Republican Party

Yesterday, Kevin wrote a post that carefully and thoroughly proved that Generation Opportunity--at first glance, a non-partisan, non-threatening organization targeting youth to engage in positive change--is a sham.

To summarize, Generation Opportunity created a Facebook page titled "Being American" complete with random, non-descript photographs, encouraging young people to like the page just like they'd like apple pie, and then once it reached about 600,000 likes, they began to introduce their "non-partisan" organization.

I think the thing that strikes me the most about Kevin's post after some reflection is that Generation Opportunity--and by association, conservatives/Republicans--is admitting that it can't attract young people to its movement on its own merits. Basically, this means that The Right acknowledges that it needs to hide in the American flag like a Trojan horse in order to build any momentum among young people.

All the research that supposedly signals a conservative swing within the Millennial generation? It's misleading. And the very act of hiding behind "being American" and the "non-partisan" label to keep young people from knowing what your organization actually advocates points to an admission that youth aren't buying what you're actually selling.

As a reminder, Kevin, in beating back some of Generation Opportunity's claims (that Millennials are big on tax cuts, hate government spending, are American exceptionalists, believe the national debt is the most severe national security concern, and support expanding domestic coal and oil), puts forth the more credible research from Millennial Makeover and Pew; it happens to show a different picture.

Millennials, also to a greater degree than members of older generations, have confidence in the federal government and are more likely to favor a clear, rather than ancillary role for it in American life. A decisive majority (64%) of Millennials disagrees with the statement, 'When the federal government runs something it is usually inefficient and wasteful,' while 58 percent of older generations agree with that harsh appraisal. Millennials are also substantially less likely to believe that the federal government should run only those things that can't be run at the local level (63% vs. 71%).

These more favorable Millennial Generation attitudes toward the federal government are not simply a matter of 'normal' youthful liberalism. Millennials today are far less likely than Gen-Xers were in the late 1980s to believe that the federal government is usually wasteful and inefficient (32% for Millennials, 47% for young Gen-Xers) and that it should do only what can't be done at the local level (63% vs. 76%) (Pew Research Center 2007a).

And when these patriotic Millennials, who like "being American" but predictably don't enjoy having conservative talking points shoved down their throats, begin to resist on that Facebook page, what happens? They are silenced, of course. How American is that?

Before 2004/8, Republicans believed--with some Democrats--that the youth vote didn't exist and wasn't worth worrying about. However, as the first Millennials began to vote for Kerry in 2004, overwhelmingly supported Democrats in their 2006 midterm takeover of Congress, and showed up to the polls en masse in 2008 to vote for Obama, the Right took note and understood the youth vote is indeed a force to be reckoned with.

Instead of pursuing honest, genuine efforts to engage young people in the process and persuade them to think about moving to the right, however, they are apparently embracing cynicism, holding to stances and values that Millennials view as toxic according to the credible research. They hope that if they dress up these views a little bit, throw the American flag, apple pie--hell, maybe even some BBQ, fireworks, and a Main Street parade--at them, Millennials will bite.

What's that saying about pigs and lipstick again?

Erica Williams is a social and political commentator and serves as the Senior Strategist at the Citizen Engagement Lab, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that uses digital media and technology to amplify the voices of underrepresented constituencies. This piece was crossposted with permission from Erica and was originally published at the Huffington Post.

Watching the debt insanity these past few weeks, I've had one question ringing over and over again in my head: What do we do? Not what kind of short-term lobbying and marches and calls will save our economy. The question for me has been about the longer term: What do you do when your government can't govern?

As a Gen Y-er, a product of hip hop culture and a young person in this economy, I've been conditioned to determine my own destiny, and, for all intents and purposes, hustle. So the answer is simple: When your government can't govern, you govern yourselves.

I'm no longer electing representatives to create a vision and run the country on my behalf, since it appears that on average, they can't. No, instead I'm dreaming my own vision and electing people to work for me, doing what I tell them to do. That shift in outlook and on our role as master not servant in the political process, is a change both in the theory and in practice of our engagement. Fundamentally, it shifts how we view the election and what we do after.

It makes me confident that if I have a vision for a country -- maybe one in which education is affordable, people earn a living wage, health care is free, people pays their fair share of taxes, the economy works for everyone, etc. -- I have effectively written a job description that I now have the power, with my friends, family, community, and generation to hire for. And it is then our responsibility to be the boss and ensure that the job gets done.

That is the admirable confidence of the tea party. They shouted loudly and proudly "We want our country back!" And as frightening and divisive as their rhetoric has been, their belief that they have a stake in the future of this country and therefore a right to help determine its direction is dead on. 

Unfortunately their swag is unmatched on our side. Most progressive leaders don't effectively represent the constituents that will soon make up the majority of this country: young and/or of color. And conservatives know that when we do rise up and take our place as leaders, our sheer numbers, if put behind a bold progressive vision, can cause a true revolution.

That's why over the past year as Democratic pundits, operatives, intellectuals and organizations ran around fretting about Obama's approval ratings and whether or not they had been invited to the White House, Republicans were plotting out a 2012 strategy that has nothing to do with the issues. Instead of trying to win the young, black, and brown votes they focused on making it harder for us to vote at all. A "war on voting" is well underway, with Voter ID laws that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, disenfranchise huge numbers of people of color, the young and the elderly, popping up in states across the country. Republicans unleashed a targeted and deliberate strategy to chip away at a person's ability to vote, bit by bit. Why?

