generational warfare

Continuing our coverage of attempts by conservatives to wage generational warfare on the issue of entitlements, I'd encourage everyone to read this opinion piece by Robert Kuttner in today's Washington Post. As the President's suddently-low-key entitlement summit is underway today, Kuttner skillfully pulls apart the disingenuous arguments of so-called deficit hawks and tries to drive a stake into the heart of the "generational theft" meme:

The deficit hawks' story also contends that we are sacrificing our children's future by too much (deficit) spending on the elderly. In fact, today's young adults are already falling out of the middle class because of the high costs of the investments we don't adequately finance socially -- child care, college tuition and health insurance. But fiscal conservatives seldom call for increased investment in the young. Today's young, of course, will be tomorrow's retirees, and they will need social insurance, too.

The overall bottom line? The economy we bequeath to our children has everything to do with getting growth back on track and almost nothing to do with imagined future deficits.

Also worth checking out today is a new project of Demos and the Century Foundation: The Fiscal High Road. It's a data-rich site meant to push back on the misleading arguments and generational claims made by the Petersen Foundation and other "entitlement reformers." Here's a quick slideshow they put together explaining the status of three distinct programs - Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - that are often disingenuously lumped together under the term "entitlements."

As an aside, while I think this slide show has some great graphs and data in it, and I'm glad to see Demos and the Century Foundation pushing these ideas, they might be better served repackaging this data in a short video/animation (like this) rather than as a Power Point presentation.

Governing is like parenting; people with more wisdom, experience and knowledge set the course of government and policy for younger, and yet unborn, generations. And just like in parenting, children and parents don’t always see eye-to-eye. Some of this is due to a generational gap in our respective world views, but that isn't everything.

Last week, the FutureMajority team responded with three separate posts about the notion of generational debt, a term bandied about by the GOP to underline, purportedly, the financial burden that younger generations will inherit if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is passed. While generational debt is used as a political wedge in this context, it has a broader meaning that, as Millennials, we must consider, and not just for our sake but for future generations as well.

In the early days of the United States, when Thomas Jefferson served as Ambassador to France, he worried about generational sovereignty--the supreme power that the living hold over the unborn. To put it another way, he thought it tyrannical for a generation to impose laws and policies on a younger generation, without that generation having much input. What sparked Jefferson’s thinking on this topic, as chronicled by historian Joseph Ellis in American Sphinx, was the French Revolution. Specifically, Jefferson bore witness, first-hand, to the effects of national debt on a country’s stability. On a micro-level, this is one of the causes of the cycle of poverty, where each succeeding generation of a family cannot get ahead because of inherited debt, among other things. Passing on debt to future generations led Jefferson to some extremist views about governing. His solution to generational sovereignty was to eliminate laws and policies every generation, so that the next could craft their own.

Let's return to modern times: the legacy and cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Bush tax cuts, won’t be fully realized until later. The same goes for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provides over $288 billion in tax relief. From where will the money come to pay for all of this? It will probably come from us, our children, our children’s…you get the point. More importantly, we need to turn away from the antiquated thinking that only business provides solutions and that government is the problem.

We don't all have a stake in business, but we do have a stake in government. Change through business is more difficult for a younger generation to accomplish because the currency of power is money, literally. And if you’re straddled with college debt or inherited debt, then it makes it difficult to be a power broker. It used to be the same way with politics--money was king, and still is to a certain degree. But there’s an old currency reemerging on the block, and it’s more equal, fairer and empowering--citizenship. The 2008 Presidential election taught us that citizens rule, and the Millennial generation proved that by voting 2:1 in favor of President Barack Obama (PDF), a person committed to governing for everyone, not just the political left or right. What this also means is that no longer will older generations be the only stewards of government and policy. Young Americans are shaping the course of today’s politics by demanding transparency of and access to lawmakers.

