, Jo's call for more infrastructural support should be heeded. Providing a separate housing stipend for participants would provide the additional support Jo called for. The increased stipends in the Serve America legislation was a great start, but starting a separate housing stipend would institutionalize housing support for AmeriCorps members, broadening their compensation package. Those working for AmeriCorps could then focus more on the work they do as opposed to finding an affordable place to live.

In the end, the thinking here is to ensure that we continue to move forward in building a progressive youth movement, which must, at its core, include a vision for expanding programs like AmeriCorps. When expanding AmeriCorps and other programs, we should be concentrating on moving past the direct service and embracing the other civic opportunities inherent in these initiatives. The ideas discussed above are just a few ways to thicken our service infrastructure as we move further into the 21st Century.

• Early voting begins today in Virginia, Kentucky and Georgia. If that's where you live, stop reading this and go vote!
• Next week is Ohio's "Golden Week," when you can register to vote and cast your ballot on the same day. If you want to go help out in the state next week, volunteer here.
• The National Conference on Citizenship released its Third Civic Health Index today. They also held their annual conference today (which I was supposed to attend - apologies to all for not making it down). I'll have more later, but for now, you can read another blogger's take here.
• 29-year-old Nate Willems, also a blogger, is running for State Senate in Iowa. Best of luck, Nate, and we'd love to have you here anytime to blog about the experience.
• Turns out that email is not a dying medium among today's youth afterall. (Warning, this link will take you to the most obnoxious sign-up process in history. Go at your own risk).
• Trying to wrap your head around this economic mess we now find ourselves in? Go read this article in The Nation.
• FiveThirtyEight.com notes that some folks are getting their feathers ruffled as the Obama campaign directs funds away from swag like lawn signs towards other things like field work. Oh, the horror! Hey, sounds right to me.
• Michael Moore is encouraging everyone to download his new movie, "Slacker Uprising," about his tour of colleges and universities in 2004. Moore will by live blogging on Daily Kos tonight at 11pm Eastern.
• The Swing Semester Syllabus is now online.
• The Daily Pennsylvanian has an excellent interview with Howard Dean about the role of young people in this election and remaking the Democratic Party.
• P. Diddy may be off on the sidelines, uploading crazy-ass YouTube videos every week, but celebrity-driven politics is bigger than ever. Ad Week has the skinny.
• New York State College Dems are gearing up for the election. So are a lot of College Dem chapters, but NYS keeps popping up in my Google Alerts and on blogs. They've got a much larger online footprint than other College Dem chapters, which is a good thing. That's how you get noticed. More chapters should be as active within the blogosphere.
• This is funny. A Republican candidate is crying foul over her loss in a recent primary. The crime? Her opponent registered and GOTV'd too many College Republicans. I'm sure there's a joke about eating your young in there . . .

Last week during the Teen Choice Awards, DoSomething.Org honored a young community activist (under the age of 25) that aims to change the world. The winner received $100,000 to continue the community project started prior to the award. Finalists were posted on the Teen Choice website and fans voted for their favorite.

"One amazing young person is going to be recognized for their philanthropic efforts and impact on their community and get the rock star treatment they deserve at the show," said Bob Bain, Executive Producer of TEEN CHOICE 2008.

Do Something is a non-partisan non-profit that believes teenagers have the power to make a difference. They leverage communications technologies to enable teens to convert their ideas and energy into positive action. Their site says "We inspire, empower and celebrate a generation of doers."

"We think young people aren’t just tomorrow’s leaders; many young people are doing amazing things right now," said Nancy Lublin, CEO of Do Something, Inc.

And the Winner is.....

The winner this year winner was 19 year old Chad Bullock who has become the leading youth anti-tobacco activist…and he lives right in the middle of tobacco country. He works with politicians, companies, not for profits and other teens. One of his biggest successes was making the Durham Bulls Arena a smoke-free arena.

This is a unique way for an organization as well as a nationally televised event to convey to young people the impact they can have on the world around them. Young people already volunteer in their communities in encouraging numbers according to CIRCLE.

"44% believe that "people working together" can make a great deal of difference in solving local problems" and "45% believe they can make some difference" by volunteering in their community.

Honoring them and encouraging others to also get involved can continue the civic engagement we now see from the Millennial Generation.

Two Friday's ago I did a blog about the potential for Congress 2.0 and better ways to utilize new technologies and connect our public servants to their constituents, as well as giving constituents a better more meaningful way of contributing to government and getting involved.

An all too perfect example came to the forefront yesterday when Rep. John Culberson, Rep. Tim Ryan, and eventually Sen. Roy Blunt fought it out over the Energy Bill. Instead of doing it in real live on the floor they instead did it on Twitter.

A report Wednesday done by Micah Sifry detailed the twitter users over at TechPresidents

...a pioneer on the House floor who may just be showing the way, Rep. John Culberson of Texas who has, shockingly, been Twittering openly from floor proceedings and is even considering doing some live video-blogging to open up public awareness of what he calls "the darkest and deepest hole in Congress," the House floor.