Because they understand that a vote is more than a show of support for someone or something. They get that a vote is more than a moment to claim your identity, raise your voice, make yourself heard, or any of the other corny, clichéd slogans that we hear around election time. They understand that a vote can be an indication that we're hiring who we need... to do the job that we want... for the country that we deserve.

Knowing that what's at stake in this election isn't the possibility of another year with a black president but instead the opportunity to make government work for the rest of us, should be enough to get us to push past all of the hurdles, help folks get their IDs, mobilize, turn out and do what we should have been doing all along: governing our nation. 



The past two years, especially the debt ceiling debate, should have taught us a valuable lesson: Doing the work to hire someone -- knocking on doors, going to concerts, wearing t-shirts, making viral videos, and checking a box -- is a complete waste of time if you don't stick around long enough to train them, give them their marching orders, and monitor them.

So for me, Election 2012 -- and every single day afterwards -- is about taking back my power to move my country and my community in the right direction. "Hope" comes from my faith, not my politics, and I'm exhausted with the idea of "change." No more slogans, no more buzzwords. I'm tired of looking for "leaders" -- new crowned princes and princesses who are able to bundle Democratic dollars, make rich people love them, talk about young people and black folks and poor folks, and then do the same old same old. We ARE the leaders. And it's pretty simple: our vote is a powerful statement that from now on, we run this, in spite of every effort that's been made to prevent us from doing so. So let's gear up to do just that.

Follow Erica Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ericawilliamsdc

Republicans just can't figure out what they want to do with young voters.

We see some momentum behind actually courting young people, which Sarah discusses in her most recent post. Conservative media outlets like Fox News, the National Review, and the Washington Examiner, are hot on Margaret Hoover's book (the great-granddaughter of Depression-inducing President Herbert Hoover), which argues that Millennials are sympathetic to the fundamental principles of conservatism and that the GOP should accordingly engage these young people. Sarah does a pretty good job of explaining why Hoover is misguided in her analysis, but the GOP establishment seems to be embracing her argument. And you know what? The civic engagement-enthusiast in me doesn't necessarily mind that; at least young people appear to be the target of some kind of outreach effort.

But while Hoover is feeling the love from conservative media, Republican officials across the country are doing everything they can to keep young people from exercising their rights as citizens. In the name of eradicating voting fraud (there are 44 one-millionths of one percent of votes impacted by voter fraud), these Republicans are actively intimidating and restricting the rights of the very same Millennials Hoover wants to attract to the Republican ranks.

The latest example? Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster, who is apparently clueless on election law.

Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster is claiming that college students who pay out-of-state tuition rates and vote in state are committing voter fraud.

At a press conference at the Maine State House, Webster gave the media a list of over 200 students -- their names redacted -- who paid out-of-state tuition rates but were registered to vote in the state.

[...]

...Webster provided absolutely zero evidence that the students -- the vast majority of whom were born in the late 80s and early 90s, based on Webster's list -- voted both in their home state and in Maine.

Webster doesn't understand that just because students are not originally from Maine does not mean that they aren't afforded the right to participate in the community where they live (provided they do not vote in their home state and in Maine). The Sun Journal, a Maine newspaper covering the story, describes it well.

According to Maine state law, students are eligible to register to vote in the municipality in which they attend school, as long as they have established residency there. There is not a period of time required for a person to establish residency. The University of Maine System has different guidelines to establish student residency. A student may only be granted in-state tuition if he or she has proven that she has established residency for reasons other than academic, regardless of the length of time that he or she has lived in Maine.

So yes, there are absolutely cases in which students, deemed as "out of state" by the University of Maine, would be legally and correctly registered to vote in Maine.

Again, all this is on top of other moves across the country to disenfranchise young people and minorities. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, for example, recently shepherded a law through the state legislature that would require young people to secure a photo ID in order to vote. And now he just announced the closing of 10 DMV bureaus, making it harder for young people to get those photo IDs. And it's not just a coincidence that most of these closures are happening in traditionally Democratic areas, while other DMV offices are seeing their hours extended by the governor.

Hoover might be persuading some of the Republican establishment that appealing to young voters is the trendy thing to do. But the GOP isn't about to persuade young people, who are seeing Mitt Romney-like waffling from the Grand Old Party. Are you interested in us or not? You can't have it both ways.

When we cover the progressive youth movement here at Future Majority, we often report, summarize, and analyze current events, whether those occur in all levels of government, within political parties, at colleges or universities, or elsewhere. What we sometimes neglect is the history and context informing much of the terrain we do cover. I wanted to take a break today, at least for this post, from our contemporary political scene and look back 40 years to a critical moment in the youth movement: the passage of the 26th Amendment that lowered the minimum voting age from 21 to 18. While we often take this amendment for granted, re-visiting the story behind it reminds us of the importance of the youth vote and bolsters our efforts as we prepare to defend our rights against those who wish to disenfranchise us.

