millennial

Since May of this year, Democracy Corps/Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research have released 7 polls focusing on young voters. This weekend, they released the final poll in their "Youth for the Win" series.

Here are the major findings from what is undoubtedly the last poll of young voters before Election Day:

• Obama has never posted a higher margin among young people (now 62 – 27 percent Obama). He continues to draw exceptional favorability ratings, while John McCain and Sarah Palin have never been less popular.
• John Kerry won the youth vote (54 – 45 percent), but lost white people under 30 (44 - 55 percent). Obama leads 51 – 38 percent among white youth, up from 43 – 42 percent in the late summer.
• Young people are also confident about the outcome. A 71 percent majority believe Barack Obama will win the election; even among Republicans, 39 percent predict an Obama victory, just 53 percent believe McCain will win.
• Young people’s commitment to vote continues to grow. Now 67 percent describe their likelihood of voting as a “10” on a ten-point scale, the highest number we recorded this year and fully 18 points higher than it was in the summer.
• What is most remarkable is the faith young people evince in Obama’s ability to turn things around in this country. By better than a 2:1 margin, young people believe that, even with everything stacked against him, Obama can change the direction of the country. To state the obvious, the post-election period will be one of very high expectations.

Nothing too unexpected here. I wonder about the excitement factor among McCain's youth supporters, and if they will show up for what looks like a blowout. I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow night to find out.

I'm a little behind on this, but it's worth noting that a number of high-profile blogs have responded to the Tom Friedman "Generation Q" column we posted on a few weeks ago (here and here). I wanted to call attention to these pieces for those who have might not have seen them, as well as respond to them as I don't agree 100% with all of their assessments.

First up is Georgia10, a front pager at Daily Kos, whose response, A Generation in Waiting calls out Freidman for singling out youth without turning his admonishing eye back onto the current apathy of his own generation on issues such as the war, global warming, or any number of problems. Georgia also hones in on the idea that Milennials view government as a joke, an ineffective institution that inspires cynicism, not action.

I can't say that I agree with that. All polling - from PEW or the Harvard Institute of Politics - indicates that we are optimistic and actually have a steadfast belief in the power of ourselves and our government to effect change. I think it might be more accurate to suggest that we have no faith in the current actors who occupy positions of power. It's the people - Friedman's own generation - that we are mistrustful and cynical about, not the institutions themselves, which we actually view as potentially powerful vehicles for change.

Generation Overwhelmed, a piece in the American Prospect by Courtney Martin, drew the most attention this week, with responses posted by Millennial commentators Ezra Klein and others. Martin smartly picks up on what I think is one of the main faults with Friedman's column - the old ways of effecting political change (marching in the streets, chaining ourselves to bulldozers (thanks Al Gore!) are no longer effective. Nor do they fit the moment. Nicholas Handler suggested much the same thing in his New York Times essay, and I'll quote Martin here because I think she hits the nail perfectly on the head:

Many of us have protested, but we -- by and large -- felt like we were imitating an earlier generation, playing dress-up in our parents' old hippie clothes. I marched against the war and my president called it a focus group. The worst part was that I did feel inert while doing it. In the 21st century, a bunch of people marching down the street, complimenting one another on their original slogans and pretty protest signs, feels like self-flagellation, not real and true social change.

That said, I didn't wholly agree with her thesis and conclusions. Rather than Generation Quiet, she labels us Generation Overwhelmed. We are indeed overwhelmed, but that does not lead to paralysis and inaction as she suggest. She gives too little credit to the "lifestyle choices" of her friends and colleagues. When Millennials pursue careers in socially responsible business, pursue Green architecture, work in the public sector, start nonprofits, run for office, these are all forms of action, all more suited to our current environment. Martin also leaves out the increasing civic engagement of our generation, which is participating in politics at a greater rate and in greater numbers than ever. That too is significant and can lead to change.

It's not that we're paralyzed. It's that our form of activism looks completely different from what the past 40 years has taught us activism should look like. Obviously there is no one defining issue as there was back in Friedman's youth, and those choices are overwhelming. But that doesn't cause us to freeze up, it causes us to zoom in and focus on one problem - sweatshops, climate change, poverty - we specialize and either create new institutions where none exist (see everything I've ever written about youth politics), or to quickly work our way into existing institutions and try to instill in them our values.

It's also important to point out that there are no shortages of young people protesting. Between the Iraq War protests, climate change activism like Step It Up, Students Against Sweatshops, the One Campaign, the WTO in Seattle - more students have been marching in the streets in the last 10 years than ever did during Friedman's time. It's just that the media and political establishment - Friedman and his generation - don't care.

Finally, Chris Bowers weighed in with the most cynical piece of the bunch: The Ultimate Frustration of Political Activism. Bower's piece isn't wholly focused on Millennials (he's skeptical of any criticism that uses such a broad brush category as a "generation"). Instead, he uses his own experience over the past 4 years to illustrate how entrepreneurial activism of the kind I reference above ultimately serves the purposes of those you are looking to displace more than it does your own goals:

Your life doesn't improve, but their's does. And then, when its all over, first they condemn you, and then they ask you why you aren't more politically active. While that makes me want to pick up my pitchfork and torch and engage in as many intra-party struggles as possible, I can understand why for many it would cause them to instead wonder what was on television, or to simply transfer their activism to volunteer social justice work and lifestyle choices. Really, what is the point of continuing to do their dirty work for them?

I can't say that he's wrong - given his examples - but I have to chalk that up to the fact that the type of change he (and we, really) are engaging in is not revolutionary. The balance of power does not flip immediately, and it will be years before positions of power are occupied by those who truly agree with Bowers, the Netroots, or Millennials generally. Until then, yes, those in power do reap the benefits of our actions and small changes to the system. However I don't really see that as a discouraging factor on a macro level across a whole generation of activists. If he's right, we'll see a downturn in activism over time, if not, we'll keep pushing for change in spite of these conditions.