issues

Brandon Griefe at U.S. News and World Report wrote a piece yesterday arguing that the Republicans have an opportunity to make amends with young, Millennial voters given the "genuine fear" created by Democratic spending.

With such a large and active base of young supporters it would appear Democrats have their Republican opponents nearing checkmate. But a closer look at the chessboard reveals neither party is in good strategic position to topple the other’s king.

The Republicans’ problem has been their inability to connect with youth and minorities. Only recently have they begun to deemphasize the socially conservative aspects of their platform that have polarized voters since the culture wars of the 1960s. A recent Pew Research poll found that young adults are “clearly more accepting than older Americans of homosexuality, more inclined to see evolution as the best explanation of human life and…are much less likely to affiliate with any religious tradition.” These and other social issues are not major concerns of young adults, a fact that is slowly being realized as Republicans seek to broaden their voting base.

But Democrats’ recent legislative priorities show they’ve also done a poor job at setting the board up for success. Enormous debt and deficit spending to fund a variety of new programs has created a dire fiscal future that is creating genuine fear among young adults. Then-Sen. Barack Obama said it best in 2006:

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

The rhetoric of 2006 has not translated into reality come 2010. The failure of leadership now continues under his watch with trillions in new debt obligations. Young adults will not be able to ignore the red ink that fills the nation’s ledger forever. Unless Democrats act quickly to reverse the growth of the government’s deficit they will poison the well of Millennial support that carried them to historic victories in 2008.

Griefe's analysis is faulty and disingenuous for three reasons.

1.) I don't believe I saw anything from Griefe or anyone else about deficit spending when George W. Bush was in the White House. When Bush entered the Oval Office, Bill Clinton handed his administration a surplus. When he left, we were trillions of dollars in debt. Two major tax cuts and two wars did quite a bit of damage:

Obama's stimulus package accounted for only .07/$1.00 of the national debt when he signed it into law. Nearly 90 percent of the debt was created under George W. Bush.

To clean up the mess Bush left, Obama has to spend more.

2.) The message about the national debt does not carry any water with Millennials, especially since they are encountering the worst youth unemployment rate since World War II. Our friend Karlo tackled this conservative talking point last year, aptly comparing someone climbing a hill to one's life-long relationship with government.

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.

In addition to this, Millennials themselves tell National Journal that they think Obama's spending has been a good thing.

A plurality of Millennials say they believe that the president's agenda will increase rather than diminish opportunities for their generation (41 percent to 27 percent). More respondents say that his policies averted an even worse economic crisis (44 percent) than believe that Obama ran up the national debt without doing much good (36 percent). By 46 percent to 31 percent, they also say that the comprehensive health care reform bill Obama recently signed into law is a good thing for the country. Just one-fourth believe that the country is worse off because of the president's policies; the rest feel that his efforts have significantly improved conditions (16 percent) or are beginning to move the nation in the right direction, even if they haven't yet produced major gains (43 percent).

Given the toxic economy the Bush policies gave Millennials as they have come of age, making the figurative hill even steeper, the government must invest in the youngest generation to ensure they have a chance of getting over the top, and thankfully, it is.

3.) Griefe comically cites a list of GOPers including Rand Paul and Bob McDonnell as smartly handling social issues in order to keep the focus on the fiscal matters at hand.

This is pretty simple.

Rand Paul doesn't think the 1964 Civil Rights Act should have passed.

Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia issues a proclamation for Confederate History Month in the commonwealth, failing to mention trafficking of human beings and the consequential brutal decades of Jim Crow.

I'm not sure whether Griefe had a brain lapse here or what. Griefe is right that if the GOP can't get social issues right, they won't have any shot at Millennials period. Justin Miller at The Atlantic notes this, describing Millennials as the generation least tolerant of racism. The list of Republicans Griefe provides, though, is laughable. Their clumsy navigation of social issues has provided Democrats with several opportunities to beat back any Republican momentum.

The generational theft argument sounds good, but it doesn't play with young people. It plays even less with Millennials when it's shrouded in social issues.

Nice effort. Back to the drawing board.

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.

Earlier this week I posted two blog entries commenting on a post by Erica Williams pertaining to the current state of youth organizing. Erica made one final point that I'd still like to address:

Who are we kidding? Many people voted because of Obama. Deal with it. I think one of the main failures of youth vote advocates this election season was in the shallowness and transparency of our messaging. The message that “young people voted on the issues” never broke through to mainstream media because it frankly wasn’t true. It was a message set up to support our organizational missions and demand legitimacy and credibility not just for our constituency, but mostly for our own work. And I understand that. But there is a difference between saying that young people care about the issues – that is true – and that young people voted because they care about the issues – not true. You can care about issues and stay your butt home on the first Tuesday in November, particularly in our communities (young, black, latino, disenfranchised). Because guess what? Young people have always cared about not having clean air to breathe, or money in their pockets, or their loved ones at war. And while yes, the past 8 years have brought us to a boiling point, logic would not tell our communities that voting is the solution. Obama is what made them channel their frustration about the issues onto the ballot. And denying that reality is going to make tomorrow a cold blast of water when we go back to our newly registered voters and find out that they actually know very little about “the issues” or how those issues will really be changed.