History:

I had assumed that the story of the 26th Amendment commenced during the Vietnam War, however I was surprised to find that President Dwight Eisenhower was the first president to argue in favor of lowering the voting age. In his 1954 State of the Union address, Eisenhower made his case by citing the discrepancy in being old enough to be drafted and deployed to a war zone but not old enough to vote for people making these policy decisions.

For years our citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 have, in time of peril, been summoned to fight for America. They should participate in the political process that produces this fateful summons. I urge Congress to propose to the States a constitutional amendment permitting citizens to vote when they reach the age of 18.

Unfortunately, no amendment passed. As the 1950s came to a close, and the country elected a new president - John F. Kennedy - America was in the middle of the Cold War, pursuing a strategy of containment in an effort to stifle communism around the world. Intent on protecting South Vietnam from communism, the U.S. committed an increasing amount of resources to fighting the North Vietnamese, deploying the first combat troops in 1965. In 1968, North Vietnam launched the Tet Offensive against the U.S. and South Vietnamese forces; the unforeseen attack didn't jibe with statements from American leaders claiming that the end was near. The anti-war movement strengthened.

In 1970, at the height of student activism, President Nixon re-visited extending voting rights to those Americans between the ages of 18 and 21. With increasing numbers of Americans opposing military action in Vietnam and the death toll mounting every day, the discrepancy between soldiers being conscripted for military service while being unable to influence the political process through voting became more apparent. Nixon felt the pressure. On June 22 of that year, Nixon signed an extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, lowering the minimum voting age to 18. He did so, though, noting that the courts might deem some of the provisions unconstitutional. After Oregon and Texas challenged the new law all the way to the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that while Congress had the power to lower the voting age in federal elections, the provisions in the law regulating state and local elections were unconstitutional (Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 [1970]). Faced with the possibility of having two separate voting rolls in some states, one on the federal level that allowed 18-21 year olds to vote and one on state and local levels barring them from voting, Congress and state legislatures moved to pass the 26th Amendment to the Constitution.

On March 10, 1971, the Senate voted to propose an amendment guaranteeing that the standard minimum voting age would be 18 (94-0). Then, on March 23, 1971, the House of Representatives voted 401–19 to pass the amendment. After only four months from the time Congress submitted it to the states, the amendment had been ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. This was the fastest any amendment had been adopted by the states. The Amendment reads:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Following the passage of the amendment, President Nixon issued the following statement:

As I meet with this group today, I sense that we can have confidence that America’s new voters, America’s young generation, will provide what America needs as we approach our 200th birthday, not just strength and not just wealth but the “Spirit of ‘76’ a spirit of moral courage, a spirit of high idealism in which we believe in the American dream, but in which we realize that the American dream can never be fulfilled until every American has an equal chance to fulfill it in his own life.

I can't tell what strikes me more about this - his hypocrisy or the significant difference in rhetoric and ideology between this Republican president and today's GOP.

Tracing Youth Voting Rates Since 1971:

In 1972, for the first time in the nation's history, 18 year olds were able to vote in a presidential election. 55.4% of the 18-29 age group voted that year, which continues to be the highest turnout on record. Both the 1992 election (52%) and the 2008 (51.1%) came close to matching this rate. (See CIRCLE PDF here.)

After 1972, the youth vote was consistently attacked as being unreliable. This attitude led to a cycle in which candidates refused to pay young adults attention on the campaign trail, and young adults, feeling ignored, disengaged from the political process by not voting. We also know that generational dynamics also came into play. Generation X, coming of age in the 1980s and 1990s, was deemed cynical, individualistic, and alienated; this further led to a downward trend in the youth vote.

However, the Millennials followed Generation X and differed in their attitudes toward voting significantly. While Generation X disengaged from the process altogether, Millennials - known as a civic generation according to generational theorists Howe and Strauss - welcomed community engagement. While discouraged by the complex and hostile nature of politics, they repeatedly expressed that being involved in their respective communities was important to them. As they came of age, the youth voting rate began to rise. This graphic, depicting both college and non-college voting rates, illustrates the upward trajectory of the youth vote in the last several presidential elections after its plummet in the mid-1990s.

What's at Stake:

Though Millennials are generally more engaged than the generational cohort behind them, we still have work to do. We can always do a better job of recruiting more young people to run for office and increasing voting rates in off-year elections. We saw the importance of this just last year, in 2010, when a whiter, older, wealthier, and more conservative electorate voted, sweeping Republicans to a House majority and into control of many statehouses.

Unfortunately, the consequences are also directly impacting the youth vote. Many states, at the behest of new Republican governors (like Scott Walker of Wisconsin, pictured) and Republican legislatures are constructing barriers to keep youth from voting, effectively deconstructing the 26th Amendment we're celebrating today. States are either establishing or preparing to establish poll tax fees to support a voter ID system, or enacting strict photo ID standards that would restrict students and members of the military from voting (or both!). Rescinding same-day registration and motor voter laws in order to curb "voter fraud" (the idea of which has proved to be a fraud itself) is underway in several states, specifically impacting students, the poor, and many working people. As if this wasn't enough, new Republican majorities, preoccupied with the debt instead of investing in its people, are cutting billions of dollars from the education of our young people (especially civic education).