Web 2.0 is help making this happen, but it’s no panacea--no single thing ever is. Other components include deliberative dialogue (online and offline) and changes in our personal attitude. Generational warfare may be a reality right now, but we should move away from it and take a more constructive, positive approach to inter-generational issues. That means we should listen to one another and be patient about change, because it isn’t easy for everyone. Slow change works because it doesn’t leave folks too far behind (physically, intellectually, financially, etc.). America has always been about slow change, but the frenetic pace of technological advancement is putting that in jeopardy. Those that are technologically savvy can get ahead with greater ease and at a faster pace.

Guarding against pride is another concern, one that strikes at the heart of inter-generational conflict. Generational tyranny will be exacerbated if we think that we are wiser and fairer just because we support gay rights and universal healthcare, or because we ushered in a new era of progressivism. Our children will likely think they are the fairest and the wisest--will we listen to them?

Progressivism isn’t about driving wedges between communities or generations; it isn’t about issue politics, either; it’s about building bridges, however slowly or awkwardly, to incorporate all Americans into the democratic process based on principles of equality and freedom. What that means practically speaking is being a little less cynical and judgmental about that litterbug you passed by on the sidewalk or the GOP when it tries to use the Millennial generation as a political pawn. President Obama reminds us that we are all Americans, even when we disagree, and we should realize that inter-generationally and not just politically. If we can accomplish that, then our children will reap the rewards of our example and carry it forward without a proverbial chip on their shoulders. Democracy, in fact, is the long, hard slog against our own desire to impose our will onto others. We can only do it together.

It's nice to have Nobel Prize winners on your side. Here's what Krugman has to say about the Right's generational warfare talking point (emphasis mine):

And the rhetorical response of conservatives to the stimulus plan — which will, it’s worth bearing in mind, cost substantially less than either the Bush administration’s $2 trillion in tax cuts or the $1 trillion and counting spent in Iraq — has bordered on the deranged.

It’s “generational theft,” said Senator John McCain, just a few days after voting for tax cuts that would, over the next decade, have cost about four times as much.

It’s “destroying my daughters’ future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs,” said Arnold Kling of the Cato Institute.

If you've been listening to the Republicans lately, you could be forgiven for thinking that Democrats are nothing more than socialists in capitalist clothing, looking to steal bacon-flavored lollipops from babies and redistribute that candy to appease pork-hungry interest groups.

What else are we to make of these statements by prominent conservative pundits and Republican party leaders? (emphasis mine)

Michelle Malkin:

Barack Obama has dubbed his behemoth fiscal stimulus proposal the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." But if truth in advertising were required of White House plans, only one title would fit the trillion-dollar-plus-and-growing bill: The Generational Theft Act of 2009. [...]

Moreover, despite Obama's earnest-seeming pledge to block all earmarks, there will be an inevitable lard-up of the stimulus. When has there not?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell signaled openness to the plan over the weekend as long as the GOP gets nominal input and kabuki hearings. The lard-up will guarantee that future capital is diverted to superfluous pork projects ("green jobs") and away from productive private enterprise. Instead of basic roads and bridges, infrastructure spending will go to bloated unions overseeing pie-in-the-sky construction projects like the $30 billion-plus high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco, which California officials fully expect to be funded.

Minority Leader Boehner:

Between the “stimulus” spending package and other spending ambitions held by the Democratic Party, “it seems likely that the deficit for this year will approach $1.7 trillion,” American Enterprise Institute scholar Kevin Hassett notes. “If your family income in 2006 was between $75,000 and $100,000, the extra taxes that you will have to pay at some point in the future [as a result of the additional borrowing by Congress] add up to about $14,000,” Mr. Hassett says.

The hundreds of billions of dollars Washington is borrowing to finance this pork-barrel monstrosity will come from our children and grandchildren. This is not “stimulus” – it’s generational theft.

George Will:

It is said that the negligible Republican support for the stimulus legislation means that bipartisanship is dead. But what can "bipartisanship" mean concerning legislation that concerns almost everything?

John McCain probably was eager to return to the Senate as an avatar of bipartisanship, a role he has enjoyed. It is, therefore, a measure of the recklessness of House Democrats that they caused the stimulus debate to revolve around a bill that McCain dismisses as "generational theft."

