progressive movement

For those of you undergraduate students looking for a great summer internship, check out The Roosevelt Institute Campus Network's posting below:

The Roosevelt Institute Campus Network’s Summer Academy combines a full-time, paid internship with a training curriculum and weekly networking events as part of an integrated program of leadership development. Our objective is to bring new, diverse, and progressive voices into the political process, and we pair these young leaders with progressive partner organizations that will task them with substantive, policy-related work. This highly selective program is open to all undergraduate students and runs for ten weeks, from June 3rd to August 12th, 2010. If you are interested in applying, visit the Roosevelt website. The deadline to apply is February 26th.

This opportunity is great in that 1.) it is with a great youth-driven organization; 2.) it's a terrific opportunity to get your progressive voice heard; 3.) it's an awesome chance to build relationships with colleagues in other progressive organizations and work with them to advance progressive policies.

Here is the application on their website.

A great website was started as a means of connecting progressives on Twitter called TweetProgress. According to the site the plan

"was hatched up by @jgilliam, @myrnatheminx, @jdp23 and @ginacooper to bring more progressives on Twitter, and better connect the ones who are."

A while back we did a quick hit about how Twitter is old ... er .. more middle aged... people who live in urban areas. And Politico did a piece about how more GOP elected officials are on Twitter. This is sad.

So the Folks at TweetProgress decided to fix it. Tracy - aka @myrnatheminx - was the co-founder (along with Jon Pincus) of the hashtag #p2 which basically stands for progressive 2.0 and simply serves as a much shorter tag than something like #topprog or even #tcot but helps us keep tabs on progressive tweets that should be retweeted. The website is a catalogs of all progressive tweeters who might want to be linked to other progressives.

"We want to help progressives find each other on Twitter and coalesce around progressive issues and actions," TweetProgress co-founder Tracy Viselli told The Hill. "There is a huge pool of progressives out there doing very cool stuff already on Twitter, but not everyone knows about what they are doing. We hope to use TweetProgress to do that."

The site went live just in the last couple days–against the intentions of Viselli and the site's co-founders. . .

"I think we've always seen ourselves as different from conservatives on Twitter," Viselli said. "First, TweetProgress is not built around there being an elite like [#]TCOT is. We want everyone to join the progressive fold and help us get our message across."

As you can see the real goal of TweetProgress is to allow newbie twitter folks to join and find mentors who are already established twitter'ers and can help them learn the ropes of progressive tweeting. Another goal is for #p2 folks to reach out to other progressives who don't know about all of the great work that is being done on Twitter to help progressive activism.

While more GOP elected officials might be more prominent or more noisy on Twitter, TweetProgress is banking on the millions of other users who just don't know the impact they can have if they join the cause.

I think this is a great opportunity to also bring more young people to twitter. While so many young people prefer facebook or myspace as a means of updating their status, you can download apps to your iPhone for Twitter and you can sync your twitter account to your Facebook account so it feeds directly into your status update. That way you don't have to navigate that detailed interface while going 80mph down the highway... ... not .. that I've done that..... .... ....

If you work with a cause, an organization, or candidate I wrote a few weeks ago about some of the most successful tweeting campaigns I've been grateful to worked with. And Kevin Bondelli's All Inclusive Guide to Twitter can be found here too. And if that isn't enough of a ringing endorsement of why you should join Twitter or join TweetProgress... then the coolest thing is that Al Gore signed up for it.

I've gotten into a rut of writing about the GOP over the past few weeks, and I promise I'll end it soon. But bear with me for one more post please.

Columnist David Hawpe from the Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky examines youth involvement in politics within the state and concludes that youth do have an important role to play in today's politics. Hawpe refreshingly declines to follow other lazy pundits, who assert that today's youth are lazy because they're not chaining themselves to bulldozers or protesting; instead, Hawpe sees the ballot box as just as effective (maybe more) than the obstructive tactics of the 1960s. Hawpe closes by hoping young Kentucky voters play a significant, responsible role in deciding Kentucky's 2010 Senate race as young Americans did in 2008's presidential/congressional elections. Hawpe simply believes elections need youth involvement.

Hawpe seems to focus solely on youth voting in his piece, but there are obviously several other ways for young people to get involved in politics. Registering to vote and casting a ballot is one way, but others include working on a political campaign or running one yourself. Sarah wrote a post in January about the number of young, progressive candidates running for office this spring. While we face our challenges in getting our party to respond to requests for more youth involvement, we're in relatively good shape compared to the other party.

A blog post on Newsday's online editorial page notes one large problem surfacing in the New York GOP (other than the shocking defeat of Republican Jim Tedesco by Democrat Scott Murphy in a notoriously red district): no young candidates.