So, as we take time today to remember how the youth vote was expanded with the passage of the 26th Amendment 40 years ago, we would also do well to acknowledge that youth voting rights aren't safe and are, in fact, under attack.

Celebrating the 26th Amendment:

In closing, I wanted to highlight a few statements and an effort in support of the 26th Amendment's 40th anniversary. We thank everyone involved for commemorating this important day, but also urge all Americans to understand the importance of safeguarding and expanding youth participation in our democracy.

• The Overseas Vote Foundation is organizing a Twitter event in support of this historical milestone, saluting America's young people by engaging U.S. voters around the world in a dialogue about "why you vote" - in 140 characters or less. The organization is holding a daylong conversation on the Twitter channel #WhyUVote beginning at 9:00 am Eastern Standard Time on Friday, July 1, 2011. They're hoping you tweet your TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE and and include #WhyUVote. Join in and follow the worldwide Twitter conversation moderated by Youth Vote Overseas Program Coordinator Michael Casey Bonfield here
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz issued a statement of support for the 26th Amendment:
  

  Since 1971, young voters have played an indispensable role in the electoral process. Their spirit and activism help guide the country and their belief in the power and promise of America continually inspires us. Young voters are a reminder that America’s greatest resource will always be the ability of generations to rise up to the challenges of their time. That is why the Democratic Party and President Obama have actively sought to include young voters in the electoral process and make sure their voice is heard at the voting booth. Youth activism has been particularly important to me--having gotten my start in politics in college and having run for office for the first time at the age of 25, I know first hand how important it is to foster enthusiasm and commitment to public service in young people.

  Unfortunately, recent legislative actions by Republicans are threatening to limit young people's ability to participate in the electoral process. While Republican governors and legislatures across the country attempt to hinder young people from voting, the Democratic Party will continue fighting to expand the electorate and make sure young voters are able to exercise their Constitutional right to vote.

• House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also issued a statement:
  

  “Forty years ago, our nation opened the doors of democracy to millions of Americans. By extending the right to vote – the most fundamental right of a citizen in a democratic society – to Americans age 18 and older, we offered our youth the responsibility and opportunity to participate; we placed the power of the ballot in their hands, empowering generations of students and young people to determine their own destiny.

  “The 26th amendment ensured that the leaders of tomorrow – our future workers and business owners, entrepreneurs and public servants – recognize that elections are as much about them as their parents and grandparents. Whether it’s making health care more affordable; investing in schools and student aid; creating jobs or balancing the budget – Americans of all ages have a stake in the decisions of their elected representatives.

  “Four decades after the ratification of the 26th amendment, the fight for voting rights goes on. Today, state legislatures across the country are pushing new legislation that threatens to disenfranchise millions of voters, especially students and minority communities. These actions contradict our core democratic principles and betray our values as a people.

  “Democrats will stand firm for the basic right of every American to vote and choose their own leaders. We will uphold the central promise of the 26th amendment: that ‘the right of citizens of the United States…to vote shall not be denied or abridged.’”

Update: Other statements have come in, so I am posting those, as well as links to two pieces that connect the anniversary with Republican-led efforts to disenfranchise young voters today.

• A proclamation from President Barack Obama:
  

  Forty years ago, the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution took effect, lowering the universal voting age in America from 21 years to 18 years. Millions of young Americans were extended the right to vote, empowering more young people than ever before to help shape our country. On this anniversary, we remember the commitment of all those who fought for the right to vote and celebrate the contributions of young adults to our Nation.

  The right to vote has been secured by generations of leaders over our history, from the women's groups of the early 20th century to the civil rights activists of the 1960s. For young people, the movement to lower America's voting age took years of hard work and tough advocacy to make the dream a reality. Yet, once proposed in Congress in 1971, the 26th Amendment was ratified in the shortest time span of any Constitutional Amendment in American history.

  In the midst of the Vietnam War, our Nation bestowed upon our young people the ability to change the status quo and entrusted them with a new voice in government. Today, young adults across America continue to exercise this enormous responsibility of citizenship. Countless young people are involved in the political process, dedicated to ensuring their voices are heard.

  Ideas from young Americans are important to my Administration, and they will help shape the future of our Nation. We are committed to supporting and developing young leaders from all beliefs and backgrounds, and from urban and rural communities alike. This year, I launched "100 Youth Roundtables," an initiative to facilitate substantive dialogue between my Administration and young Americans. We hosted a Young Entrepreneur Summit to listen to budding entrepreneurs and better assess their needs. And this summer, we are beginning a "How to Make Change" series for young Americans from all walks of life who are seeking change in their communities and our world.

  Young adults have been a driving force for change in the last century, bringing new ideas and high hopes to our national dialogue. Today, we remember the efforts of those who fought for their seat at the table, and we encourage coming generations to claim their place in our democracy.

  NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim July 1, 2011, as the 40th Anniversary of the 26th Amendment. I call upon all Americans to participate in ceremonies and activities that honor young Americans, and those who have fought for freedom and justice in our country.

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.

  BARACK OBAMA

• From Rod Snyder, President of the Young Democrats of America:
  

  "Today the Young Democrats of America (YDA) joins all Americans in celebrating the 40th anniversary of the ratification of the 26th amendment to the Constitution, which extended the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age and older.