Ellen Miller [from the Sunlight Foundation] just posted about their exchanges.

As Ellen says, "It’s refreshing to see a member of Congress who personally tweets updates about his work as a legislator, often from the House Floor. We love that he talks specifically about bills being considered in real time so we know how he is going to vote on a pending bill and why.

Culberson is also experimenting with live video-blogging, using a Nokia N95 and Qik.com. He's mulling taking us to the House floor with him, and showing us just how the sausage is made."

The biggest criticism a member has when faced with fierce opposition is the claim that he or she is "out of touch" with the district. What better way to keep in touch with one's district than by using the tubes to bring the Reps into our lives - or in the case of twitter - in the sidebar of my FireFox browser. All the while contributing to the greatest opportunity to create transparency since Andrew Jackson had a big block of cheese in the White House.

In a recent piece about Obama's technological hotness in the Atlantic it goes further to detail how a Web 2.0 Campaign can turn into Web 2.0 Government.

"Obama clearly intends to use the Web, if he is elected president, to transform governance just as he has transformed campaigning. Notably, he has spoken of conducting “online fireside chats” as president. And when one imagines how Obama’s political army, presumably intact, might be mobilized to lobby for major legislation with just a few keystrokes, it becomes possible, for a moment at least, to imagine that he might change the political culture of Washington simply by overwhelming it.

What Obama seems to promise is, at its outer limits, a participatory democracy in which the opportunities for participation have been radically expanded. He proposes creating a public, Google-like database of every federal dollar spent. He aims to post every piece of non-emergency legislation online for five days before he signs it so that Americans can comment. A White House blog—also with comments—would be a near certainty. Overseeing this new apparatus would be a chief technology officer."

Like my props to Downing Street, the Atlantic talks about citizen access to submitting petitions in the UK and continues to agree that the increased participation, communication, and transparency are virtues to a point. The insane mob it might create however they acknowledge might weigh down the efficiency - the first drawback I've really given any credibility to. But I think that the benefits outweigh the problems. Imagine the intern mass who would delight to work in the Department of Technology and sit and play on MySpace all day.... Sign me up!

The finally to the last piece is "The lesson here seems obvious enough: technology has concentrated a fair amount of political power in hubs outside Washington. But Washington has not harnessed that power successfully." To which I respond a resounding - well no shit... And I think that is what makes up the difference between the Clinton vs. Obama machine and what will become the Obama vs. McCain machines.

Campaigns that are more paranoid about losing control or more paranoid about letting people in are the top down models that we see with HRC. To be truly bottom up and truly grassroots or netroots allowing power share is key. I've been asking the same question to some of very netrootsy candidates we've had on here and they've remarked the same. When asked how they knew to do the netroots and what would they say to the techphobic they said

Darcy Bruner

"One of the biggest challenges any campaign faces is how to reach the people who support you - or who might support you, if they knew who you were. And most campaigns use some combination of mail, calling people, canvassing, radio, outreach through local newspapers, and television ads to reach people. But more and more people can be reached online, where they are emailing and reading websites. So it's silly not to try to reach people where they are. . .

Other candidates should figure out where the supporters they need are, and how to reach them, and then should act accordingly. Sometimes that will involve a lot of blog outreach. Sometimes it means using Facebook. Sometimes it may mean developing a really good email list. And nobody knows what new technologies will emerge in the next couple of years. But it's foolish not to try to reach voters where they are - because eventually the other side will."

Jim Slattery

"Kansas is a red state and for a Democrat to win I think we have to employ innovative technology and reach out to new, young voters who haven't previously been involved in the process.

I've been inspired by my two sons, both who are in their twenties, and know a lot about new technology. In addition, I enjoy talking with young people and listening to their ideas. They often have a fresh perspective to an old problem.

I think blogs/blogging/bloggers are a great way to disseminate a message quickly and develop a kind of grassroots following. Yes, it is possible to lose control of the message but often times the opposite happens and a new message develops organically. "

There are few Justices out there that are as hip as Sandra D. Seems the good x-Justice has been spending her time working on video games.

NYTimes reports that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has gone from her post on the US Supreme Court to working to develop video games that create real life scenarios for students to learn the law and create interest in ways to change laws.

"If you imagine what Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is doing in her retirement, you might not come up with this: designing provocative clothing for virtual avatars to wear in a multi-player online game.

But potentially offensive T-shirts, and the First Amendment issues they may raise, are in fact a key part of the computer game that the retired justice is helping design as part of an elaborate civics education program she is sponsoring.

The first section of the game is about a First Amendment issue like a t-shirt that a kid wears to school. This is similar to the real life case of the kid who made a sign that said "bong hits 4 Jesus" for a local school rally.

"Justice O’Connor didn’t describe the actual game play, but she said it will involve players taking different roles in a court argument.

“We will have them arguing real cases, real issues, against the computer and against each other,” she said. “We will use what we know about young people’s enthusiasm for arguing things, for problem-solving and for playing games to get them into this world.”

Later, Justice O’Connor would like to add a case about the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. And down the road, she said she hopes to create similar simulations for the legislative and executive branches of government."