The party's age problem has been evident for years. As this New York Times story points out, 15 of the 32 Republican senators were 65 or older in the last election, in November. That, of course, was the election that flipped Senate control to the Democrats, with the loss of Caesar Trunzo's South Shore seat. Trunzo was 81 at the time, and victor Brian X. Foley was 50.

Of course, many of the retirements and defections that were anticipated after the GOP lost the majority have not taken place. Sen. Owen Johnson, 79, of West Babylon, is still in office, as is Sen. William Larkin Jr., 80, who represents the mid-Hudson Valley. Younger senators who were thought to have ambitions elsewhere -- Sens. Chuck Fuschillo, 48, and Kemp Hannon, 63 -- have not left, either, in spite of the significant downsize in their roles as minority members.

[...]

...You have to wonder what it takes to win as a Republican these days. There doesn't seem to be a new generation of young candidates lining up to find out.

The Republicans, already more politically irrelevant than they've been in quite some time, are also missing a political farm team -- young reserves who get trained locally in electoral politics before being dispatched in larger, more widely covered races. An Iowa State professor uses another analogy:

“Young people are the new trees in the deforested Republican party, and they have to plant new trees and water them and get them going, and I don’t think they’re doing a very good job with it,” says Steffen Schmidt, a political science professor at Iowa State University in Ames.

The rebuildtheparty.com website that was created immediately following Obama's win last November also observed a large problem with the lack of youthful candidates on the GOP bench. The group found it to be a problem serious enough to warrant a new program aimed at recruiting younger candidates in local races.

Undoing the damage to our party's brand among America's youth will take more than new slogans and hip spokespeople. It will mean making young voters the face of the Republican Party, and not just another target group with its own bulleted list of "outreach" talking points. To that end, the next Chairman should commit to a simple goal: working towards a Republican Party where at least 40% of our challenger and open seat candidates for Congress are under 40. Such a party will send a signal to all Americans that the GOP is once again the party of the future.

It all sounds good. But one has to question this group's sincerity in its efforts to overhaul the party after a trip to its website. On the front page, a Tedisco campaign YouTube video is prominently displayed informing visitors the campaign "needs [their] help to win on March 31st." More than a month later, with the GOP still unable to find its youth magic after Tedisco, 58, lost to the Democrats' 39 year old candidate, perhaps even rebuildtheparty.com is on a furlough.

Or perhaps a little birdie told them of Michael Steele's answer when asked to name four rising stars under the age of fifty within the Republican Party. Just a warning -- it's ugly:

"I'd say certainly Bobby Jindal, Governor Sanford, Pawlenty, Palin," Steele said Sunday. "We have a whole host of folks out there who are beginning to emerge on the scene and will over the next couple of years I think redefine this party in a way that will be very good for us long term."

[...]

The RNC chair was specifically asked to name three Republian [sic] leaders under the age of 50 whom he sees as "new faces."

He ended up providing four names, all of them governors.

With that view, so much for 40 under 40.

While the Republicans are having all sorts of problems supporting their youth and/or finding any to run for office on their behalf (aside from Aaron Schock, the 27 year old congressman), there are some concerns on the Democratic side we shouldn't ignore. For instance, Tony Cani from SEIU (formerly the Political Director of the Young Democrats) tweeted today from a youth panel at the Tennessee Democratic Party's Summit that young candidates aren't necessarily open to engaging youth.

tcani: Youth panel talking about fustration w young candidates in tn (ford) running from youth not engaging them. #tndpsummit

In addition to maximizing our political strength among youth, more funding of the progressive youth movement is needed, especially now that Obama won and a sense of urgency may unfortunately be lost on some donors. In addition, as Sarah noted in her post I referenced earlier, we can't let local elections slip by after larger ones without doing our best to help our own progressive candidates. While this might be easy to do simply because the Republicans aren't sure what they're doing with youth, in order to build for the long-term, we must do more to extend our focus on youth candidates to every office/seat possible, no matter how small.

In the end, Hawpe is, of course, correct -- youth involvement is a must in assessing the long-term health of a political party and is quite potent when given a chance. Unfortunately for conservative youth, the GOP can't seem to make up its mind about the importance of youth participation. Even Steele, who was elected to shake up the party's image among moderates and youth, had to rely on names like Palin and Jindal when asked for examples of rising stars. Democrats and the left, on the other hand, should use this as a reminder of the importance of continued organization and funding of progressive youth, many of whom will form the bench of candidates responsible for sustaining our majority well into the future.