John McCain:

While I'm touched by the GOP's new-found concern for our youth, I'm curious as to why such concerns never materialized over the last 8 years as a Republican President turned record budget surpluses into the worst deficit in American history. President Bush achieved that legacy - aided by Rep Boehner and Senator McCain - by failing to invest in American infrastructure, turning a blind eye to the self-destructive practices of Wall Street and the banks, and championing massive tax cuts for the rich such that economic disparity in America is now greater than it has been at any time since The Gilded Age. Forgive me if I find it disingenuous that two figureheads of the party that turned a blind eye to Bush's tax cuts and spending policies, and enabled this new "Gilded Age," are now crying "generational theft."

Of course, such claims also ring hollow for historical reasons. About a decade ago - right before Bill Clinton started to create record surpluses in the budget - Republican lawmakers and conservative activists issued a similar war-cry on behalf of future generations:

The story of "generational conflict" begins with a handful of strategists and their organizations, the media sources for the myth of Generation X. The first of these was Americans for Generational Equity, or AGE, an organization that demonstrates that with proper funding, it's possible to launch an unsubstantiated idea and see it turn into the standard media view.

AGE had three adept founders and leaders: executive director Paul Hewitt, who continues to direct campaigns to privatize Social Security from his base at the right-wing National Taxpayers Union; research director Philip Longman, who recently published an anti-entitlement tome called The Return of Thrift; and Sen. Dave Durenberger (R.-Minn.), who later pled guilty to theft of public funds.

AGE was the first organization to put political muscle and public relations clout into promoting the notion of "future intergenerational conflict." Their thesis was two-fold: resources devoted to the elderly come at the expense of children; and young people will eventually mobilize against the elderly to reclaim their share of the pie. They immediately found media willing to cover these claims (e.g., Wall Street Journal, 1/13/86).

As we all know, the 8, 9, and 10 year-olds on whose behalf they claimed to speak cast their first ballots last November, and they resoundingly rejected such conservative philosophies.

The facts of the matter are simple. We're facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and the question on the minds of most economists isn't "how big will the deficits be," rather, it's "will the stimulus be big enough to plug the gaping holes in our economy." The economic recovery package isn't $800 billion in pork or wasteful spending, rather it is a stop-gap to save jobs, and a mid- to long-term investment in the future our citizens, our infrastructure, and our economy.

In its final form, the stimulus package will:

• Modernize more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of 2 million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. The plan will also double American renewable energy-generating capacity over three years.
• Make the immediate investments necessary to ensure that within five years, all of America’s medical records are computerized, reducing medical errors and saving billions in health care costs.
• Equip thousands of schools, community colleges, and public universities with 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries.
• Expand broadband across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world.
• Enact the largest investment in America’s crumbling roads, bridges and transit systems since the creation of the national highway system.
• Invest in high risk-high reward science-based research and innovation, and bring it to market—to invent the technology the world uses, and prevent and cure deadly and costly diseases.

As for the economic well-being of "future generations," as my coblogger Karlo ably described in his post earlier today, there are plenty of provisions in the final package that will help give today's youth, and tomorrow's, a leg-up: providing them with more education and employment opportunities, a cleaner environment, a more efficient health care system, and less personal debt as the price of entry to a middle class life. Here's a look at just a few such provisions:

