transition

Change.org's "Ideas for Change in America" contest (previously covered on FM here) ended yesterday with a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington. The ideas were presented to Macon Phillips, the Director of New Media (and change.gov), who represented the transition team at the event. As Phillips noted in his address following the ceremony, the Obama administration will be taking citizen-driven efforts like change.org's seriously, as it attempts to engage Americans in their civic responsibilities.

The overall initiative was very successful, according to change.org. Almost 8,000 ideas poured in, with more than 600,000 votes cast. Change.org counts almost 175,000 participants in the initiative. Nonprofits will step in next to champion each idea, turning it into actual policy.

Here are the ideas themselves:

• Pass the DREAM Act - Support Higher Education for All Students
• Appoint Secretary of Peace in Department of Peace and Non-Violence
• Free Single Payer Health Care
• Develop and Implement a National Strategy for Sustainability
• Pass Marriage Equality Rights for LGBT Couples Nationwide
• Make the grid green in 10 years
• Legalize the Medicinal and Recreational Use of Marijuana
• Get FISA Right, repeal the PATRIOT Act, and restore our civil liberties
• Save Small Business From the CPSIA
• Health Freedom IS Our First Freedom

Each idea seems to represent the influence of the Millennial Generation on our nation's political discourse, with sustainability efforts, LGBT rights, and a focus on higher education being a few examples.

I'm very interested to see where this process goes, as we ramp up efforts toward what Kevin labels "user-generated government." While this progress is great, we can't stop here. We need to continue innovating new ways for all Americans to participate in governance.

CQ Politics has a great tool to help track the progress of President-elect Obama's cabinet appointments.

The chart, found here, gives information like the name of the committee hearing the nomination, the date and time of the committee hearing, the committee's vote, the floor vote, and any news on Obama's nominee for each position.

This is another example of technology engaging more Americans in the political process by simplifying it.

In his weekly address released Saturday, President-elect Obama spoke about the need to not only solve the problems in the here and now, but also proactively and simultaneously confront the problems of the future.

Economists from across the political spectrum agree that if we don't act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double digit unemployment and the American Dream slipping further and further out of reach.

That's why we need an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that not only creates jobs in the short-term but spurs economic growth and competitiveness in the long-term. And this plan must be designed in a new way – we can't just fall into the old Washington habit of throwing money at the problem. We must make strategic investments that will serve as a down payment on our long-term economic future. We must demand vigorous oversight and strict accountability for achieving results. And we must restore fiscal responsibility and make the tough choices so that as the economy recovers, the deficit starts to come down.

After Obama expounds on the necessity of thinking long-term, he explains how his administration will be doing this.

To put people back to work today and reduce our dependence on foreign oil tomorrow, we will double renewable energy production and renovate public buildings to make them more energy efficient. To build a 21st century economy, we must engage contractors across the nation to create jobs rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools. To save not only jobs, but money and lives, we will update and computerize our health care system to cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help reduce health care costs by billions of dollars each year. To make America, and our children, a success in this new global economy, we will build 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries. And to put more money into the pockets of hardworking families, we will provide direct tax relief to 95 percent of American workers.

One thing I took away from this week's address is the number of times Obama points out the prudence of thinking long-term on a plethora of issues.

In the middle of our $4.00/gallon summer, Sen. Obama took flak from many brainless conservatives for suggesting that we all take a look at our own lifestyles in order to make a difference in the level of energy consumption, such as making sure one's tires are filled with air to save gas. Instead of simply embracing the "Drill here, drill now" short-term gimmick, Obama showed the kind of leadership we haven't seen in at least eight years and re-framed the conversation to focus on long-term solutions.

In the middle of our economic recovery, instead of staying with what's come to be the politically safe choice of strictly worrying about the present, the Obama administration will focus on the future, re-building important infrastructure and changing spending habits.

Obama's focus on the future is refreshing, and it could be one more reason why Millennials -- who stand to inherit this mess -- voted for him by a two-thirds majority.