  "The ratification of the 26th amendment was an important moment in our nation’s history where we recognized the inconsistency of asking young Americans to fight in wars on foreign shores while not affording the basic right to participate in our democracy at home.

  "Over the past forty years, young people have helped shape the future of our nation, with youth participation notably on the rise during the past decade. YDA and other youth organizations have played an important role in ensuring that young Americans have the opportunity influence the political process.

  "Yet on the anniversary of this important step forward, voting rights are facing calculated attacks by Republican state lawmakers across the country. GOP-controlled legislatures are seeking to systematically erect barriers to the democratic process and deny millions of Americans the right to vote.

  "Make no mistake, Republicans are attempting to disenfranchise groups of voters that they have failed to win over in the ballot box, including students and minority communities. Our democracy cannot survive if politicians are permitted to select their voters rather than voters selecting their leaders. Our most fundamental constitutional rights should never be subject to partisan politics.

  "These recent Republican attacks are a reminder that we cannot take voting rights for granted. YDA applauds the group of U.S. Senators led by Michael Bennet (D-CO) who are urging the Department of Justice to review new restrictive voting laws at the state level."

• The League's Executive Director Biko Baker has a piece in The Hill - "The War on Voting Weakens Youth Power"
• Campus Progress is up with a piece warning us to enjoy the 26th Amendment while it lasts.

Well, another day, and another unknown guy lamenting the horrible things happening to our generation and our supposed complicit behavior.

This rando, some Gen Xer named Rob Long, writes that young people are being ripped off thanks to a "a vast, Madoff-like Ponzi scheme," in which payroll taxes are immediately shuffled off to help seniors pay their medical bills. He can't believe that young people are letting this go and are not more alarmed, Glenn Beck style.

And yet: no protests in the streets. No marches. No student sit-ins. No youth agitation at all, really, except for a couple of College Republicans in blue blazers. What? Are they stupid? After all of that college tuition? Are young people in their 20's just dumb?

I appreciate your phony concern, Rob. But if you're truly advocating for a strong quality of life for Millennials, you'd come to terms with what must be a painful truth for you. Your party, while railing against imaginary deficits in the future, blatantly ignores the fact that many of us are struggling to make end's meet today. One of your party's governors, in the name of fiscal responsibility, cut $30 million from childcare centers. And "after all that college tuition," the Republican House proposes to balance the budget by taking Pell Grants, and therefore the prospects of higher education, away from us at the worst possible time. This is at the same time that we're being crushed by trillions of dollars worth of student loans. Fellow FM writer Karlo Marcelo used a great analogy to frame this reality back when we were debating the stimulus.

Millennials will face new challenges when caring for the Baby Boomer generation as they near towards retirement. What they don't need are unnecessary financial burdens that make it difficult for them to succeed early on in their adult lives. Young people are already saddled with a "burden", and the GOP needs to recognize and respect that reality.

Imagine for a moment that you are trying to traverse a hill. The hill represents how much taxes you expect to pay over your lifetime. One end of the hill is the start (the beginning of your life), the top of the hill is middle-age, and the other end of the hill is, well, six-feet-under. At both ends of the hill, you pay relatively little in taxes, and the top of the hill is when you pay the most in taxes. This is what tax-paying looks like throughout the course of one's life. For some generations, traversing this hill was made easier (but not faster), because the government helped invest in the well-being of the tax-payer very early on in life.

This is not the case with Millennials. The rising cost (PDF) of college and beyond has not resulted in a proportionate increase in services or resources. When you place this fact of rising costs into the context of rising college attendance, the effect is magnified. The share of young people that have attended college has increased 21 percentage points from the 1970s to the present (PDF, pg. 5). What's more is the fact young people with post-graduate degrees on are on the rise, too. What all this amounts to is a more difficult (but not slower) journey over the hill. It's almost as if Millennials have to carry a heavy backpack (read: student debt) and still keep pace with everyone else. Now add to that the fact that the end of the hill for Millennials is much farther away than it is for previous generations due to longer life expectancy.

So, if you're seriously concerned about our collective future, do us a favor: get off your high horse and hop on a time machine back to now and start working on these problems.

Mr. Long, you're not done. Please sit back down. Let me explain another thing. And I'll go slowly, because this might be hard for you to understand:

Millennials. Like. Government.

Seriously, we do. You can see that here, here, here, or even here. According to NDN, a Washington think tank, 58% of Millennials actually favor larger government, as opposed to one that “stays out of society and the economy.” It might be surprising since we've been let down by government so often (especially from 2001-2006 when the GOP ruled Washington), but it's the truth.