• $19 billion, including $2 billion in discretionary funds and $17 billion for investments and incentives through Medicare and Medicaid to ensure widespread adoption and use of interoperable health information technology (IT).
• $1.1 billion to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, NIH and the HHS Office of the Secretary to evaluate the relative effectiveness of different health care services and treatment options.
• $53.6 billion for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, including $39.5 billion to local school districts using existing funding formulas, which can be used for preventing cutbacks, preventing layoffs, school modernization, or other purposes; $5 billion to states as bonus grants for meeting key performance measures in education; and $8.8 billion to states for high priority needs such as public safety and other critical services, which may include education and for modernization, renovation and repairs of public school facilities and institutions of higher education facilities.
• $13 billion for Title 1 to help close the achievement gap and enable disadvantaged students to reach their potential.
• $12.2 billion for Special Education/IDEA to improve educational outcomes for disabled children. This level of funding will increase the Federal share of special education services to its highest level ever.
• $15.6 billion to increase the maximum Pell Grant by $500. This aid will help 7 million students pursue postsecondary education.
• $3.95 billion for job training including State formula grants for adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs (including $1.2 billion to create up to one million summer jobs for youth).
• $4.5 billion for repair of federal buildings to increase energy efficiency using green technology.
• $11 billion for smart-grid related activities, including work to modernize the electric grid.
• $6.3 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Grants.
• $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program.
• $2.5 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy research.
• $2 billion in grant funding for the manufacturing of advanced batteries systems and components and vehicle batteries that are produced in the United States.
• $6 billion for new loan guarantees aimed at standard renewable projects such as wind or solar projects and for electricity transmission projects.
• $1 billion for other energy efficiency programs including alternative fuel trucks and buses, transportation charging infrastructure, and smart and energy efficient appliances.
• $21 billion in COBRA premium assistance provides a 65% subsidy for up to nine months to help workers who lose their jobs keep health coverage.
• Child Care Development Block Grant: $2 billion to provide quality child care services for an additional 300,000 children in low-income families who increasingly are unable to afford the high cost of day care.
• Head Start & Early Head Start: $2.1 billion to allow an additional 124,000 children to participate in this program, which provides development, educational, health, nutritional, social and other activities that prepare children to succeed in school.
• $555 million to expand the Department of Defense Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) during the national mortgage crisis.

To be sure, this will not be the last time we hear Republican's express concern about "future generations." This will come up again when we begin to debate Social Security and Medicare reforms, and conservative activists already used this meme to make a play for young voters during the election. We're going to continue tracking how the GOP uses this meme throughout the year.

Recent right-leaning editorials have picked up a new theme that may surprise you--their great concern for future generations and how today's policies will affect them. Check out this quote from the Rome Sentinel (Feb 9) in reference to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan:

"It is not too late to stop the ill-designed bill in Congress that, financed as debt, is more a generational theft act than a stimulus bill. Larded up as it is, the "stimulus" bill is still a "porkulous" bill even after the so-called concessions to moderates.

"The bill, more than 1,000 pages long, is a perverse form of thrusting unnecessary debt on our children.

"Congressman Michael Arcuri and Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand cannot escape responsibility for what will become known as The Generational Theft Act of 2009."

Did the GOP call it generational theft when they sent young Americans to fight and die in Iraq under false pretenses? What about when the national debt nearly doubled in the last 8 years? They certainly didn't call it generational theft when they opposed higher environmental standards to ensure a healthy earth for future generations.

Is the GOP aware that this bill aims to help "our children" by investing in them?

A 2007 Tax Foundation report by Chamberlain and Prante found that "[o]ver a lifetime, government spending follows a U-shaped pattern with large education and welfare spending in youth [aged 25 and under] and large Social Security and Medicare payments in old age."

I think it's reasonable, as a tax-paying adult between the ages of 26 and 54, to assume the "burden" of repaying an older generation for being your fiscal steward in addition to providing more and more opportunities for future generations to become the most wise, peaceful, and equal generation of its time. This type of behavior is ideally seen at the national-level and at the family-level.

Millennials will face new challenges when caring for the Baby Boomer generation as they near towards retirement. What they don't need are unnecessary financial burdens that make it difficult for them to succeed early on in their adult lives. Young people are already saddled with a "burden", and the GOP needs to recognize and respect that reality.

Imagine for a moment that you are trying to traverse a hill. The hill represents how much taxes you expect to pay over your lifetime. One end of the hill is the start (the beginning of your life), the top of the hill is middle-age, and the other end of the hill is, well, six-feet-under. At both ends of the hill, you pay relatively little in taxes, and the top of the hill is when you pay the most in taxes. This is what tax-paying looks like throughout the course of one's life. For some generations, traversing this hill was made easier (but not faster), because the government helped invest in the well-being of the tax-payer very early on in life.