Kansas Minority Leader Paul Davis is a young elected official who recently took on a leadership role in the Kansas State Legislature. We are grateful to have his perspective both as someone who is still young and someone who is leading the House Democratic Caucus in the heartland. -Sarah

During the 2008 campaign, President Barack Obama frequently reminded us that progress is always possible if we walk down the right path and refuse to give up. This has been the motto of House Democrats in the Sunflower State for several years. Outnumbered by Republicans two to one, Democrats in Kansas are forced to do business differently. We take tremendous pride in being the largest voting block of the Kansas Legislature as a result of our inclusive, progressive approach to public policy. We must work harder and smarter, be more open to compromise, and vigilantly watch for vehicles to advance our most important priorities. This is not always easy, but when you are on the right side of the issue, opportunities eventually seem to surface.

As the minority party we do not control the calendar, so most of the accomplishments for House Democrats in Kansas come in the form of creative amendments and thoughtful, vigorous debate on the floor. Our legislature wrestles the same issues year after year, which is why some of our most noteworthy victories in the House result from the new ideas of our young members and first termers. Of course we do not win every battle, but every victory builds a more prosperous state and strengthens our resolve to send more Democratic lawmakers to the Kansas Legislature.

We must keep working on behalf of our progressive principles, because history proves that these are the true values of Kansas families and communities. This state expects its government to provide for our children’s education, be good stewards of our environment, make health care more affordable, stand up for working families and protect our must vulnerable citizens. Sometimes small steps in this direction become the foundation for future improvements.

For example, after 20 years of work, today we finally approved an increase in the Kansas minimum wage. This is an enormous victory for our caucus and for the 20,000 Kansans currently working for the shameful minimum wage rate of $2.65 per hour. In addition to raising the state minimum wage, House Democrats have continued their work this year as steadfast protectors of Kansas public education, both for K12 students and for post-secondary education. With the help of Governor Sebelius, we held off devastating cuts to K-12 education earlier in the session and have placed significant pressure on the majority party to keep public schoolchildren high on the priority list in the wake of the 2010 budget crisis.

In the face of overwhelming challenges, it can be easy for young progressives to forget what makes our state great. But we have a heritage that should make everyone proud to be a Kansan. Whether it be our pioneer determination to enter this country as a free state, Amelia Earhart taking flight across the Atlantic, Clyde Cessna and Walter Beech giving birth the aviation industry or Linda Brown and her family who went all the way to United States Supreme Court to seek justice and end segregated schools, Kansans have been at the forefront of what makes America a country of noble, globally celebrated ideals. These noted Kansans did not give up when faced with obstacles, they persevered. Our challenge is to keep working to promote what is right and just for Kansas and its citizens- despite our red state status.

Ad astra per aspera.
(translation: To the stars through difficulty)

Back in December, when the Presidential Transition was just beginning to ramp up, I wrote two pieces about the current state and future of progressive youth organizing:

• Framing the Youth Movement
• Where Do We Go From Here?

These were pretty high level, 30,000 foot views. Today, having finished the transition period, I want to talk a little more specifically about what I think the youth organizing space needs to accomplish in 2009 and 2010 in order to push this "movement," (such that is one) forward beyond the electoral work that has primarily defined us for 4 years. These are the four main themes that I think need to define our work, and this is where Future Majority will likely focus its efforts in 2009:

