Millennial Makeover

Curtis Gans, a respected election expert operating out of American University, has a completely bizarre report out today on the lack of causation or correlation between primary turnout and turnout in the general election. I say bizarre because the report, which contains 4 pages of data, quickly devolves into 6 pages of "commentary" that only tangentially focuses on the relationship between primary and general election turnout. Instead, it reads more like a screed on what Gans thinks is wrong with our country and political system in 2008.

Gans is right when he says that there is no relationship between national primary turnout and national general election turnout. Of course there isn't. There are too many factors - such as how competitive the primary process is that year, whether one or both parties have competitive contests, how long those contests drag on, etc. - that can tip the balance for their to be any direct relationship.

But that's an overly broad question. The more interesting question to ask would have been "is there a direct correlation between primary and GE turnout for specific demographics?" For instance, if young voters turnout in record numbers in a Democratic primary, do we then see record numbers of Democratic youth turning out in the General Election? Or, if evangelical christians vote in record numbers in a Republican primary, do they also vote in record numbers in the General Election? And do those trends repeat throughout history? That would be useful information, and might give us a better idea what to expect in November, but Gans isn't asking those questions.

More important to me at the moment, though, is Gans' attempts to "debunk" the idea that there is a civically engaged demographic called the "Millennial Generation." To the extent that Gans is respected and is often quoted in the media, this deserves a response.

There Is No Millennial Generation: The large-scale involvement of college resident and educated youth is one of the most heartening aspects of this year’s nominating process. But the conclusions some have drawn from that participation—that we have a new politically engaged generation—is simply not supported by the facts.

Those involved this year are a fraction of the youth population and were brought in by the uniqueness of Obama’s candidacy—precisely because he seemed to offer something different than the politics they had been eschewing. They would not have stayed in—at least in anywhere near the numbers which have participated in the primaries—had Obama not won the nomination. They won’t stay in if he’s not elected and their interest and engagement won’t be sustained if he does not live up to the promise of his candidacy once in office.

What Gans ignores here is the fact that increased in youth turnout did not start with Obama, nor are they totally attributable to his candidacy. The youth vote increased significantly in 2004, and again in 2006 (pdfs). In neither case was Barack Obama on the ballot, nor did he have an active campaign operating that might boost turnout. This is not to say that Obama himself, and his candidacy, are not attracting new voters in greater numbers than we might have otherwise seen. But recent trends all suggest that youth participation in the 2008 election would have increased even without Obama's candidacy.

Gans' argument also neglects the fact that increased youth turnout is not a spontaneous event, but rather the result of hard work put out by many thousands of activists engaging in electoral politics, or the "electoral specialists" as the National Conference on Citizenship's 2008 Civic Health Index (pdf) calls them. It is due to the countless hours in the field spent door knocking and peer to peer organizing that was responsible for vote increases among young people in 2004 and 2006, and it is Obama's adoption of those peer to peer tactics that has made his campaign similarly successful among youth not just in polls, but at the voting booth.

Gans, of course, disagrees. He thinks that 2004 and 2006 were a result of anti-Bush sentiment. In the words of the great Jeffrey Lebowski: "That's just like, your opinion, man." Gans has no data to back up that claim, only his gut. But there is plenty of data to show that young voter outreach programs were of great effect at increasing turnout in 2004 and 2006. What's more, with the notable exception of Pennsylvania, every swing state targeted heavily by youth vote organizers in 2004 overperformed the national turnout average for young voters (pdf), climbing as high as 71% in Minnesota and 65% in Wisconsin. How does Gans explain that? Was anti-Bush sentiment greater in these swing states than in other states? Or did the targeted outreach actually have an impact?

Gans does try to answer that question:

The involvement of middle-class educated youth this year is not an isolated phenomenon. There is a reservoir of idealism, hope and a willingness to engage that has been part of every generation. In my lifetime, some of this group were madly for Adlai, others were engaged by the youth and energy of John F. Kennedy, still others formed the foot soldiers of the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements and came clean for Gene (McCarthy) in New Hampshire’s primary campaign. They also were, for about eight months, enticed by the policy wonkishness on issues they cared about of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, were taken for about a month or two by the 2000 candidacy of John McCain and the 2004 candidacy of Howard Dean and came out in force in the battleground states against President Bush through the proxy of working for Sen. John Kerry.