I'm finally starting to feel better and catching up on things today. Here's some must-read stories from the last week of 2008:

• Jose Antonio Vargas writes that politics is no longer local, it's viral, in his latest piece making the rounds among the technorati. He hits the nail on the head when he writes:

  Looking back, I realize that it was on that Thursday night that a new political reality was cemented in my head. In the past, we've thought of politics as something over there -- isolated, separate from our daily lives, as if on a stage upon which journalists, consultants, pollsters and candidates spun and dictated and acted out the process. Now, because of technology in general and the Internet in particular, politics has become something tangible. Politics is right here. You touch it; it's in your laptop and on your cellphone. You control it, by forwarding an e-mail about a candidate, donating money or creating a group. Politics is personal. Politics is viral. Politics is individual.

  And we're just getting started.

• Also in the Post, Eli Pariser of MoveOn writes that both MoveOn and Obama are tapping into the same thing - people power and the voices of ordinary Americans.
• Over at Open Left, Chris Bowers has an excellent plan to help activists to take advantage of the first Democratic President and friendly congress in over a decade. This is something all youth organizations should be following, and contributing to.
• According to PEW, when it comes to where American's get their news, the Internet has surpassed all mediums except television.
• Want to work for the new administration? Filling out a form on Change.gov is only the first step. The Politico has a rundown on the sophisticated strategies that advocacy organizations and interest groups are using to influence the hiring process.
• Finally, The New York Times notes that as teen unemployment skyrockets, so is teen violence. The paper calls on the Obama administration to address the problem.

Update: Kudos to Lily Rothman at the transition team for responding almost immediately to my final question. Any youth group who has such recommendations can submit them into the endorsement process by emailing their recommendations to Lily. Again, it's best to be super specific about the person and position involved. If anyone wants to do this and doesn't have Lily's contact info, email me.
---------------------

Yesterday, the Personnel Department and the Transition's Youth Liaison held a conference call with 15 or 20 youth organizers to go over the hiring process. My understanding was that this call was to help walk us through the process of submitting resumes and making personnel recommendations for the incoming administration. It ended up being more about general information about the hiring process and personal advice to any of us who have submitted applications. Here's what they had to say:

• Be patient if you haven't yet heard anything. There are 7,000 positions and they have yet to progress below cabinet level positions in their hiring. They are just beginning work on senior staff, and this process may take until June to fully play out.
• As you apply, be realistic wrt expertise and the level at which you can participate. The staffer on the call made it clear that this would likely be confined entry and middle level positions.
• There are over 300,000 resumes in the database at this point. The way they sift through them is data mining. The more specific you are about the position you desire, the more likely your resume will get pulled from the database.
• The best tool to determine what is available and feasible in terms of political appointee positions is The Plumb Book, an online book listing all the political appointee positions available, broken down by department.

These were all great tips - especially letting us know about the Plum Book - though the conversation left a little to be desired. Namely, there was no conversation at all. A staffer talked at us for 10 minutes and there was no time for Q&A. I have to admit I was a little annoyed by his confidence that we would all be applying for mid or entry level positions. No one expects to be running cabinet departments, or being the deputy in a government agency, but the message was pretty condescending and my own interpretation was that none of us should expect to be hired into a position with anything resembling a level of authority or power.

There was one question in particular that the call left unanswered. If we ourselves are not going to be hired into any positions that will give us a seat at the table, what can we do to make hiring recommendations or support the applications of more qualified people who we feel will represent us and our issues well in the new administration?

A number of youth groups that worked together in 2008 are in DC today to debrief on the election. We're all headed over to the Transition office at the end of the day to meet with Lily Rothman, the transition's youth liaison as well as some other members of the PTT. In preparation for that meeting, we were asked to submit a 1 page memo answering the question What are young Americans uniquely qualified to do to help meet specific national challenges, and how?

Here's the memo I submitted. I assume all of our memos and a list of those who met will be up on Change.gov in the near future.

Memo

To: Lily Rothman, Mike Lux, Office of the Presidential Transition Team
From: Michael Connery, Executive Director, Future Majority
Subject: White House Youth Liaison
Date: December 14, 2008

This November, the American public got its first taste of what many of us in the youth community have known for years; today’s young people – the Millennial Generation – are the most civically en-gaged generation in decades. During the last five years, Millennials have demonstrated a willingness to take the initiative and change our country. They created new organizations to engage their peers at the ballot box and participated in service projects in our communities. They organized online and marched in the streets to support immigrant and LGBT rights and a smarter, cleaner energy policy.