• Spread Internal Policy and Lobbying Expertise: What little institutional knowledge the youth community has when it comes to moving legislation is locked up in a few orgs with professional lobbying staff (USSA, PIRG, maybe Energy Action). We need to create a mechanism to unlock and spread that knowledge out to the rest of the community. Furthermore, we need to grow our organizational and personal social networks on the Hill and find allies who can guide us through the process, sponsor bills, and give us greater entre into DC. It was my hope that the White House Youth Liaison might in part be an ally in this process, but at this time the transition is completed and there is no word from the Administration as to whether or not such a position will even be created let alone staffed with someone who will be a competent and forceful ally.
• Resist Issue and Age Silos: A framework needs to be created under which youth organizations working on different issues can endorse and support each other. We are strongest when we act together and demographically speaking the vast majority of Millennials are going to be on the same side of a number of issues. It's widely recognized that siloization of issues in the progressive movement was detrimental overall, we should recognize that and be conscious not segregate ourselves along issue lines. Likewise, our work shouldn't be separate from the work of "older" progressive organizations. Progressive campaigns should all have youth-targeted components and rather than run our own programs, we should be running the youth-targeted pieces of these larger campaigns.
• Voter Registration Reform is a Game Changer: We are all excited to make headway on major issues like climate change, green jobs, education funding, and restoring civil liberties, but our success in all of those areas in part depends on high levels of youth participation at the polls. Maintaining those levels of engagement is a resource intensive endeavor that never stops. It sucks up millions of dollars and thousands of staff hours per year. Automatic Universal Registration with an Election Day Registration fail-safe, as proposed by Rock the Vote, could potentially guarantee that 2008 is not the last time we see 53% turnout or higher among youth. It would also put dozens of youth groups effectively out of the voter registration business, saving millions of dollars a year that could instead be spent on GOTV, issue campaigns, and leadership development. That would change the youth organizing space in profound and fundamental ways, I think perhaps for the better. I would like to see some form of AUVR and EDR passed during this Congress, and get all youth groups out of the voter reg business by 2012.
• Reform the Democratic Part(ies) and Party Committees: As I've noted many times, Obama's engagement of young voters remains the exception, not the rule in Democratic politics. We've had a lot of great rhetoric from Howard Dean's DNC about the importance of young voters, but very few campaigns or state parties took that to heart, and Dean's words never translated to a stronger, better resourced youth infrastructure within the Democratic Party. The best that could be said of Dean's tenure with regard to youth participation in the party is that we saw the creation of the Youth Council, and entity that is still getting its legs and fighting for power, and we saw a higher number of youth delegates at the Democratic convention, something more attributable to Obama's candidacy then to any policy or program instituted by Gov. Dean. The argument for greater inclusion of youth within the party structure, and the codification of youth outreach and engagement as a sound strategy practiced by the state parties and party committees has never been stronger. Over the next 4 years we are going to need to make that case so that the Democratic Party does not squander the opportunity of a generation. This is another area in which I hoped a White House Youth Liaison would be helpful. At the moment, it seems as though we'll need to just wait and see what Jennifer Dillon O'Mally and Mitch Stewart, respectively, do now that they are officially in control of the DNC and Organizing for America.

These are what I see as the four main tasks ahead of us in terms of creating greater coherency and power for our movement over the coming years, and adapting to the new power structure in DC and our relation to it. What do you think? Did I leave anything out or misrepresent anything?

Things are definitely in flux but they are slowly starting to come into focus. I spent last week responding to Erica Williams thoughtful post on where we are as a "movement," (or rather, as an increasingly important part of the progressive movement). Today I thought I'd spend some time outlining what's happening now, where we are all headed in the immediate future, and some things I'd like to see accomplished this year. These are all still imperfectly formed ideas, and I'd love feedback from anyone and everyone as to what sounds right, what needs to be tweaked, and what is totally off base.

We are shifting from a focus on elections to policy. We spent the past 5 years focused primarily on building an infrastructure to support increased young voter turnout and the production of skilled leaders to organize our generation and to merge into the general progressive movement. As Erica rightly pointed out in her piece, policy still remains our Achilles heel, and we have a number of short and long-term challenges ahead of us in overcoming that weakness. During the next two months we need to:

• Produce a list of policies we'd like to see included in the President-Elect's 100 Days Agenda.
• Begin to open communications channels and create working relationships between our groups, the White House and the Chambers of Congress.

These are not either/or propositions. In fact, working on the first will require that we make headway with the second.

With regard to policy and the First 100 Days, I think we have a few questions to consider. To what extent is it wise/strategic to have a separate "youth agenda" instead of joining a broader "progressive agenda" and lending our support to coalitions and organizations already working on those issues? To what extent are the policies that we want to see already being proposed by the administration? If they are, how do we effectively put our wind at Obama's back to help encourage passage of that legislation? To what extent should we be thinking about large scale projects and themes vs the knitty gritty details? Stated another way, will we be for "a just and equitable energy economy that creates green jobs, protects our environment and strengthens our national security," or should we be prepared to present the President with highly specific proposals and tweaks to existing laws that could have a real, demonstrable impact on the lives of our generation?

Whatever our answer is to the above questions, we're going to need some help accomplishing our goals - both in the administration and in congress.

Two weeks ago the Obama Transition Team appointed Lily Rothman, a Pennsylvania youth organizer for the campaign, as Youth Liaison for the transition. I've spoken with Lily and my understanding is that she is on staff to consult with youth advocates in order create the job description for the eventual White House youth liaison. To the extent that she can help, we need to be working with Lily not only on ensuring that the eventual WH Youth Liaison is an effective partner and advocate for our work, but that we are properly navigating the channels in the Administration that will let us put specific policies into consideration for the first 100 Days. In particular I see the liaison helping set up meetings between youth advocates and the appropriate policy teams within the Administration and perhaps on the Hill.