I really respect what the Justice is doing and truly admire the attempts at doing these kinds of educational materials. I worry, however, that this only educates and doesn't necessarily promote the idea of civic engagement.

When you look at the middle school level, I don't know if kids are going to make the link between the way the law is and their power to change what they don't like. We have a hard enough time making that connection for adults and college students who are new registrants.

I would have to see the game or the lesson plan to really understand more about how they are making that link but I'm encouraged and hopeful though admittedly cautious as well. Regardless, its a pretty smokin Justice if she's making video games. That's pretty cool.

I saw a great piece in a local paper that caught my attention about young people pealing potatoes for a community Thanksgiving Dinner.

"I like helping people and making a difference,” said Emily Bertols, a sophomore at North."

Last week we talked about CNN's inability to get the youth vote right in a piece they did in The Situation Room on Friday afternoon. From what I understand another discussion took place that next morning where two commentators were duking it out over the youth vote. While one of them didn't have a clear understanding of why young people matter, he did mention that young people are more involved in their communities than any other age group.

The same happened this week as I was driving to see family down south and was listening to NPR's Diane Rehm's Show and a commentator (I couldn't tell which one) also was very careful to acknowledge that both youth involvement and the youth vote are on the rise.

I guess you could say there is something there to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.

I also thought given these recent developments and in the spirit of the holidays I would remind us how much young people do to get involved and volunteer for their communities.

Not only do we vote, but we care about our community, our country, our future, and our world. Which is more than I can say for some generations. I don't want to get on a holier than thou high horse but I'm proud of my generation's dedication to developing a more livable world and I thought I'd remind us all to give ourselves a pat on the back every once in a while.

Matthew Segal is the founder and executive director of the Student Association for Voter Empowerment — (SAVE), a student-led, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to removing access barriers and increasing civic education for young people. He is also a senior fellow and national challenge coordinator, overseeing policy and lobbying efforts with the Roosevelt Institution — the nation’s first student think-tank.

I must confess: when reading Thomas Friedman’s article “Generation Q” (on 10/10/2007), I couldn’t help but think of a lyric from Bob Dylan’s song “Troubled and I Don’t Know Why,” in which Dylan sings, “Oh what did the newspaper tell?/ Well, it rolled in the door/ And it laid on the floor, /Saying, ‘Things ain't going so well.’” And with all due to respect to Bob Dylan, the times are not a-changin’ in regards to media coverage. Now more than ever, the media can’t wait to uncover the latest scandal, blast someone’s slippage of words, or report on the latest celebrity murder trial.

In other words, it’s easy to talk about how deep a hole we’ve been dug in, it’s easy to carp our optimism when times seem like we should be down and dejected, but in truth, it’s the pervasive negativity of the media that disillusions our peer group—stifling political participation. Mr. Friedman wonders why volunteering in the Gulf Coast region and signing up for Teach for America is so popular. It is because, unlike in politics, youth can enter these fields without risking media annihilation or partisan smear.

What Mr. Friedman has failed to notice about Generation “Q” is that our blogging, think-tanking, and social networking frame news more positively. On these “passive” websites, youth encourage one another, read each other’s thoughts, and spread the word about an interesting service project or a voter registration drive they want help administering. We are more productive than ever before; filling an auditorium is doable by simply creating a Facebook event, rather than spending hours taping up posters all around campus—not to mention the waste of paper. Websites like Facebook are not the activism itself, but merely the means for mobilizing such activism.

So let me ask this question: why don’t we see a story in the New York Times about college students and their efforts to bring organic food to their dining halls? Why doesn’t Fox News run a story about high school students pressing their administration to use renewable energy sources? Where is the news coverage on the newly established youth-led non-profit organizations?

More significant than the possible answers to these questions is the need for these stories to receive increased coverage. Such publicity would inspire more young people, stir more creative juices, and launch more activism. However, in order to achieve this, the media needs more courage— the courage to stop writing about tendentious political gossip and start celebrating youth innovation and creative accomplishment.

Update: Also, one more quick thought. At the end of the day, isn't it setting the bar a little low to ask that people just vote? If your end goal is Civic Participation - which is the express intention of these ads - isn't involvement in a political party or in some form of political activism the real end goal?

I appreciate that folks want to be nonpartisan, or that the particular tax model they've chosen makes ads like these possible, but there is a trade-off with effectiveness that I'm not sure is worth it.
--------------------
So The Ad Council is running a series of new ads in support of that great inherent good, Civic Participation. They are lame.

Vote to get good Karma? How about vote because there are serious issues at stake that impact your life on a daily basis. Voting because it is an inherent good just isn't a compelling sell to someone who isn't already heading to the voting booth on election day.

As a nonprofit, these ads are probably produced pro-bono by fancy Madison Ave ad agencies, but that's an expensive in-kind donation. And they still cost millions to run on TV. I would hope that the folks who support the work of the Ad Council have statistics showing that these types of ads actually do increase turnout and other forms of civic participation, but I can't help but think that money could be better spent.