And we do protest. Your fellow unknown Ted Nugent also made the mistake of assuming young people don't get mad and act on it, and we provided these examples (these just being a few that one simple Google search turned up):

Students across USA protest over college funding, tuition
March 4, 2010

Dickinson College students protest school's handling of sex assaults
March 3, 2011

Cerritos College students protest proposed summer cuts
May 18, 2011

Half-naked college students protest coal
April 15, 2011

‘Students are not ATMs'; college students protest budget cuts
March 15, 2011

College students, staff protest budget cuts
April 13, 2011

College students protest higher fees
January 12, 2010

Three Arrested at Hunter College Protest
March 4, 2010

College students protest death penalty
March 27, 2010

College students protest PA budget cuts
March 30, 2011

'Ramen' protest highlights community college fee increases
March 2, 2011

California college students protest higher ed budget cuts
April 13, 2011

High school, college students to protest state education cuts
March 19, 2011

PSU students, State College mayor protest funding cuts
April 5, 2011

College students protest HOPE cuts outside State Capitol
March 2, 2011

Vt. college students protest planned cuts
March 16, 2011

Phoenix high school, college students organize Capitol protest
March 4, 2011

Michigan College Students Protest Higher Ed Cuts
March 24, 2011

College Students Protest Voter ID Bill
April 4, 2011

Allegheny College students protest education cuts
March 18, 2011

College students protest strip mine plans
September 14, 2010

Carthage College students protest anti-gay speaker
February 24, 2010

College students protest HB 176
February 24, 2011

Emory protesters arrested during student protest
April 26, 2011

TUSD on image control after student protest cancels meeting
April 27, 2011

Supporters rally for students arrested at SB 1070 protest
November 16, 2010

Thousands of students flock to Capitol to protest SB1070
April 22, 2010

Wisconsin Students Protest Governor's Attack on Unions
February 15, 2011

Zombie protesters lurch for voter, student rights
June 8, 2011

Based on the list above and the little we do know of you, it would appear you're merely grumpy because we don't protest the same things that your Tea Party friends do.

Do us a favor and can the fake outrage. If you're genuine, you'd be doing what you could to keep conservatives from defunding our collective future so that fat cats can keep flying their corporate jets.

A few weeks ago, Republican Iowa State Sen. Shawn Hamerlinck told five Iowa university student government representatives to "go home" and to not worry about the work the senate is doing in the state house.

Here's the video in case you need a reminder:

He rightfully faced a steady barrage of flak for that, with Campus Progress taking the lead on a petition effort that asked Hamerlinck to apologize for his condescending remarks.

For a week, Hamerlinck was silent. But last Thursday he was moved to write an op-ed piece that posed as an apology. Get a load of this crap:

After offering eight years of instruction at a local community college as well as being a politician, my goal has always been to keep students out of the political fray in order for them to form their own opinions and ideologies. With that objective in mind, perhaps I should have reworded my comments in such a manner as to avoid the political fray which a politician should know would follow from opposing political parties and the media. Let’s face it; this is political fodder at its best and I let my frustrations get the better of me. I was trying to keep students from being used and I fear they have become the very theater I hoped to shield them from. I apologize for not catching the motivation of the event sooner and wording my speech in a manner which allowed students to focus on their studies rather than playing into partisan politics at the Capitol.

In the end, my attempt to keep impressionable students out of the fray has instead ingested them into it, and for that I apologize. The betterment of Iowa is a great goal to have, and as statistics have shown, post-college graduation trends indicate that educated youth are our greatest export. I want students’ ultimate goal to be obtaining and retaining knowledge with the mindset of solving the problems in Iowa that my generation has been unable to do.

You know, I think the "apology" may be worse than Hamerlinck's original comments.

First, Hamerlinck continues to treat these college students as if they are 13. Legally, they are adults who, whether he likes it or not, have the constitutional right to participate in the political process. A little research alarmingly reveals that Hamerlinck, in addition to being an adjunct professor, works with the Iowa State University Scott County extension office as a "Youth Field Specialist." One of his responsibilities in this position also apparently forms a large piece of his childhood development; overseeing 4H must be a dream come true for Hamerlinck, given the 10 years he spent in the organization.

One might wonder what values 4H stands for, given that it is such a large part of Hamerlinck's life. Disengagement? Staying in the toy room while the adults yuk it up and play cards? Remaining content with learning how to tie one's shoes and play Gameboy?

From the 4H website:

Who We Are

4-H prepares young people to step up to the challenges in their community and the world. Using research-based programming around positive youth development, 4-H youth get the hands-on real world experience they need to become leaders.

Wow. You can't make this stuff up. Perhaps we should initiate a petition with 4H. Surely they don't want someone who believes that youth shouldn't get involved with their community to represent them?

Our communities are stunting themselves by not asking young people to learn about politics and civics firsthand. Research overwhelmingly shows that youth and college students learn best through active, collaborative, and engaged learning. Using this pedagogy actually prepares young citizens for the challenges inherent in a democracy. His apparent contempt for young people aside, what kind of good does Hamerlinck think he is doing by telling college students to sit down and shut up? Politics is everywhere, and in a healthy democracy, we need to have the experience to recognize systems of power and privilege and navigate them to pursue personal and social success.

You know that Saved By the Bell episode when Zack switches places with Mr. Belding and runs the school (Season 4, Episode 2 - check it out)? Maybe college students need to do the same with Sen. Hamerlinck. Yeah, students could teach the 4H program Hamerlinck administers, educating Hamerlinck on how to operate in "[a] world in which youth and adults learn, grow and work together as catalysts for positive change," otherwise known as the 4H vision statement.

In the end, officials like Hamerlinck will spurn young people at their peril. Somewhere, among your condescending speeches and phony apologies, you've forgotten that despite your party's efforts to the contrary, college students can and do vote. I trust that Iowa's young people will remember this when they cast their ballots on November 6, 2012.