In the House we have some amazing connections to the Leadership - people who really get the dynamics of our organizations - our strengths and our weaknesses. In the coming months we are going to rely heavily on them to help guide us not just through the first hundred days, but the entire congressional session. I see this taking a number of forms - acting as liaison between youth advocates and specific lawmakers and policy committees; offering important background knowledge on committee dynamics; providing information on process and rules of the House. Unfortunately, we have no such connections to the Senate Leadership.

Forging strong working relationships in the White House and Congress - and strengthening existing ones - should be a high priority between now and the start of the next legislative session. It is these congressional liaisons that can alert us when specific bills we want to track move through committee, or are held up by opponents. They can keep us informed about what is going on behind the scenes, and it is to them that we will look for advice on how best to move those bills through committee, onto the floor, and eventually to the President's desk.

On a more long-term note, it's important to recognize that some organizations will necessarily take the lead on specific bills, and it will be quite easily to establish a few gate keepers with whom these working relationships with the administration and congress are built. In fact, it is probably inevitable that such a situation will arise. Unfortunately, it will also mean that valuable new institutional knowledge within the policy arena will remain locked away in only a few people's heads. To disperse that knowledge as widely as possible, we're going to need a new vehicle to aggregate and distribute information about bills we are tracking, who is sponsoring them, who opposes them, where they are in the process, when it is appropriate and most helpful to run campaigns in support of (or occasionally opposition to) a specific bill or amendment, etc. Creating and sharing such institutional knowledge is key not only to passing legislation early in the Administration, but in making our collective groups more strategic legislative advocates on any and all policy matters, and I think it's vitally important for the long-term success of our organizations.

So where are we now on all of these items I've identified as "policy" priorities for the next year?

• On policy, the Generational Alliance has a proposed "Youth Agenda," though no group outside their coalition has signed on to support it and it remains in the realm of vague general principles. Most of the questions I raised above remain outstanding.
• A number of youth advocates, including Future Majority, have held discussions with Lily Rothman and others in the transition about longterm goals for youth advocates in 2009 and ways that a White House Liaison can help attain those goals. Currently there is no definitive process or timetable laid out as to when or how that liaison will be selected, or how influential our input will be in making that decision.
• In the House, many youth organizers have connections to the Leadership and we have an advocate that can help guide us through the policy process. This seems to be our strongest card at the moment and we're talking with the House Liaison about how we can best create those strong ties and communications channels to become more effective policy advocates.
• In the Senate, we have no such connection to help us navigate the ropes.
• Long-term, Future Majority and a number of groups and individuals involved in policy making are discussing the best ways to aggregate and distribute information about specific policy proposals and any information that would be useful in organizing for or against those proposals.

While the focus will shift to policy, we still have more progress to make when it comes to electoral politics. The Obama campaign remains anomalous among Democratic campaigns in the extent to which it relied upon and reached out to young voters. As we move closer to the 2010 midterms, we need to make sure that at least some of us keep a focus on convincing state parties, party committees (DNCC, DSCC) and the DNC that they need to continue to focus on engaging young voters every year and at all levels of the campaign trail.

Ironically, even though I think we are strongest when it comes to electoral politics, we are further away from attaining these goals than we are the policy goals I outlined above. The state parties and party committees have proven quite stubborn in refusing to validate a young voter strategy to their staff/members, and even more stingy in moving resources to support youth work. From what I've heard, only one state party - Ohio - designated any resources to a young voter strategy in 2008.

So what are our options here? How can we get the Democratic Party structures on board the youth train?

• DNC Youth Council - the council is an official body within the DNC, made up of all DNC members under 36, plus 12 At-Large delegates from around the country (disclosure, I'm one of those At Large delegates). The council's mission is to push for greater inclusion of youth within the DNC. The council doesn't have a whole lot of teeth when it comes to something as big as changing the way the DNC does business, but members can get the ear of people within the DNC and use those connections to find out who to talk to at the State Parties and Party Committees.
• White House Youth Liaison - The President of the United States is de facto head of their party, meaning that an Obama administration should have a lot of pull at the DNC. One of the proposed roles of the White House Youth Liaison is to act as a champion for a youth strategy within the Party structures. It's possible that this person could be more helpful/effective in this project than in helping youth groups navigate the policy world.