Even as the Millennial generation has emerged as a force at the ballot box and a leader on key issues, we have had few allies in government or within the Democratic Party. Young people (18 – 29 years old) are one of the most under-represented age demographics at the policy table, where we are often overlooked in favor of programs that benefit the (politically popular) very young, or the (politically savvy) very old.

It is not enough to ask about the particular issues in which young people are uniquely suited to assist the administration. Young people are already leading on a wide variety of issues, and our concerns stretch well beyond the single-issue silos (college affordability, service programs) that are so often pegged to our demographic. It is time that we have an administration that recognizes those contribu-tions and helps Millennials realize the change for which we have been fighting on all issues.

What is now required is a strong, independent advocate and ally to support the youth community within the White House. Operating out of the Office of the Public Liaison, this advocate would:

• Open doors to the administration and connect young advocates to the policy process above and beyond traditional “youth” issues like national service and college affordability.
• Fight for the inclusion of the perspective of the Millennial Generation in administration materi-als – talking points, speeches, etc.
• Publicize the contributions that Millennials and Millennial advocacy organizations make to solve the challenges we face as a nation (bill signing ceremonies, photo ops, etc.).

The Youth Liaison should also act as a strong advocate for young voters within the Democratic Party. President-Elect Obama secured his victory in large part through outreach to young voters, laying the foundation for a generational shift in party alignment. Despite that, Obama for America’s youth out-reach remains an anomaly, not the norm, within the Democratic Party. A strong advocate within the administration arguing on behalf of a young-voter strategy could shift thinking within the DNC, the DCCC, the DSCC, and the state parties as to the value of young voter outreach. Such a shift in strate-gic thinking could solidify political realignment that brought many of our candidates to power in recent elections.

Above all, the White House Youth Liaison must be someone who is intimately familiar with the many organizations and activists within the youth community. We face great challenges as a nation, and finding solutions to those challenges will require coordinated efforts among many organizations, citi-zens, policy makers, and legislators. The youth community will most effectively contribute to those efforts if we are able to hit the ground running on day one. A strong, independent advocate in the White House, familiar with the different facets of our movement and holding a position of real author-ity, is the surest way to make that a reality.

Using Digg-style voting systems for organizing purposes is all the rage lately. The Obama Transition Team got in the game this week with the launch of Open for Questions, a Google-powered, Digg-lite service that lets supporters put forth their queries to the incoming administration in a forum where all users at Change.gov can rate them. Top-voted questions - supposedly - will be answered by the Obama team, though how and when that will happen is unclear. Needless to say, reviews so far are mixed.

At Tech President, Nancy Scola says "meh," noting that the system isn't all that well organized and will not likely scale. In the comments, Marc Laitin agrees that the service has a lot of problems - notably that questions are mostly unlinkable and therefore difficult to organize around, stymying any sort of grassroots multiplier effect from within the community - but he views the attempt itself is revolutionary and thinks it bodes well for the future.

At the Politico, Ben Smith notes that Obama supporters aren't having any difficulty organizing rapid response on the system. Since the service opened they have been actively voting down any question relating to the Blagojevich scandal. Smith's piece raises concerns as to whether Open Questions represents a real attempt at transparency, or will be a de facto fig leaf the transition team can hide behind while ignoring uncomfortable questions.

At Pushback, Jesse Singal has what I think is the appropriate answer to Smith. Jesse thinks that biased, community-moderation is just part of the game, and Smith's desire for "uncensored" or "unbiased" community voting are unreasonable and uncharacteristic of any social media community.

For myself, I'm with Nancy. This is kind of "meh." I agree that the idea is great, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired. There's no good way to organize these questions (browsing and voting by topics would be nice) and there aren't even comment sections to allow users to discuss the merits of each question. The entire set up seems designed to discourage community formation and organizing, leaving participants isolated and atomized. The answering and accountability process - meaning how the Transition Team will answer high rated questions - is also unclear. Will they wait a month and then answer the top ten, or will they take the time to answer the top ten rated questions every day? Will answers be archived somewhere so they are easily found and referenced? Who knows . . .

I believe that the transition team had a great idea here, and are operating in good faith, but implementation problems at this point leave me worried that that the whole thing will be little more than window dressing.