Update: Of course, as a Facebook commenter suggests, we could also just get an engaged young person to run against him and kick him out. That would be great, too.

Here is some youth news to get your week started:

• Does the Millennial Generation need to produce more career politicians? This guy argues that the Anthony Weiner saga demonstrates that they do.
• You know that whole thing where Republicans try to keep young people from voting because they know they pursue policy that is at odds with what young people want/need? Well, apparently that happens in Canada too, with conservatives.
• Meanwhile, E.J. Dionne demonstrates how states are rigging the 2012 elections. Yes, folks, it is happening.
• Here is Firedoglake's recap of the Netroots Nation Young Voter Turnout Session. Check it out.
• Tracy Morgan decided that telling people that he'd kill his son if he ever acted gay might not be a good thing (in fact, it's disgusting). Looking to make amends, Morgan recently met with gay youth.
• High school and college student activists are uniting to protect ethnic studies courses in Tucson's high school curriculum. Gov. Jan Brewer recently signed House Bill 2281 into law, which "prohibits a school from including in its program of instruction any course or classes that are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnicity or promotes resentment towards a race or class of people."
• Have law school debt? Here are six ways to tackle it.
• Did anyone catch the U.S. Open this weekend? Rory McIlroy kicked some major ass. He's 22 and the youngest U.S. Open winner since Bobby Jones in 1923.
• MTV's True Life is set to explore some compelling issues in youth culture.
• Continuing our commentary on K-12 history and civic education, the Wall Street Journal recently interviewed popular historian David McCullough. McCullough expressed his own concerns regarding history education:
  

  "'We're raising young people who are, by and large, historically illiterate," David McCullough tells me on a recent afternoon in a quiet meeting room at the Boston Public Library. Having lectured at more than 100 colleges and universities over the past 25 years, he says, "I know how much these young people—even at the most esteemed institutions of higher learning—don't know." Slowly, he shakes his head in dismay. "It's shocking."

  [...]

  And teach history, he says—while tapping three fingers on the table between us—with "the lab technique." In other words, "give the student a problem to work on."

  "If I were teaching a class," he says, "I would tell my students, 'I want you to do a documentary on the building at the corner of Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street. Or I want to you to interview Farmer Jones or former sergeant Fred or whatever." He adds, "I have been feeling increasingly that history ought to be understood and taught to be considerably more than just politics and the military."

  What about textbooks? "I'd take one of those textbooks. I'd clip off all the numbers on the pages. I'd pull out three pages here, two pages there, five pages here—all the way through. I'd put them aside, mix them all up, and give them to you and three other students and say, 'Put it back in order and tell me what's missing.'" You'd know that book inside and out.

  Though the Wall Street Journal leans conservative and the story's writer is from the right-wing National Review, I was impressed with this interview and the relatively radical problem-based pedagogy McCullough suggests.

Update 2: Campus Progress has been working on this issue over the past day, creating an opportunity for us to directly e-mail Hamerlinck and demand an apology for his demeaning and condescending remarks toward young people.

You can visit the site here. Let him hear it!

Update: The Iowa State Daily has more on this incident:

...After the student representatives were finished, Hammerlinck [sic] gave a response. Hammerlinck told students to "go home" and that they were being used as props in the Democratic propaganda effort to increase state spending.

"We were shocked that he would say that," Knight said. "I was insulted, disappointed and upset that a public leader like himself doesn't like it when students [and] constituents, as well as taxpayers in the state, come and talk to their elected officials about what their votes would do to them. I don't understand why he would feel that way and much why he would say that."

[...]

Sen. Herman Quirmbach (D-Ames) was also present at the hearing.

"They talked very seriously about the quality of the programs, class sizes and [students] not leaving school in so much debt and [with] limitations on their career choices," Quirmbach said. "All the students did a bang-up job in articulating their views."

Quirmbach was shocked when he heard Hammerlink's remarks.

"It was unprofessional," Quirmbach said. "I hope to never see another display like that again."

Quirmbach believes that it was the students' duty to be there and speak as elected officials representing the students.

"It's not just disrespecting the students there, but all the students that they represented," Quirmbach said. "They were elected on behalf of the students to speak for all students."

Despite Hammerlinck's comments, the GSB will not discourage the student body from lobbying.

"Our plans aren't going to change just because one senator tells us to go home," Knight said. "If anything, it's going to strengthen our resolve to continue lobbying in Des Moines and continuing letting our representatives know both here and from our students' constituency districts what a seven percent cut to the regent institutions will do."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You would think someone who held the title of "Youth Field Specialist" in the Iowa State University Scott County Extension office, who developed and oversaw programs such as 4-H, and who currently serves as a college professor, would want students to be engaged in their communities.

You'd be wrong.

On Tuesday, Republican Iowa State Sen. Shawn Hamerlinck told five student government leaders from Iowa universities to "go home" and to not worry about the work the senate is doing in the state house. Think that's exaggerated?

Sadly, it's not:

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee reported on this in their blog, explaining that Hamerlinck's hissy fit wasn't the only condescension students faced that day from Republicans.