We need to continue forging ties with other youth groups. One thing I've noted recently is that we're all a little insulated. As I noted last week, when I refer to the term "youth movement," I'm referring to a number of groups primarily - though not exclusively - that began in the last 5 or so years to fill the gaps in the Democratic Party and larger progressive movement in engaging young people and developing young leadership. Largely, these groups might also be classified another way - institutions that by and large raise their budgets through a small and specific set of Democratic and Progressive donors. Over the last year, we've done a great job at networking and sharing information with each other (when legally appropriate). I think that was a huge step in the right direction for us in terms of efficiency and sharing best practices/institutional knowledge. At the same time, I think that in part in part due to that greater networking, we've formed our own little "clique" in youth organizing. A lot of us started as outsiders, but when it comes to youth electoral organizing, in many ways we have now grown into the new "insiders." That of course implies that there are "outsiders."

There are plenty of organizations out there that are engaging youth - nationally and globally (like the recent AYM conference I mentioned), but which I would not classify as "in our movement." Figuring out if and how we should work with them is something I'd like to see us tackle this year as well. If there really is a youth or at least generational movement afoot, we should be plugged into it, not separate from it.

These are just some very rough thoughts about where I think we are currently at as a movement, collective or whatever you want to call us. Throughout the rest of the week I'll try to flesh out all these ideas a little more on an individual basis.

Over at her personal blog, Erica Williams, the Policy and Advocacy Manager at Campus Progress, has a thoughtful post reporting on a recent policy summit held by the Generational Alliance, a coalition of organizations from different sectors of the progressive movement (policy, leadership development, electoral) focused on young people. If that sounds rather delicately phrased, it is, and you'll soon understand why. In her piece, Erica makes four main claims, three of which I'd like to respond to:

1. The idea of a "youth" movement is disempowering and may in fact be counterproductive to what we all want to achieve in the policy realm.
2. Whatever this "movement" is, it is stacked with some awesome people who are passionate and smart (no argument here).
3. BUT, we all suck at policy.
4. Obama, not issues, is the main reason youth went to the polls this year.

I agree with some of this to varying degrees. However, I think Erica offers an incomplete overview of each of these topics and I'd like to flesh out some of it a bit more and pushback a little bit in other places. I'd like to address each of them one at a time. In this blog post, I want to talk about Erica's first point:

There isn't and should not be a separate "youth movement" based on age as the main identifier: Erica sums up her concerns here succinctly when she says:

The fact that I opened my post by characterizing the event as a gathering of “progressive leaders of the youth movement” rather than “young leaders of the progressive movement” says something. Reveling in our youth and our power actually does very little to develop and hone that power in a way that creates concrete policy goals and victories. The way to change the perception of young people as they relate to political power and change isn’t to state over and over again who you are (young) but instead to do what needs to be done (change policy, create new structures, enter and innovate the system) while you are who you are.

To my mind, there are two questions here, one of operations and infrastructure, and one of framing:

1. Are we or are we not building new structures, innovating within the system and changing policy? (Operations and Infrastructure)
2. To what degree, if at all, does the term "youth movement" detract from our ability to accomplish our operational goals? (Framing)

Operations and Infrastructure: When I hear the term "youth movement," I don't think of it in terms of a traditional social movement like Civil Rights or even the student movement of the 60's. It wasn't a movement at all in that sense. Rather, it has been a concerted effort on the part of young people to create progressive infrastructure at a time when few in the larger progressive movement or Democratic Party were serious about engaging young people in their activities. The term recognized a deficit in the field, leadership development and messaging work of the Democratic Party and Progressive Movement, and operated as a shorthand for a decentralized effort to create infrastructure to address that deficit.

Six years ago, if you were a young person looking to become involved in progressive politics, your options were fairly slim. You could become a canvasser, burn out within 6 months, and never work in progressive politics again. You could stuff envelopes and answer the phone for a campaign. You could participate in an underfunded College Democrats and a do-nothing version of the Young Democrats, or join a mish-mash of ineffectual campus issue groups.

Today there are at least a dozen new avenues for involvement in anything from electoral work (revamped YDA, Bus Federation, League of Young Voters) to leadership development (Young People For, Center for Progressive Leadership) to policy work (Roosevelt Institute). Erica's own organization, Campus Progress, comes out of this infrastructural boom of the last half decade.

So we are building new structures and addressing a gap in the larger progressive movement that neither progressive organizations and coalitions, nor the Democratic Party, were effectively filling. These structure are successful to varying degrees. I think we've done quite well on the electoral front and in leadership development, less well at policy (though there were far fewer opportunities in the Bush years) and not very well at all when it comes to integrating all of our work into the goals and activities of a larger progressive movement (more on that in a minute).

Framing: It's worth remembering that we didn't necessarily choose to be labeled as young people - that was assigned to us by political hacks, pundits and the media who routinely dismissed the potential power and engagement of anyone under 30. Because of that conventional wisdom, and the apathy of Generation X, young people had a terrible brand in American politics even a year or two ago. That in itself was a disempowering situation that needed to be corrected.