Erica's comments are made in response to a specific conference of the Generational Alliance - a coalition of youth-centric organizations focused on electoral politics, policy, and leadership development. I didn't attend that conference so I don't know what specific comments she might be responding to. As such, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with her here, but I would like to lay out my thinking on the relationship between Obama, policy issues, and increased voter turnout.

First, having worked in cooperation with a number of c4 and 527 groups during the election on their communications, I don't think it would be accurate to say that the message coming out of those organizations - or even any of the major c3s - was that "young people voted on the issues." The major themes coming out of most youth organizations and spokespersons this year were:

• Youth turnout is rising and that growth is a trend not a blip.
• Youth turnout is directly related to the quality and quantity of contacts they receive from campaigns and political organizations (aka - young people will participate if you ask them, and peer to peer engagement is the gold standard for making that ask).

A lot of time was also spent educating reporters about the proper way to interpret the youth turnout numbers on election day and avoid making the same mistakes in their coverage that were made in 2004. We can always have more media hits and more spokespeople on TV, but judging from the quality of stories I've read that echo these main points, I think we did a bang-up job this year in managing the media narrative around the youth vote.

Moving back to the question of whether or not "youth voted on the issues," I think that it's a little harder to disaggregate issues from Obama in the turnout equation than Erica's post suggests. Yes, it is possible to care about the issues and not vote. But those who do vote almost certainly care about the issues. And what exactly does it mean to say that "young people voted because of Obama?"

Nationally, 25% of young people who voted said they were contacted by the Obama campaign. That number climbed as high as 50 or 60% in battleground states. This was the peer to peer campaign (online and offline) that so many of us were pitching in our talking points, and for which we've pushed since early 2003. While I'm a firm believer that the medium (peer contacts, not media buys and robo calls) is more important than the message, these contacts didn't lack in content. They did in fact have a message, and that message was often issue based - touching on higher education costs, the lack of good jobs, the need for a green economy, and the desire to responsibly withdraw from Iraq. On the stump and in the debates, Obama frequently made direct appeals to young voters based on these issues, and on everything from the war to stem cell research young voters were presented with a clear choice between the two candidates.

The media may have lampooned the Obama campaign's celebrity power, but it's not like all these contacts, and all of Obama's stump appearances, amounted to nothing more than a call to "vote for me because I'm awesome." There was a little more substance than that, even if we junkies craved even more substance than was offered. Expecting more than that, I think, is unreasonable. The percentage of voters - among all age groups - who cast their ballots based on the minutia of policy are so small as to be an insignificant portion of the electorate. Using such a standard as a talking point to the media is, I think foolhardy (if in fact that was the message some orgs tried to send), but to rate the quality of youth involvement or the effectiveness of youth organizations on the policy knowledge of the electorate seems unfair.

Bottom line for me - yes they voted because of Obama, but they did so because he invested real resources in reaching out to them and engaging them in a peer to peer manner, and the content of that engagement spoke directly to the issues that are of concern to young people. That's exactly the message that many of us in youth organizing have been trying to get across since 2003.

(It's also worth noting that such young people did, in fact, exist):

Over the course of the last week, I've picked through the polling results from the recent Harvard Institute of Politics Survey and the joint MTV/CBS News poll. We've talked about Obama's lead among young voters, and McCain's deficit among the same, and we've talked about how young people are engaged at a much higher level this year than in previous years. Now I want to take a look at young voter's policy concerns.

There tend to be a few bits of conventional wisdom when it comes to young voters and policy issues. The first is that the only thing young people care about is the draft, or as Ralph Nader recently (and inaccurately) stated, the only thing that will increase youth engagement is the threat of a draft. The second is that young people are consumed by humanitarian issues like the genocide in Darfur. There are grains of truth in both statements - in 2004 there was a lot of messaging done by Rock the Vote and other groups around the draft that did in fact help spur youth turnout, and young people are disproportionately active around the issue of genocide. As with most pieces of conventional wisdom, though, these do not convey the whole truth.

The results of the Harvard IOP Survey reveal that the concerns of young voters have shifted radically since the fall of 2007. Six months ago, Iraq was the #1 issue for 37% of young Americans. Today, that number has shrunk to 20%. In March 2007, the economy was the top concern of just 5% of young people. Today it ranks as the greatest concern of 30% of young voters. The war was a motivator for youth action in 2004, but in 2008, it seems that the tanking economy will drive young people to the ballot box.

The Harvard IOP Survey honed in on these concerns through its novel use of multiple criteria in ranking the importance of youth issues. The survey asked respondents what issues were most important in determining how they would cast their ballot in November and what issues were most relevant to them personally. They used answers in both categories to construct a composite score that could more accurately reflect the importance of various policy issues to young voters:

The reasons for this shift, it turns out, is that most young people feel that our current economic downtown has a greater impact on them personally than the war. Young people who are applying to college or attending school are worried about the skyrocketing costs of tuition. Many are graduating from college, on average, with $20k in debt, and they are worried about their job prospects. According to the survey, 70% of college students believe that it will be difficult to find a job upon graduation. By contrast, the war only directly affects a small portion of young people today. If you are worried about how you will pay off your student loans and make rent next month, it gets a lot harder to worry about something happening on the other side of the globe. It's probably even harder when you consider how much activism has gone to opposing the war with so few tangible results.

