political participation

• Joan Walsh provides some interesting food for thought regarding the health of the Obama coalition as we move toward 2012. How might this coalition of disaffected Republicans, progressives, young voters, first time voters, labor, and African Americans and Latinos look this time around, and more importantly, will it be as powerful?
  

  "One big problem for Obama is that he assembled an unprecedented electoral coalition in 2008, but it wasn't a governing coalition. Progressives like to think of the themselves as the president's base, and it's partly true: Obama won thanks to an unrivaled turnout of young voters, first time voters, African Americans and Latinos; and an energetic labor effort. But they – we – weren't enough by ourselves. He also did well with independents and even some Republicans who were ashamed of what the Bush Cheney years did to their party. Predictably, a lot of those voters are going home now. I'm not sure they'll be entirely happy with what they'll find when they get there, or whether they'll discover the Tea Party ransacked the place. But they're uncomfortable with the way Obama used government to solve the banking crisis, stimulate the ailing economy and extend health insurance to more people. Of course, on the left he hasn't done enough on those fronts. When both sides are carping, the common wisdom goes, that means you must be doing something right. I'm not sure that's true when you're facing re-election."

• Rock the Vote President Heather Smith argues that state voting systems restrict young Americans, and demands improvement in The Hill. The youth movement can't talk about this enough!
• Colbert tackles the youth vote:

  "The GOP brand is about as popular with kids as an episode of "60 Minutes" hosted by a tube of Sensodyne."

  
  

  The Colbert Report
  Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

• Does Facebook exacerbate our society's obsession with "Keeping up with the Jones'?" This article suggests that yes, it does, and the consequences could lead to depression.
• Meanwhile, here is a report suggesting that for all the widgets, tools, and gadgets meant to connect young people to various initiatives online, they won't improve political participation in young people.
• It's nothing new, but it probably remains to be the largest story impacting youth today: unemployment.
• Just in case you didn't see it yesterday, an interesting video from Lee Camp calling on the Millennial Generation to get out of the metaphorical basement.
• 20 Questions with Paul Ryan, including, "Do you think the GOP could win back young voters?"
• KPAX out of Montana discusses the state's #4 ranking on the Rock the Vote Scorecard.

I start this post hoping that most of us can agree that contemporary political discourse is problematic. The oversized egos of television and radio commentators and news personalities, accompanied by the narcissistic and moralistic tone of most politicians, leaves us with lots of posturing and little change.

Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter in the Bush administration and a current columnist in the Washington Post, decided to wade into this topic in his latest piece. Gerson sees discourse breaking down into two parties: the Ugly Party and the Grown-Up Party. In differentiating the two, Gerson rightly attributes all dialogue which wishes death upon people or likens them to a disease to the Ugly Party. For instance, Ann Coulter's lamentation that the terrorists did not also hit the New York Times building, or that Mike Malloy, a radio talk show host, stating that he believed Glenn Beck should blow his brains out. I have no problem with Gerson's scolding here -- we need more of it.

I do have a problem with his alternative, however. Gerson explains the Grown-Up Party:

The alternative to the Ugly Party is the Grown-Up Party -- less edgy and less hip. It is sometimes depicted on the left and on the right as an all-powerful media establishment, stifling creativity, freedom and dissent. The Grown-Up Party, in my experience, is more like a seminar at the Aspen Institute -- presentation by David Broder, responses from E.J. Dionne Jr. and David Brooks -- on the electoral implications of the energy debate. I am more comfortable in this party for a few reasons: because it is more responsible, more reliable and less likely to wish its opponents would die.

Sounds nice, right? My problem is that Gerson's explanation of the Grown-Up Party is too regressive for my taste. If we are trying to engage youth in politics, especially optimistic Millennials, we certainly should be doing what we can to rid the political environment of divisive rhetoric (as well as produce a title less insulting to youth democrats -- little "d"). But we should not be doing it at the expense of access and opportunities for participation.

Gerson's "seminar" places the experts at the center of the discourse suggesting that they should be controlling this country's political discussion, not its citizens. Gerson anticipates this criticism, noting this approach's reputation as "stifling creativity, freedom and dissent." Unfortunately, Gerson does little to soothe these concerns.

While I appreciate Gerson's critique of the status quo and his call for a better political environment, I regret his admitted lack of creativity in constructing an alternative. This Grown Up Party, in throwing the proverbial baby (New Media) out with the proverbial bathwater (an indecent discourse), also squanders opportunities, to use Gerson's language. Today's youth are coming of age with heaps of learned technological experience, and while many online communities have extremists, just like offline communities do, the Internet can be used productively and responsibly and should not simply be dismissed.

I propose a hybrid of Gerson's approach and the status quo. Yes, our culture is poisonous, with dangerous rhetoric flowing into our discourse. The resulting animosity begets more nasty language and leads to personal attacks that immediately shut down productive policy discussion and the free exchange of thoughts and ideas. Instead of attacking New Media, perhaps we educate young adults. Using deliberation in high school classrooms, for example, teaches students civic knowledge, critical thinking, and communication skills. This pedagogy could replace the boring overhead projector and transparencies many of us experienced in social studies courses. Maybe we simultaneously empower young adults, ensuring they understand that politics is not merely a negative, episodic adventure, but an ongoing marathon in which they can easily participate.

Dualistic thinking is dangerous, and employing it in this context threatens our ability to fully capitalize on the opportunities present in our citizenship. We need healthy rhetoric in our political discourse, but we need it to accompany expanded participation in the conversation, not eschew it.