Neil howe

Craig and I have both blogged about two new reports about the Millennials Generation: The Millennial Pendulum and Yes We Can: The Emergence of the Millennials as a Political Generation. Both reports were released earlier this week at a panel hosted by the New America Foundation featuring CIRCLE director Peter Levine, author and generational scholar Neil Howe, and former Obama youth vote director Hans Reimer.

Video of the complete panel is now posted and those who (like me) couldn't make it down to DC can listen watch for themselves. The video runs almost two hours. I haven't had a chance to watch it yet, but from Peter Levine's description it sounds like there was an interesting and lively discussion.

As I mentioned in yesterday's Quick Hits post, Neil Howe has revisited the politics of Millennials in a report co-authored with Reena Nadler, titled "Yes We Can: The Emergence of Millennials as a Political Generation." Howe and Nadler examine the political motivations of today's young people through the lens of the the framework Howe and his late research partner, William Strauss, produced a decade ago. The report, which was released by New America Foundation as a part of its Next Social Contract Initiative, is available in a .pdf file here. This report, and Peter Levine's report, titled "The Millennial Pendulum: A New Generation of Voters and the Prospects for a Political Realignment," will be released at an event at the New America Foundation (1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW 7th Floor, Washington, DC). Participants include Neil Howe, Reena Nadler, Peter Levine and Scott Keeter (Director of Survey Research at Pew Research Center), and Hans Riemer (National Youth Vote Director for the Obama campaign and former Political and Issues Director for Rock the Vote).

The first portion of the report rehashes what the Millennial Generation is, how it fits into American history, and the generation's collective personality. In fact, Howe and Nadler examine the development of the Millennials using the seven adjectives Howe and Strauss used to describe Millennials in their book Millennials Rising: special, sheltered, confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving.

Eventually, Howe and Nadler delve into the development of the Millennials' political personality. Conceding that it is too early to know whether or not the Millennial trend toward the Democratic Party is a sure thing and that Millennials are somewhat complex politicos, often taking hybrid positions, Howe and Nadler label Millennials as "politically and economically liberal but socially and culturally conservative." The authors compare the politics of today's youth with the views of "Reagan Democrats," seeing similarities in each generation's political orientation.

At first, the conservative label threw me off. I remembered reading in Generation We that Millennials are much more tolerant socially than their elders. For instance:

On race, too, there’s strong trend among Generation We toward seeing race as fundamentally a nonissue. In 2003, almost all (89 percent) of white 18- to 25-year-old Millennials said they agreed that “it’s all right for Blacks and Whites to date each other,” including 64 percent who “completely” agreed. Back in 1987–1988, when the same question was posed to white 18- to 25-year-old Gen Xers, just 56 percent agreed with this statement.

Gallup data from a 2005 poll underscore these findings; 95 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds said they approve of Blacks and Whites dating, and 60 percent of this age group said they had dated someone of a different race. In addition, 82 percent of white 18- to 25-year-old Millennials in 2003 disagreed with the idea that they “don’t have much in common with people of other races.”

But it is their views on sexual preference issues that are perhaps the most strikingly liberal. On gays, the views of Generation We are far more liberal than that of their elders. For example, in a 2007 Pew survey, an outright majority (56 percent) of 18- to 29-year-olds supported allowing gays and lesbians to marry, while the public as a whole opposed gay marriage by a 55-to-37 majority.

Millennials are also concerned about political trends that put tolerance at risk. In an April 2005 GQR poll of 18- to 25-year-olds, 64 percent believed that religious conservatives had gone too far in invading people’s personal lives, and 58 percent thought the country needs to work harder at accepting and tolerating gays, rather than work harder
at upholding traditional values.

But Howe and Nadler weren't necessarily talking about same-sex marriage and abortion (which Millennials do not view either more progressively or conservatively than their Boomer parents). Instead, they were focusing on the Millennial fondness for the family structure. Emphasis is mine.

Millennials are maintaining strong emotional, physical, and financial connections with their families as they enter adulthood. Throughout their childhood and adolescence, they have been more likely than the last two generations to trust their parents, depend on their support, and discuss important personal matters with them. Looking ahead, Millennials also place great importance on starting their own nuclear families. They are less interested than their Boomer parents in reforming family life and discussing (or arguing about) “family values.” Most prefer to take the importance of families for granted and try to make them work. Like older liberals, they support a broad definition of acceptable family structures. Like older conservatives, they believe that strong families are the cornerstone of a stable and livable society.