North Carolina GOP state Rep. Mike Stone called it “unconscionable” and said “anger completely shot through me” when he learned that elementary school students – including his own daughter – had written letters to state legislators as part of a school writing assignment. And who could forget New Hampshire GOP House Speaker Bill O’Brien’s stunning admission that his party’s discriminatory voter ID bill was intended specifically to disenfranchise students, because “they are kids voting liberal, voting their feelings, with no life experience”?

Yet, we find out from the Iowa Senate Democrats that these students who appeared--all student government officers from across the state--did so as part of an already organized set of open hearings on the budget.

The students were invited to the Capitol as part of “Open Budget Hearings.” The goal of the hearings was to hear feedback from Iowans impacted by the proposed budget cuts, including the effects of what some have described as the Republican’s “two-year starvation diet for Iowa schools.”

The students testifying before the committee included President of Northern Iowa Student Government Spencer Walrath, Iowa State University Student Body Vice President Jared Knight, University of Iowa Student Government President Elliot Higgins, Former President of Council of Graduate and Professional Students Lyndsay Harshamn, and current Vice President of the Executive Council of Graduate and Professional Students Michael Appel.

The students testified that the Republicans’ proposed budget cuts making higher education unaffordable for many students and their families, increase class sizes, and reduce course offerings.

So this is why Republicans are failing so horribly at attracting political support from this generation of young people. And this is also why it's only a matter of time until we turn the tables on sad, fearful politicians like Hamerlinck and tell them to go home.

In the meantime, you should remind Hamerlinck that because of his party, students have more than enough life experiences to understand the real-world implications of budgets.

Call him: (563) 843-3922

E-mail him: shawn.hamerlinck@legis.state.ia.us

Michelle Obama is more powerful than I thought.

First, I came across a Media Matters post highlighting yet another crazy piece of trash story from Fox News. This one claims that Michelle Obama gave "weird" relationship advice in her recent meeting with English schoolgirls. Fox used a relatively tame Daily Caller piece as an inspiration for the story, adding the "weird" language in their own headline:

This is the text from the Daily Caller story:

First lady Michelle Obama always believed her husband would be "useful," yet never expected him to land the most powerful job in the world.

"I always thought he would be useful, but I had no idea he was going to be president," the first lady told a group of schoolgirls gathered to hear her speak Wednesday at Christ Church College in Oxford, England.

Michelle Obama went on about the president, whom she met more than 20 years ago while working at Sidley & Austin, a corporate law firm in Chicago. The first lady was tasked with mentoring Barack Obama and their relationship blossomed.

[...]

"I knew he was a special person. And it had nothing to do with his education, it had nothing to do with potential," the first lady said of Barack Obama, who attended Harvard Law School and Columbia University. "It was those kind of values that made me think, you don't meet people like that often. And when you couple that with talent -- and he's cute."

Reflecting on her "useful" spouse, the first lady had some relationship suggestions for the young females in attendance, warning them to steer clear of negative influences.

"Reach for partners that make you better," Michelle Obama said. "Do not bring people in your life who weigh you down. And trust your instincts. Good relationships feel good, they feel right...It's with the people you surround yourselves with, and that's just as important as the school that you choose."

Hmmm... not finding anything that weird. In fact, it sounds like what I would hope any well-meaning, successful, normal adult would say.

After reading this nonsense, I just chalked it up to another instance of Fox being Fox. But then I remembered reading a USA Today story a couple days ago that might explain Fox's sudden assault (this story, as well as the ridiculous Common controversy) on Michelle Obama.

First lady Michelle Obama is holding steady with the support of two-thirds of voters in a new poll - and she's gaining ground among young people as she's starting to hit the campaign trail on behalf of her husband's re-election campaign.

A Marist Poll out today finds that 66% of registered voters have a favorable impression of the first lady compared with 17% who have an unfavorable impression. The rest said they were unsure.

[...]

The biggest gap is generational. Millennials (ages 18-30) are crazy about her. They give her an 84% approval rating. The numbers drop from there as people age. Gen Xers (ages 31-46) give her a 67% approval rating; Baby Boomers (ages 47-65) give her 62%; the Silent or Greatest Generation (over 65) gives her 59%.

Emphasis added.

There are probably political scientists out there who might argue that spouses don't have electoral value and that this doesn't really mean anything. But when her favorability is as high as it is, especially with young people, and with her being one of the few people speaking officially about the 2012 campaign, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that a Republican mouthpiece like Fox News might deliberately misrepresent stories to temper her appeal.

Some interesting reads for you as we prepare to move into another week.

• With all the economic strife Millennials are experiencing these days, perhaps we need a National Youth Administration to help dig our way out?
• Democratic political strategist Donna Brazile outlines the extent to which Republicans plan to suppress votes in future elections.
• NPR explores how young people can improve their financial literacy; this article is one of a series of articles on the topic.
• Did you know? The largest number of American hate groups are located in Idaho and Mississippi.
• A Huffington Post piece discusses the importance of young people starting businesses and how we can enhance youth entrepreneurship in the future.
• Montana college students will be hit with a 10 percent tuition increase over two years. Why? State budget cuts.
• Allowing concealed guns on college campuses appeared to be sure to pass in Texas. However, some Democratic tactics appear to have dealt the bill a fatal blow.