So if I read that last bit right, young people aren't involved except when they are, but then it's only because their motives are in the wrong place? That's just rampant speculation and Gans has no data with which to backup his claims

I also disagree with Gans' implication that the kind of engagement we're seeing now is the same as it ever was among "middle class educated youth." While political participation is still not where it should be, young people today are more engaged in many aspects of civic and community life than Gen X and Boomers. As the NCOC Civic Health Index points out, that involvement just takes different forms in response to radically different times. From the NCOC report:

The Millennials so far appear to be considerably more civically engaged than their immediate predecessors, “Generation X.” The voting turnout of young adults (ages 18-29) almost doubled in the 2008 primaries and caucuses compared to the most recent comparable year (2000). There were also substantial youth turnout increases in 2004 and 2006. Youth volunteering rates are higher in the 2000s than they were in the 1990s.

Compared to the Baby Boomers when they were young adults, Millennials are somewhat more likely to volunteer. They are less likely to vote and to participate in face-to-face civil society, as reflected by questions about attending meetings, belonging to groups, and attending religious services. Declines in face-to-face engagement occurred before the widespread use of the Internet; but clearly, today’s youth have new opportunities for online interaction. Overall, if we compare Millennials to previous generations when they were young, the Millennials appear more engaged than Generation X and engaged in different ways from the Boomers.

The NCOC report concedes that Millennials are not as directly involved in politics as they could/should be, and not as engaged in politics as Boomers were when they were young, but the trends are all favorable in this respect, and the report points to the internet as a growing tool through which to bridge the participation gap between "middle class, college educated kids" and non-college, lower income youth.

Ultimately, Gans comes off as nothing more than a crank, pining for the good old days. Is there any other way to read something like this?

The difference between the idealistic activism of the 1950s and 1960s and the activism of the 1980s and later is that the earlier generations were politically involved and interested and stayed in political activity even when their causes did not meet with success or their leaders showed feet of clay. They did so because there was a totally different ethos in America then. Schools were dominated by the ideas of John Dewey who made educated citizens a major educational aim. Parents discussed politics in the home. The media was more concentrated and more purposive. There was much less cynicism. The institutions underlying democracy were strong and well-aligned. People could and did work together across partisan and ideological lines. Great things were accomplished, people felt good about politics and government and wanted to be a part of that enterprise and believed their participation mattered.

Those who were briefly active in the 1980s and later did not stay involved. They didn’t because there is and has been for some time a totally different ethos. Participation in institutions has declined sharply. Media are fragmented and cynical. Politics tends to be a bad word, with most of the young having a dim view of the enterprise. Government is hamstrung by ideological polarization fed by political parties that are misaligned. Schools no longer train for citizenship (although some promote service which is not the same thing and does not have a carry-over effect to politics). Community has been eroded. Negativity in large volume dominates the conduct of politics. Civility is all too often absent. There is simply no grounding for a new engaged generation to emerge.

Yes, Generation X withdrew from politics and community, becoming a highly individualized generation for most of the 80s and 90s. Yes, our political and media system is in sorry shape. But study after study (Generation We, Millennial Makeover, Progressive Politics of the Millennial Generation, Harvard IOP Surveys) all show Millennials to be an optimistic, not cynical, generation. They show Millennials to be believers in community action and their own ability create change. The show Millennials to be believers in the responsibility and potential of government to do good in this country, even if they have little faith in the current actors occupying positions of power. In short, they portray Millennials as a generation with the self confidence, desire and new technologies to reshape the very broken systems Gans identifies.

Against all that, Gans throws out a statistics-free rant about the "good old days" that has but one message: "You kids get off my lawn."

• Hat tip to Tony Cani, the Political Director of the Young Democrats, for catching the most cynical youth story of the week. From the conservative Washington Times:
  

  Republicans can keep young voters who support Democratic nominee Barack Obama at home by giving their young relatives and friends gift cards to iTunes and Starbucks that are good only on Nov. 4, election day.

  “That’s the only way to keep them away from the polls,” said Kellyanne Conway, president of The Polling Company, during a breakfast with the delegates at their hotel near the University of Minnesota.

  Tony has the appropriate response.