Looking through the chart, there are some other interesting facts to be gleaned about the activism and policy concerns of the Millennial generation. In most polls that I've seen, the environment ranks well below bread and butter issues like the economy and health care. As the graph above shows, the environment typically garners a paltry 5% or so of support from most youth. Yet the environment usually is considered one of the policy areas around which young people - particularly college students - are most active. Meanwhile, health care consistently ranks as one of the top concerns of young people, but there is almost no youth activism around universal health care. It's a strange dichotomy and I've been at a loss to explain it.

Judging by the IOP results, "Net Relevance" seems to be the key. Both issues are perceived as important ones, yet for some reason young people tend to see the environment as a policy concern that more directly affects their lives. It's an interesting finding, and may be skewed by the fact that the survey sampled 18 - 24 year olds, fully half of which are in college and are thus likely to be on their university's health care plan (or that of their parents). I wonder if the two stats might reverse (and fall more in line with conventional wisdom) if the sample was expanded to cover all 18 - 29 year olds?

What's clear is that young people are driven by a variety of concerns, but the economy trumps all. In a year of record youth turnout, candidates up and down the ballot would do well to talk about creating an economy that help the Millennial generation - also known as Generation Debt - climb out of the economic hole.

James Durbin at Tech Republican and Stuart Rothenberg are both up in arms about Rock the Vote and it's "liberal" message this week. Durbin is concerned that Republicans aren't reaching out appropriately to young voters - evidenced by the lack of conservative partners listed on the Rock the Vote website and the predominance of "liberal" messages on MySpace. Rothenberg is flailing about somewhat wildly, both upset that Rock the Vote talked about the draft in its 2004 campaign while simultaneously saying that fear of a draft is a losing message with diminishing returns for Democrats (who Rothenberg also equates with Rock the Vote).

I actually agree with Durbin - Republicans are dropping the ball online among young people just as much as they're losing the money and organizing war online against the progressive blogosphere. Rothenberg has a few valid points, though he misses the extreme contradiction inherent in the conservative position on the draft - the Bush/Republican strategy for the war requires more troops and a draft is the only way to get enough of them without breaking the military beyond repair. If conservatives don't want a draft, they're ultimately unserious about supporting the troops and "winning" the war. If they do want a draft, they energize young voters and the parents of young voters against Republicans. It's a lose-lose situation for them.

But all of this is irrelevant. Here's the thing that both Durbin and Rothenberg alike are missing: As so many Conservatives and pundits alike are fond of saying, this isn't about one tactical decision or another, this is about our values as Americans. And right now, the values of the Millennial Generation are heading in the opposite direction of the values of the Republican Party. Let me remind readers of the recent findings by Democracy Corps:

On issue after issue, in poll after poll (see here and here), young voters are aligning more with Democrats than Republicans, and those are value-based decisions. Millennial voters support a multilateralist foreign policy, we support policies that protect the environment and civil liberties. Not even mentioned in this Democracy Corps chart are cultural wedge issues like choice and gay marriage, both of which are supported by more younger people than not. Just to twist the knife in a little more, let's remember the fact that Millennials are the most diverse and tolerant generation in American history - two things that don't mesh well with the GOP base.

This is why Durbin is missing the point with his tactical discussions about "going where the youth are," and Rothenberg's commentary about the draft misses the forest for the trees. Just as the tens of millions of dollars the conservative machine dumps into youth outreach and bench-building each year aren't winning them any converts among Millennials (conservatives outspend progressives about 5-1 on youth outreach), showing up on MySpace or partnering with Rock the Vote isn't a panacea or Republican ills and it doesn't matter one whit whether or not Rock the Vote or Democrats play the draft card. It's the values, stupid. It's your policies.

(On a side not - despite Durbin's claims - you can't wait until these kids get older and "age into conservatism." That doesn't really happen. Partisanship is a habit (pdf). Lose them now, and chances are you've lost them for the rest of their voting lives.)

This is why the most interesting thing that I see happening right now on the GOP side of the aisle in youth organizing is Republican Youth Majority, a pro-choice, pro-environment, fiscally conservative organization that is trying to rebuild the Republican brand among Millennial voters. Tactics aside, if the Republicans are going to retain any semblance of competitiveness among this new generation of voters, they're going to have to realign themselves on a number of issues to be more in touch with the values of the Millennial Generation. It's going to be a long, hard slog as they've got 8 years of a Bush Presidency and a campaign/policy apparatus that is fundamentally at odds with those values, but I think that if they can become sustainable, this is the group to watch over the next couple years for hints of a Republican revitalization among young voters. Personally, I'd be thrilled to see the next generation of Republicans move left on these issues.