It's also worth recognizing that organizing around an age demographic is not in and of itself disempowering or nonsensical. No one argues that seniors or the AARP are ghettoizing themselves or stifling their own power because they use their age as an organizing principle. On some issues, age can in fact be a good organizing principle. The difference seems to be not in the framing of the organizing, but in the relative political clout of that constituency (or their political brand). That clout is in turn based on the constituency's ability to organize itself and exact a political price on anyone who opposes their policy positions. Seniors voted at a reliably high rate for decades while the youth vote floundered, creating a situation in which politicians depended on seniors to win elections. That created a positive political brand upon which the AARP capitalized in order to provide seniors a seat at the main policy table.

Thanks to the work of the "youth movement" - labeled as such - young people have a revitalized political brand and are now gaining a measure of political clout and respect. Indeed, we made up a higher share of the electorate this year than did those supposedly reliable seniors. It's up to us to translate that electoral power into policy victories and a seat at the table of major progressive organizations and coalitions.

Now, one could certainly argue that in order to effectively accomplish that work, we need to pivot away from the "youth movement" framing. I think the argument in favor of that option goes something like this: the terminology limits us in how we think about ourselves and our work, implicitly and artificially cutting us off from "the big table" (vs. the "kiddie table"). The term may also drive away potential supporters and activists within our own generation who, like Erica, "didn’t move into this segment of my life work to be a youth activist."

It is true that much of our work over the past half decade was sectioned off from the work of the rest of the progressive movement. We've spent the last five or six years building our organizations into sustainable structures, and learning how to cooperate and work amongst ourselves through coalitions (like the Generational Alliance and c3/c4 Tables today, or the Young Voter Alliance in 2004). This has, perhaps, been to the detriment of a greater focus on how we fit into the progressive movement as a whole.

Let's recognize, though, that revitalizing the youth brand was a necessary first step towards becoming a player in that larger progressive movement. Until very recently young leaders did not have the political capital to command the respect and attention of the larger progressive movement as anything other than token supporters. The rest of the progressive movement didn't particularly care about us before this year because we were still a totally unproven political force with a negative brand.

These two concepts - the revitalization of the youth brand and moving our work into that of the larger progressive movement - remain entwined. You can't do one without the other. To the extent that a new frame for our work will break down barriers towards greater collaboration with other progressive organizers, that's a conversation I'm happy to have. Indeed I think Erica is right to point out that it is a conversation we must have if we want to stay relevant and accomplish our policy goals - the very reasons why we started to organize young voters and build all these structures in the first place. But I think that conversation must include the context provided above so that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Organizing young people is important - especially at the electoral level. The Democratic Party doesn't do it. The state parties don't do it. Campaigns like those run by Obama, Tester and Webb, which focused on young people, remain anomalies. If we want to continue to build a positive political brand for young people - and reap the policy rewards that come with such a brand - then there needs to be young activists who focus on organizing their peers, however we choose to frame that work.

I'll have thoughts posted about Erica's comments on policy later today, and a response to her claim about Obama tomorrow.

Bumped. Nate is the Executive Director of the Roosevelt Institution, the first student run think tank. --Mike

"We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob," Franklin Roosevelt declared in 1936.

Powerful words. It's hard to imagine a modern presidential candidate railing against financial institutions with such verve and vigor. But his central insight only gains relevance with time: government indifference towards markets provides shelter for financial speculation and greed. It was unregulated speculation that spurred the Great Depression, unchecked greed that drove us to the current financial crisis. Our government always has had and will always have a critical role in bringing such forces to heel.

But Roosevelt knew that it was not only the policies of the indifferent government that posed such a great danger. It was a deeper set of philosophical beliefs. "Above our market places," he went on, "stand the altars of our faith--altars on which burn the fires of devotion that maintain all that is best in us and all that is best in our Nation." We must always put values above money, recognizing that the economy serves society and not the other way around.

In his recent speech in Colorado, Obama struck a similar tone. "The American economy has worked in large part because we have guided the market's invisible hand with a higher principle," he argued, "America prospers when all Americans prosper."

The speech goes on to list a series of smart policy prescriptions for coping with the current crisis. Legislation that shores up both our families and our markets is a must. But, in light of the financial meltdown, we must also take a hard look at the philosophy underlying our economic policies. The conservative movement's narrative about the role of individuals and the market led us this mess. We need a new narrative, a new progressive economic philosophy, to lead us out. Our policy ideas alone will not capture the American public's hearts nor provide the answers to all our problems; our ideas must be linked to a picture of the nation and the world we hope to achieve. We need a narrative that energizes our ideas and builds the political will for meaningful change.