• That last gem comes courtesy of a speaker addressing the Virginia delegation at the Republican National Convention. But I don't think the Virginia GOP needs any help suppressing the youth vote, they're already doing a bang-up job of that, according to this New York Times article. A local registrar near Virginia Tech is improperly and inaccurately threatening students with the loss of financial aid if they register to vote in the state.
• Meanwhile, in another swing state, the Ohio Secretary of State is actually doing her job and is taking precautions to prevent voter suppression at the polls in November.
• Everyone should read Glenn Greenwald's post about why McCain and Palin can lie with impunity on the stump.
• On September 18th, the Center for American Progress is hosting an event on Millennials and how they will reshape the electorate. RSVP here.
• AEI has their own event on Millennials as well. Let's say that their take is not so optimistic. Details and RSVP here.
• The WE Campaign, 1 Sky and Green for All are teaming up for a day of action to promote Green Jobs Now. So far there are 232 events scheduled for September 27th.
• YP4 is offering an online course (Free!) on how to fight the Religious Right. The course begins Sept. 15th.
• YP4 is also recruiting a new class of Fellows. Find out more here.
• The New York Times has an interesting piece on the state of the money-race, including an interesting bit about Obama donors collecting checks that will go to the state parties in Battlegrounds.

This is a guest post by Millennial Makeover authors Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais. Originally published in The Politico. --Mike

The key to waging a successful presidential campaign by either Barack Obama or John McCain will be their ability to use their respective conventions to overcome generational tensions. What happens in Denver and the Twin Cities could give the nominees freedom to embrace the generational changes that will shape American politics for decades to come.

If the candidates pay proper attention to generational politics, each convention will begin with a nod to their party’s Boomers and then pivot away from the past to address, on the final night, new voters whose support they will need to win in November.

The candidates must take the lead in managing their party’s convention so that the ticket and its platform reflect the desire of the electorate to move beyond the cultural wars of the 1960s. Each party’s understanding of this generationally driven challenge will be evident in how it handles the iconic, Boomer figures demanding center stage at their conventions.

Obama, in an acknowledgement of the generational strains in his party, has agreed to Hillary Rodham Clinton's request to not only address the convention in prime time on Tuesday night, but to have her name placed in nomination the following night. In return, he has gained the agreement of former president Bill Clinton to, in effect, lead the Boomers in the Democratic Party to embrace and endorse Senator Obama's nomination on Wednesday night.

As tough as that challenge has been for Obama, the problem is more acute for John McCain. President Bush's job performance ratings are among the lowest of any president. But he remains popular with Boomer ideologues in the GOP, who are continually looking for signs that McCain has stayed from party orthodoxy. Any attempt to deny a sitting president the spotlight at their national convention, as Democrats did in keeping Lyndon Johnson from addressing their 1968 convention, will be met with cries of “I told you not to trust him” from Republican true believers.

It appears that McCain’s advisers have decided to throw cultural war red meat to the delegates with appearances by Bush and Vice President Cheney on Monday, in hopes that the electorate won’t pay too much attention until later in the week.

If history is any guide, the place where both candidates will be willing to make concessions to their party’s ideological base will be the party’s platform. Since this policy statement is debated early in the convention, with little penalty for abandoning a plank or two later in the campaign, platforms are the easiest way to throw a bone to ideological purists. The Generation X and Boomer Democratic blogosphere has previously attacked Obama for failing to adhere to hard left positions on post 9-11 issues and offshore oil drilling.

Similarly, a number of conservatives have condemned McCain's former positions on climate change, immigration, and campaign finance reform.

The choice each candidate must make is whether to use the platform debate to give the cultural warriors in their party a final opportunity to replay the political drama of the nation’s Boomer past or to use the platform debate as a “Sister Souljah” generational moment and decisively break with that kind of divisive politics.

In the end, however, there will be no better place for the two candidates to demonstrate their break with the politics of past generations than in their acceptance speeches.

The McCain campaign has signaled its intention to use their candidate’s story of personal sacrifice on behalf of the nation throughout the convention. This effort will likely culminate in an acceptance speech attempting to simultaneously distinguish his life’s experience from those of the Woodstock generation (“I was tied up at the time”) and arouse the passions of his party’s Boomer base.

The challenge, however, is how to do that that without awakening a set of related thoughts among Millennials about just how old and potentially out of touch with their generation he is. Millennials weren’t around for Woodstock, don’t care about it, and prefer that everyone “play nice” together. Passion displayed as anger turns them off. To capture a new and winning coalition in this campaign, McCain would be better off using his acceptance speech to underline his national security credentials based on a lifetime of service, both of which appeal greatly to Millennials.