[...]

Despite this family-oriented “traditionalism,” today’s youth are more likely than older Americans to believe that unconventional families can be just as close and stable as traditional families. Millennials believe that the opportunity to participate in family life is so important that nobody should be left out. This generation is nearly twice as likely as older Americans to favor gay marriage, and they are the only age group that favors allowing gays to adopt children.

Republican youth, as Mike noted earlier this week, like to see a path back to parity among today's youth in the "socially conservative" nature of Millennials, but as you just read, this proves to be fool's gold. This isn't your Republican Boomer parent's "socially conservative" philosophy.

Furthermore, what Howe and Nadler don't substantively touch upon is that Millennials are much more apt to think economically when thinking of matters of national importance. Arguments over the fabric of the nation consist not of abortions and the possibility of gays marrying each other, but of the social safety net and entitlement reform. The fiscally liberal Millennials will be placing much more emphasis on defining its pro-government priorities in the budget than on any social viewpoints, especially given the nature of the economic crisis. This certainly counts for something and can't be overlooked when assessing the next twenty or thirty years of politics.

Howe and Nadler center their report on "ten imperatives" they think will form the Millennial political agenda moving forward.

1. Strengthen Community
2. Trust the System
3. Minimize Personal Risk
4. Support the Family
5. Be Upbeat and Optimistic
6. Make Capitalism Work Better
7. Champion Unity over Diversity
8. Favor Realistic and Multilateral World Leadership
9. Seek Consensus and Decorum in Politics
10. Plan Ahead for the Long-term

I don't think any of these would necessarily surprise those of us interested in Millennial political behavior, other than the way Howe and Nadler have Millennials supporting the family compared to our conservative counterparts. One thing to underscore might be the economic liberalism of today's young people. Again and again, Howe and Nadler point out the pro-government, pro-regulation mindset among the generation, careful to include that Millennials don't despise business and the markets. Raised amid excessive individualism, Millennials tend to see a group solution to many crises, and so with our global financial crisis, it's only natural that they look to an institution like the government for solutions.

Looking into the future, Howe and Nadler underscored entitlement reform as something Millennials will use to grab a hold of the political discussion. Howe and Nadler predict that future-oriented Millennials will be the generation with the political ability and will to make tough, sustainable fiscal decisions, reforming Social Security and Medicare.

All in all, Howe and Nadler's report is a good start. Millennials are clearly already starting to impact our politics in a major way. But I think there's more that can be said regarding the future agenda for the generation, especially given Howe and Nadler's prediction that Millennials will coalesce behind one party in a civil, pragmatic way. For example, at what point does the climate crisis begin to supercede entitlement reform as the largest challenge? Will we be recovered from today's mess in time to deal with that? A great foundation, but I'll be looking for more to read on this in the months and years to come.

Just got this in my inbox from the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Think someone's afraid of Millennials? If you are in DC, go to their site and register. I won't be able to make it down to DC that day and would love to hear how it went.

The Millennials: The Dumbest Generation or the Next Great Generation?
Monday, September 29, 2008, 12:00–2:00 p.m.
Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

In an election season marked by the prominent involvement of young voters and the unprecedented use of new technologies for campaign advertisements and fundraising, the significance of the “millennial generation” has acquired new salience. Some have deemed the generation born between 1982 and 2000 smart and engaged, pointing to record competitiveness for admission to top colleges and surging political participation. Others cite the average two hours that youths spend each day watching television—and the average eight minutes they spend reading—and lament that their access to video games, the Internet, and other digital technologies has eroded essential knowledge and skills. What do data tell us about the impact of new technologies on learning and attainment? What does this mean for youth and schooling in America? How are today’s youth affecting technological development, our way of life, and our institutions?

Two influential thinkers on these questions—Mark Bauerlein, author of The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future and Neil Howe, co-author of Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation—will debate these and other issues. Frederick M. Hess, AEI’s director of education policy studies, will moderate.

I'll give you one guess which side the moderator favors . . .

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.