The progressive movement is slowly writing this narrative. Just this week, a coalition of think tanks and activist organizations released a major publication with a bold set of progressive values and a unified vision for what our country can achieve. New Progressive Voices: Values and Policies for the 21st Century features top intellectuals and leaders describing the America we must build in compelling language. In it, Andrea Batista Schlesinger of the Drum Major Institute describes how a strong middle class is integral to a stable democracy, while Deepak Bhargava of the Center for Community Change emphasizes community values over individualism. Larry Mishel explains how to build shared prosperity, and Miles Rapoport of Demos envisions a participatory democracy capable of true self-governance. The messages are compelling, clear and advocate the kind of transformation we so badly need.

But as important as the individual essays was the effort by leaders to come together and find common ground. This kind of effort to build a coherent progressive narrative will help us not only win elected office and pass legislation, but will fundamentally change the tone of the debate in America. And fundamental change is badly needed--the incremental policy reforms advocated by centrist democrats just won't do the trick. FDR concluded his 1936 speech, "That is why the recovery we seek, the recovery we are winning, is more than economic. In it are included justice and love and humility, not for ourselves as individuals alone, but for our Nation."

My name is April Joy Damian, a guest blogger from Young People For (YP4). I graduated from UC Berkeley in Ethnic Studies, completed a post-bac program at City College of San Francisco, and am currently participating as a YP4 Leadership Academy Fellow prior to beginning medical school.

I first heard about YP4 through an email from a partner organization. My initial reaction to the name of the organization was, "Young people for what?" Intrigued by its name, I decided to visit the YP4 website where I noticed that various issues pop up after the title "Young People For," including, but not limited to, public education, religious freedom, and environmental protection. Thus, while the YP4 home page provides the organization's mission, YP4 in my own words, encourages young people to come up with the process (how) and substance (what) while providing the tools to allow young leaders to achieve both. Rather than dictate what issues are important and the best mechanisms to address these, YP4 challenged me to take a stance on a social concern and to take ownership of how to best resolve it.

As mentioned earlier, I am currently participating in the 2008-2009 Young People For Leadership Academy. The college bubble, both at UC Berkeley as well as at City College of San Francisco, was a mixed blessing. It was in college that I discovered my unique role in the progressive movement and passion to serve as a leader in social justice. I was fortunate enough to meet other like-minded students with whom I was able to build a network of support. As graduation drew closer and medical school was just around the corner, I knew that the end of college did not necessarily mean the end of my "social justice phase." Rather, I wanted to my involvement in the progressive movement to be my way of life. The Leadership Academy was just the right antidote.

As noted in a previous YP4 blog on the Leadership Academy, my participation in the program has provided me with the post-college/pre-grad school support system I need to continue in my progressive work in medicine/public health. The program has weaved a beautiful balance between developing my capacity as a young professional through mentorship and coaching sessions with Cathy Wasserman, while nurturing my humanity and need to laugh, cry, and even simply rest. Through the Leadership Academy, I hope to grow in my leadership capacity both in the professional and personal realms. I hope to have my character, values, and opinions challenged, while also challenging my 20 fellow participants and program staff to think differently.

What I'm reading today:

• The American Prospect looks at the good and the bad behind Obama's takeover of the DNC.
• A companion piece looks at the 15 most important advisors behind the Obama operation.
• Chris Bowers examines the demographic trends behind Obama's coalition and declares an end to the era of Values Voters and "Bubba Dominance."
• WireTap profiles Tony Peyton, the youngest member of the Pennsylvania House, and how the Center for Progressive Leadership helped shape him into a winning candidate.
• John McCain is trying to steal credit for the new GI Bill, which he actively opposed and obstructed.
• Bondelli explains how you can build your own Sprout Widget.
• The Voto Latino blog pointed me to this GQ profile of Meghan McCain from back in March. It's so vacuous at times that can't decide if it is a terrible profile or sheer genius on the part on the part of the McCain campaign. The girl did go to Columbia. What do you think?
• If, like me, you've been mesmerized by HBO's Generation Kill, you should check out the original Rolling Stone article by Evan Wright.
• Youth are a prime target in the Indiana Governor's race.
• Gawker thinks that MSNBC is trending Democratic and will continue to do so as it rakes in younger viewers.
• The Virginia Pilot notes that 2/3 of the 200,000 newly registered voters in the state are under the age of 35. The paper declares voter registration the new youth movement. I couldn't agree more.