Obama’s decision to deliver his acceptance speech before a large outdoor audience on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech comes with its own set of risks. Echoes of that remarkable speech are sure to arouse the passions of the liberal half of the Boomer generation. But, it will also remind viewers of the turmoil of the 60s that drove a majority of the nation to embrace the Republicans’ appeal for “law and order.”

Obama’s rhetoric will need to inspire a new generation to take the next steps toward achievement of King’s dream, without creating a backlash among the rest of the electorate that wasn’t enamored with the racial overtones of the Democratic primary campaign.

To succeed in November, both candidates will have to speak explicitly to the future and demonstrate that their campaign represents the hopes of a new generation. The country is waiting for a new leader with a new approach to guide it out of the Boomer briar patch in which it has been stuck since 1968. After the conventions, we will have a clearer idea who can best lead the country into a new era of American politics.

Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics published by Rutgers University Press.

• Marc Ambinder notes that for the first time, MTV will accept paid political advertisements. Gawker has the appropriately snarky response.
• Kevin Bondelli notes that SMS is one of the best tools for organizing rural youth.
• McCain has a Facebook App! Called "Pork Invaders," the game lets you sling vetos at unnecessary spending projects symbolized by big flying pigs. I can already envision the Democratic response - a Facebook App that lets you play wack-a-mole with McCain's lobbyist buddies.
• Speaking of campaign-related video games, does anyone else remember the Bush Game from back in 2004? Good times.
• Because I'm a geek and I already miss Battlestar Galactica, I'll post this essay on Why I'd Vote for Baltar. It's the new "I voted for Kodos."
• Facebook has finally surpassed MySpace in unique viewers per month.
• Michael Hais and Morley Winograd note that political coalitions are changing, but the pundits can't shake their old models.
• Student PIRGs report that lower interest rates beginning in July on Stafford Loans will save students thousands of dollars.
• The Seattle Times wonders if Obama will be able to help down-ballot candidates.
• At WireTap, Kristina Rizga has a few ideas about closing the participation gap between college and non-college youth.
• For those who couldn't attend, this was one of the highpoints of the PDF conference - Tracy Russo (former Edwards blogger) smacking down McCain internet advisor Mark SooHoo about McCain's understanding of the potential of the internet to transform governance:

• Finally, I'm wondering what y'all think of this Blogging Heads video about the political implications of Hip Hop:

• Pinch me because I think I'm dreaming, but "this year the youth vote will matter," declares the mainstream media. -Washington Post
• Road trip for Democracy. An oldy but goody organization from 2004 is gearing up to get to work in 2008. -Swing Semester

• Next Generation is Reshaping Politics Through Social Networks. An interview with Morley Winograd of Millennial Makeover. -San Jose Mercury News
• ABC News notes that the age gap between the candidates is made larger as education levels rise. -ABC News
• Young, left-leaning religious voters are making social justice issues a part of their faith and politics. -St. Louis Today
• The New York Times Editorial page has an idea for helping cash-strapped students: reign in the out-of-control price of books and the monopoly that sets the prices. - New York Times

Since I've been traveling so much, I've taken the opportunity afforded by long plane flights to revitalize my reading habits. So far I've read and reviewed Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody, and David Kinnaman's UnChristian. I've been enjoying this chance to read again. It's a good habit that unfortunately dropped well below previous levels as I worked on my book and struggled to juggle a full-time job and blogging. I've been able to do a new book every 12 - 15 days, and hope to keep that up through the spring and summer (no promises once the Fall gets here and the campaign really kicks into high-gear).

Most recently, I finished Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics by Morely Winograd and Michael Hais. Winograd is a former policy advisor to Al Gore, and Hais is a retired executive for communications research firm Frank N. Magid Associates. Together, they've pooled their expertise and produced a compelling look at the historical, demographic, and technological trends that have shaped American political history, and how those cyclical trends might play out as the Millennial Generation comes into it's own as a force in American politics.

Millennial Makeover owes a large debt to the work of generational theorists William Strauss and Neil Howe, upon whose theory of generational "cycles" much of their work is based. In a nutshell, that theory, applied to politics, boils down to this:

Every 40 years or so American politics goes through a "realignment," or a period during which the balance of power changes radically, as do the kinds of politics that are practiced. These realignments come in two types - idealistic and civic - each matching the characteristics of the generation which drives them. Idealistic realignments tend to focus on moral and personal politics and are typically characterized by gridlock and inaction in Washington. Political participation tends to ebb during idealist eras, and more voters identify as "independents." Civic realignments are characterized by a greater pragmatism and public participation rates, and greater partisan identification in the electorate. These eras tend to be times in which the government and how it functions are made anew. In both instances, the weaker of the two parties at the time of the realignment tends to come into power, not insignificantly through the help of new communications technologies.