This is not the case with Millennials. The rising cost (PDF) of college and beyond has not resulted in a proportionate increase in services or resources. When you place this fact of rising costs into the context of rising college attendance, the effect is magnified. The share of young people that have attended college has increased 21 percentage points from the 1970s to the present (PDF, pg. 5). What's more is the fact young people with post-graduate degrees on are on the rise, too. What all this amounts to is a more difficult (but not slower) journey over the hill. It's almost as if Millennials have to carry a heavy backpack (read: student debt) and still keep pace with everyone else. Now add to that the fact that the end of the hill for Millennials is much farther away than it is for previous generations due to longer life expectancy.

That's why the higher education provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan are so important, allowing for students to access money from the government at a more reasonable rate than private firms offer; increased work study money means that already busy students who need money can earn it while gaining valuable skills in a student-friendly work environment. The bottom line is that the stimulus plan lightens the backpack of debt that young people are carrying very early on in life, so that their fiscal stewardship can be just as good as previous generations.

When I think of the way that campaigns and politicians reached out to young voters this year, I have to say that the GOP doesn't come to mind as the model group of youth friendly politicos.  

Republicans also haven't been the most friendly when it comes to supporting policies that impact young people.  In 2007 when the House worked to take millions from subsidies that went to providers of student loans and instead gave them as a supplement to increase Pell Grants,  the President threatened to veto it.  

In 2005 when there was a push to increase funding to Pell Grants in a stimulus package and Sen. Arlen Spector (R-PA) said he

"opposes the proposed increase in funding for Pell Grants for College students because it would do little to spur short term economic growth." CollegeConfidential says.

There were 149 no votes in the House on the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007.  Minority Leader John Boehner said he opposed the bill because

"While Democrats insist on burdening taxpayers with new spending and higher taxes, House Republicans have presented plans to balance the budget without raising taxes, keep federal spending in check, and let middle-class families keep more of their own money."

"Plans to balance the budget" is the funny part of that... well... the whole thing is kinda a joke.

Finally, President Bush and many Republican members (along with Democrats) pushed for an $800 billion bailout to financial institutions before the election in November to stop the hemorrhage caused by, among other things, some pretty irresponsible lending practices.

The current stimulus package gives money not to the banks but directly to the people and again gives more money to Pell Grants not to mention money for better equipment in schools, and expanding broadband across the country so rural America can finally have better access to information.  

Yet John McCain, in a sudden decision to begin advocating for young people, has described this as "generational theft."

So giving money to the banks is ok - but giving money to people is theft?  

McCain claims

"We are robbing future generations of Americans of their hard-earned dollars because we are laying on them a debt of incredible proportions."

What was his excuse before?  I mean, John McCain quit his Presidential campaign to work on the Banking Bailout .... Where was the fiscal restrain then?  Where was this fiscal restraint 8 years ago when Republicans signed a blank check to President Bush for unfunded tax cuts and approved year after year of borrow and spend policies?

Last year during the election I followed US Senate candidate Jim Slattery around on a campus tour he made across Kansas.  Slattery pushed a similar higher education plan to then candidate Obama saying that students needed a $5,000 college tuition tax cut.  Slattery said young people are owed things like this because under Republican rule they have cut taxes while overspending to such an extent that it amounts to "intergenerational robbery."

When Slattery described it - I understood... it made perfect sense.  President Bush and the Republican House and Senate in 2001 inherited a budget surplus that they then turned into the worst deficit in American history.  Because of Republican spending and irresponsible Republican tax cuts our government is so underfunded and services are so scarce that we now face an economic recession unrivaled since the Great Depression.  We have zero global competitiveness, our students remain undereducated compared to our global counterparts, and only now are Republicans saying - we should exorcise restraint when Americans need it most?

The income disparity is the worst that its been in over 100 years and Republicans like John McCain actually want to claim that giving money directly to the people who need it most is theft?  A Bank Bailout was ok... but a People's Bailout is wrong?

To me this just seems like another blaring examples of how Republicans claim to love America but clearly can't stand supporting Americans.  Rather than work in a bi-partisan way and be grown-ups about the whole thing, as Paul Begala says its more "Republican strategy of deny, delay, and do nothing."

