huffington post

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'.

Rocking Liberally Sound of Change

I don't know about you, but in the Living Liberally offices, the main topic of conversation all day has been Obama's running mate. A pattern emerges, gradually developing into a familiar cycle: the office is relatively quiet as we all work diligently on our given projects, until someone has some new rumor they just have to share ("ObamaSebelius.com seems to be owned by the Obama campaign!" "Joe Biden says he's 'not the guy'!"). Ecstatic to have a potential new lead, we pick it apart in a fever pitch of speculation, hope when considering some of the better options and dread when contemplating some of the worst, and then try futilely to settle back into our work...and all becomes quiet again. Until someone has a new rumor to share...

Yep, waiting can drive you crazy, something that Max Bernstein knows all too well - tired of the wait-and-see approach, he created the 100,000 Strong Against Evan Bayh for VP facebook group you might have heard about. However, even this didn't slake our thirst for any and all VP information.

Thankfully, Max gave us even more material.

Bumped. --Mike

I just read Keli Goff's column on The Huffington Post called "McCain's Perez Hilton Problem". While its a fine read (repudiating John McCain's statement that he doesn't support "gay adoption", defending the notion that LGBT people can provide excellent, loving homes for children), I was a little confused at why she references, specifically, Perez Hilton (who like may other people were outraged by this admission from the presumptive Republican nominee). I thought, from reading the first few lines, she was going to argue that sites like Perez Hilton ("What Would Tyler Durden Do?", "D-Listed", the 'Gawker' sites, etc.) provide a unique opportunity to foment action against regressive policies, causes & candidates among possibly apolitical youth who may have sympathy for progressive programmes. Goff didn't end up arguing that, so I will.

Goff wrote:

"On Sunday, celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton (real name Mario Lavandeira) selected McCain's statement on the matter as his "Quote of the Day." The quote simply reads, "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption." At last count Hilton's post garnered around 700 comments, some of which are blatantly homophobic, (which is ironic considering Lavandeira himself is openly gay, which begs the question: if you disapprove of gay people so much why are you visiting a blog run by one?). But for the most part, the comments -- many of which are too colorful to print here -- highlight a fundamental problem for John McCain as he tries to formulate a winning strategy for November: How to win an election decided by voters in the middle, while continuing to pander to voters on the right."

Goff is right is that McCain's previous (though probably overblown) image as a moderate &/or maverick, which attracted moderate Independents & conservative Democrats in the past, is a liability as he tries to sew up the conservative Republican base ... It's a catch-22, because the more he panders to the base, the more he losses the moderates, & vice versa.

But I digress.

Election coverage can be framed in many different ways, & increasingly we've seen the pop-culture-ization of this process, especially with the Obama candidacy, which has spawned a popular movement of young people who may have sat this one out, or simply not cared, if Dick Gephardt was running. (No offense to Dick; he's like number 3 on my list of potential Vice Presidents.) Barack's candidacy has inspired political youth, as well as those who have never been interested in politics before.

& The Obama Team, to an extent, gets this. On example: just look at the Michelle Obama PR-blitz after Barack became the nominee ... co-hosting "The View", making the cover of "US Weekly" ... In other words, reaching out to young women who are probably pro-choice, probably who have a gaggle of gay friends, & could be moved to vote if they feel the candidate (or, in this case, his wife) speaks to them on level other than health care policy positions, discussions of Iraq & banking reform.

The power of celebrity gossip rags, whether in print (US Weekly), on TV (TMZ on Fox) or online, like the aforementioned blogs, when they comment on the political matters, can be enormous. Celebrity gossip is an ascendant medium, drawing huge audiences of mostly young people, who tend to be, at least on social & cultural issues, more liberal. Comment on McCain saying he's against "gay adoption" & there's a good chance you may energize a liberal, though apolitical, young person who reads your blog to say, "Geez, maybe I'll vote for Obama ... This guy is straight-up creepy ..."

That's where I thought Goff was going ... I hope I adequately took you there.

Liz Funk just wrote the most ridiculous (in a bad way) "serious" piece about social networking that I've yet read. In the same column, she manages to say that MySpace is both the sketchier and more serious activisty site, while FaceBook is the more serious site and also where you go to post those scandalous party pics and stalk your friends. Basically, they're both bad, except when they're good, which is only in opposition to the other. (Got it?)

Funks main premise - that FaceBook activism does not equal "real" activism is only partially on the mark. I agree that joining a cause isn't really an effective form of political action, but for a lot of folks it's probably a first form of political action - a baby step into the political arena. That shouldn't be downplayed.

Funk also conveniently ignores a few facts:

1. FaceBook organizing has accomplished a hell of a lot for Barack Obama. (as just one example).
2. Causes - a fundraising App - is still in its first generation and is barely a month old

Has Funk ever heard of Students for Barack Obama? Because they got a whole lot of press this winter for self organizing campaign events attended by thousands of students. And when I last checked, FaceBook "Causes" had raised tens of thousands of dollars for Darfur and Global Warming advocacy. Not a whole lot, especially given the amount of disposable income available to students, but is Funk seriously going to throw the baby out with the bathwater because FaceBook Causes hasn't proven to be a panacea for the problem of youth philanthropy? Let's at least give it a chance before we lay down our full judgment. These things will improve with time. I agree that there is a lot of hype - some deserved, some not - but Funk's condemnation is equally ridiculous.