The 20th Century saw two such realignments. First through the GI Generation, a civic generation which remade American government and business institutions in the pre- and post-WWII period through a radical expansion of the role of government in the lives of Americans via programs such as the GI Bill and the New Deal. Technological assistance for Democrats and the GI Generation in that realignment came via the advent of radio, exemplified by FDR's Fireside Chats. This was a high time for the Democratic Party. Approximately 40 years later, it was the Baby Boomers who realigned the country, this time as an idealist generation with the help of their savvy use of the television. The Baby Boomer period, from which we are now emerging, was marked by declining rates of participation, a focus on personal and moral issues (the culture wars), and the ascendancy of the Republican Party, which attempted to minimize the (social and economic) role of government and undo the reforms of the New Deal.

This cyclical realignment has occurred 5 times in our history, and Winograd and Hais argue that the 6th realignment is upon us. With the help of social software (blogs, wikis, youtube, facebook, etc.), Millennials, who are already showing higher and higher rates of participation in the political process and a greater identification with the Democratic Party, will once again remake American politics, from the issues on which the government takes action, all the way down to the means by which it interacts with its citizens.

When it comes to examining the historical trends (as far back as the Revolutionary War) and contextualizing data on the beliefs and habits of today's youngest generation, Millennial Makeover is a font of information, both old and new. Equally impressive is their handling of technology. Winograd and Hais do a good job outlining how social technologies are short-circuiting and rewiring the political process (notable examples include George Allen's "Macaca Moment" on YouTube and the way that blogs have altered the money equation in campaigns and elections), and how the Millennials' penchant for information sharing and cultural production will move those technologies even further into the heart of our political process. For those looking to delve into either of these topics, Millennial Makeover is a top-notch reference.

That said, considering that their main thesis is that Millennials will reshape American politics, there are very few actual Millennials in Hais and Winograd's book. And their writing credits generational shifts and overall technology trends for the changes we are seeing in the voting electorate above and beyond the efforts of the emerging progressive youth movement we cover here at Future Majority, a position exemplified by this quote:

Many different groups and causes will try to claim responsibility for this reversal in civic life, but generational cycles should be given most of the credit.

I admit that I am particularly biased here in that my own book is dedicated almost exclusively to covering the role of new youth institutions in mobilizing the Millennial Generation at the polls. It's not that I disagree with Hais and Winograd that technology and generational cycles shouldn't get credit, but I believe them to be two of a confluence of factors that also includes new youth-built and youth-driven institutions within the Democratic Party and progressive movement. Millennial Makeover makes no mention of the role that organizations like the Bus Project, Young Democrats, The League, or many others played in turning out young voters in '04 and '06, either to refute or affirm their role.

Young people and new youth institutions are agents of change in this reshaping just as much as generational trends and shifting technologies (indeed, many of these new groups take advantage of both trends). The work of these groups since 2004, and their success in turning out Millennials, particularly due to their on-the-ground, peer-to-peer field work, is well-documented. Yet the book treats these organizations as if they did not exist, and that strikes me as a rather glaring omission.

There is precious little serious political analysis as to how the Millennial Generation has, and will continue, to shape our politics. To my knowledge, there are only three such resources available to date, Millennial Makeover, my own Youth to Power, and Keli Goff's Party Crashing. Having read two of them at this point, I think we're fortunate in that the first two books seem to be quite complementary. Millennial Makeover excels in its analysis of generations in American politics, the shifting technological landscape, and the contours of the Millennial Generation, but gives short shrift to the emerging progressive youth movement. My own book's strength lies in its chronicling of the rise and role of Millennial institutions in our current political realignment. While it touches on much of what is in Winograd and Hais's book, its coverage of generational cycles, history, and technology does not approach the depth with which they are explored by Winograd and Hais. Goff's Party Crashing is next on my list, and looks to be just as unique in its focus and coverage as the previous two books. Together, they might be an invaluable trilogy for anyone looking to understand the political impact of the Millennial generation.