Luckily young voters don't buy it.  National polls overwhelmingly support for the President's stimulus package with and without changes, and many state reports even in red-state-America like Utah have young voters behind the package and supporting the President.   

This leaves me to wonder if the GOP is only pretending to use the concept of future generations because its politically expedient for them to do so, or if there is a real genuine need to reach out to youth and they're just bungling it so miserably.  Either way, this stimulus goes to people who need it - not corporations or the wealthy 2%... this is the change we voted for.

Speaking of conservative talking points aimed at scaring youth about future debt, MSNBC's First Read is reporting that the Peter Petersen Foundation is set to launch a $1 million ad blitz about the need for entitlement reform:

As the Senate debates an economic stimulus plan whose price tag could come close to $900 billion, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation -- a non-partisan group created to bring awareness to the nation's rising spending and entitlement costs -- is launching an ad campaign [pdf] to urge the Obama White House and Congress to address long-term fiscal challenges.

That campaign began today with a print advertisement in the Washington Post and Roll Call. "Today's economic crisis is just the tip of the iceberg," the ad says, with the picture of a gigantic iceberg. "We must also focus on a much larger yet less visible threat: the $56 trillion in liabilities and unfunded retirement and health care obligations (that’s $483,000 per U.S. household), and the dangerous reliance on foreign lenders, that threaten our ship of state."

Tomorrow, Peterson Foundation president Dave Walker -- along with Sens. Kent Conrad (D) and George Voinovich (R), and Reps. Frank Wolf (R) and Jim Cooper (D) -- will hold a press conference to announce the group's full plans for a $1 million-plus advertising campaign.

Petersen has long been an opponent of entitlements and a promoter of generational warfare narratives. Most recently, his foundation was behind the production and distribution of IOUSA, a scare-tastic look at America's debt and entitlement programs that was thoroughly debunked as one-sided and misleading by the Center for Economic Policy Research.

Entitlement reform and debt will be the wedge issues that Republicans try to use to divide the Millennial Generation and the Democratic Party. This new ad blitz by the Petersen Foundation is probably laying the groundwork for those arguments.

Hat tip to Matt Singer of Forward Montana for calling my attention to this bit of ridiculousness by John McCain (emphasis mine):

Sen. John McCain is urging his supporters to sign a petition opposing the economic stimulus bill, saying in an e-mail from his "Country First" PAC that the plan "is big on giveaways for the special interests and corporate high rollers, yet short on help for ordinary working Americans."

"I cannot and do not support the package on the table from the Democrats and the Obama Administration," McCain writes. "Our country does not need just another spending bill, particularly not one that will load future generations with the burden of massive debt."

Note to John McCain - you do not speak for the youth of this country. I think the electoral results from the election provide definitive evidence of that:

You had over a year to make your case to America's youth, and they rejected your candidacy, and your ideas for our country, by record margins. Even in your own state of Arizona, young people voted for change and declared President Obama to be the standard bearer of that change. kthxbai.

(It should also be noted that in October of 2008 I made the case that Republicans would use debt and entitlement reform as the basis for their appeal to young voters. Looks like Sen. McCain is drawing from that playbook. Fortunatley, this is not a tactic that is likely to hold water with young voters, even if it does gain traction in the media. Young people are more open to talking about reforming entitlements, but when the options are fully explained to them, they are far from natural conservatives on the issue.)

Two articles caught my eye today. The first, from AFP, was headlined: US Election Shapes Up As Duel of Generations.

About 44 million young people between the age of 19 and 29 will be able to vote in November, according to a recent Gallup opinion poll. Sixty-five percent of them say they plan to vote for Obama, compared to only 31 percent who plan to do so for McCain.

But among those aged 65 and over, McCain and Obama are statistically tied, 44 to 45 percent respectively.

Seniors traditionally have high turnout rates -- 72 percent voted in 2004 -- while young voters are have historically been fickle and unreliable.

The age difference also marks the candidates' style. During the television debates, McCain, 72, quoted Winston Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower, while Obama, 47, referred to Google.

On Sunday former secretary of state and military leader Colin Powell endorsed Obama, calling for the need for "generational" change.

"I think we need a transformational figure, I think we need a generational change. That is why I'm supporting Senator Obama," Powell said in an interview with NBC.

While the story is much more evenhanded than the title (ie - blame the editors, not the reporter), the entire framework of generational warfare is unnecessarily antagonistic and troubling, for numerous reasons. First, I think it is simplistic to the point of being inaccurate. Second, I see it as a potential narrative device for the Right to delegitimize an Obama win, oppose a legislative agenda that conflicts with its own, and it lays the groundwork for driving a wedge between Democrats and young voters. Let's pick this apart a bit.

First, let's deal with the inaccuracy. Here's a look at the actual Gallup data referenced in the story:

Yes, voters under 30 overwhelmingly prefer Obama, but every age demographic in the Gallup data favors Obama, even if within the margin of error. If there was a real generational battle brewing, I would expect seniors to be as lopsidedly for McCain as youth are for Obama. That's not happening. What we are seeing is the growth of a potential electorate-wide mandate, not an inter-generational duel.

I think what this piece also misses is that young voters today don't want anything to do with a generational battle or duel. We're in the middle of two wars with mounting casualties, few indicators of success, and our friends fighting on the front lines; the economy is tanking at a time when good entry level jobs that provide health care and the opportunity to pay off our school debt are already fewer and further between; the planet is getting hotter and our nation's energy policy is the very definition of insanity.

That's a lot to take on, and if we're going to make any progress at all we will need to build intergenerational alliances with Gen Xers, Boomers, and the Silent Generation. Like the AARP says - Divided We Fail.

After all, isn't that what the Obama campaign has been all about? Moving beyond ideology and partisanship. Reaching out to all Americans to roll up our sleeves and Get. Shit. Done. You can argue whether or not Obama, in this respect, represents a new reality or just new rhetoric, but it's hard to argue with the sentiment and expressed intent of the electorate in poll after poll, news story after news story.

Unfortunately, even if young people aren't looking to engage in generational warfare, the narrative is out there, and conservatives are already leaping to take advantage of it. Which brings us to the second point, and the other article I want to reference, this time an op-ed column in today's Washington Post by Robert Samuelson:

Young Voters, Get Mad

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, October 22, 2008; Page A19

To: Voters Under 35
Subject: Your Future
Recommendation: Get Angry

You're being played for chumps. Barack Obama and John McCain want your votes, but they're ignoring your interests. You face a heavily mortgaged future. You'll pay Social Security and Medicare for aging baby boomers. The needed federal tax increase might total 50 percent over the next 25 years. Pension and health costs for state and local workers have doubtlessly been underestimated. There's the expense of decaying infrastructure -- roads, bridges, water pipes. All this will squeeze other crucial government services: education, defense, police.

Samuelson is a right-of-center pundit who frequently writes about "entitlement" reform - one of the few areas where conservatives perceive they have an "in" with young voters - often under the guise of "helping out" young people. His arguments are very much in line with the work of organizations like Americans for Generational Equality, who stoke intergenerational strife to advance their policy agenda.

At Pushback, Matt Zeitlin gets to the heart of what Samuelson is hoping to achieve:

Robert Samuelson has written one of the most annoying types of column today, one in which he self-righteously exhorts the young to march in lockstep behind his own agenda of cutting benefits and restricting eligibility for Social Security and Medicare. Before he suggests that we young people picket the AARP (seriously), he makes all sorts of misleading claims about how baby boomers are screwing us juveniles:

Conservatives are on the brink of losing big in the upcoming election. Even before the dust settles, one of the first things they will realize is that the electoral math has changed, and they are going to need to appeal to a greater segment of youth to blunt the Democratic advantage. This intergenerational warfare narrative - focusing on "entitlement reform" - will be the wedge they try to drive between moderate Millennials and the Democratic Party. Barring radical shifts to the left in their policy proposals on the environment, military spending, and health care, it's pretty much the only card they've got.

In the coming days and months - probably as soon as exit polls are released on November 4th - this is a narrative against which we are going to have to push back hard.