By contrast, the new Ideas Contest sponsored by Change.org offers a much better model for how Digg-style social media filter to bring citizens into the governing/policy process. The rules of the contest are simple:

Here's how the competition works: anyone can go to www.change.org/ideas and submit a policy idea, discuss with others, and vote on the best ideas from around the country. On Inauguration Day we're going to host an event in Washington, DC and hand-deliver the top 10 rated ideas to a representative of the Obama Administration. We'll then launch a national lobbying campaign with the support of our nonprofit partners to ensure that each winning idea gets the full consideration of the Obama administration and the 111th Congress.

Ideas can be sorted into 29 different issue areas. All ideas are independently linkable and Change.org provides widgets for embedding your idea on your blog or on a variety of social networks, allowing participants to rally support around their idea (you can view a widget linking to my Idea in the sidebar). All questions contain a comment section to allow discussion around the proposed idea, and there are clear rules/guidelines so participants know what they can reasonably expect in exchange for their participation.

I take it on good faith that the Obama Transition Team had the very best intentions with the launch of Open for Questions - and I think Smith's comments of censorship are way off base. Nevertheless, I think Change.gov could learn a lot from Change.org when it comes to integrating this kind of voting system into their work.

In the last few days, a number of critiques and profiles were published commenting on new/old infrastructure, the campaign(s), and where we're at as a movement. All are worth the time for those looking to get a better birds eye view of the current political landscape.

• Rolling Stone eviscerates the disasterous "No on Prop 8" campaign. In reading the piece, one gets the overwhelming sense that the No on 8 folks ran the equivalent of John Kerry's Presidential campaign to the field and fundraising savvy Bush-like campaign helmed by the Mormans.
• On Tech President, Clinton internet strategist Peter Daou discusses the Revolution of the Online Commentariat, in which he dissects radical changes that occur in politics when information is put (more) equally in the hands of million.
• While the Obama Transition Team continues to innovate, Micah Sifry wonders if the Obama for America team - who met in Chicago this past weekend to devise the future of the movement - is regressing and killing the very openness and grasroots energy that made the campaign so successful.
• Last week, the Alliance of Youth Movements met in New York. Bizarrely, almost no one I spoke to had ever heard of the conference or the groups involved. There are definitely a lot of groups out there claiming to speak for and/or organize youth. Sometime this year we're going to have to build some stronger connections between groups that attend these kinds of conferences and, say, groups that received money from major progressive donors this last election cycle. In any case, some of the conference panels were live streamed and archived. You can view them all here. (I have not yet done so, though the topics look interesting).
• The Washington Post profiles the American Constitution Society. Created to counteract the conservative Federalist Society, ACS is becoming a powerhouse for producing lefty legal thinkers. I'll have to check my copy of Youth to Power when I get home, but I'm pretty sure that David Halperin, the ED of Campus Progress, had a hand in setting up ACS back in the day.
• The New York Times notes that teenagers are getting hit hard by the economic downturn, limiting their opportunities to raise money for school and develop skills to help them in the workplace.

Some Sunday reading:

• The New York Times reports that President Obama may have to give up his blackberry. It certainly is nice to have a technologically-engaged president in the White House who is at least pushing the envelope on these issues.
• Meanwhile, Obama's not procrastinating at staffing his White House. Some more roles have been filled today.
• An examination of young voters' preoccupation with merit and what that meant in the Minnesota senate race.
• A panel discussion on "Generation We" will be held tomorrow at Noon at the First Amendment Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, in Washington, DC. Sponsored by Eric Greenberg, author of the book "Generation We: How Millennial Youth Are Taking Over America And Changing Our World Forever," and moderated by The Politico's Ben Adler, the panel will include the following confirmed panelists: Ruy Teixeira, Senior Fellow at both The Century Foundation and American Progress, who will present new findings on the youth vote this election cycle; Alexandra Acker, national executive director of Young Democrats of America; Michael Moschella, director of outreach at the Truman National Security Project; and Kat Barr, political outreach director at Rock the Vote.
• Bruce E. Cain, a professor at UC Berkeley, offers his thoughts on the GOP's demographics problems. He discusses youth and their current politics and nails it:
  

  Finally, there is the new generation. Even before this election, the Generation Y kids were participating in public life at higher levels than their Generation X predecessors. What strikes me as I read their resumes and talk to them at the university is that they are more service-oriented (partly because community service is a requirement at many schools), technologically oriented (they have been running computers and electronics for their parents for years) and world-savvy (they intern as a way of testing out the world). Generation X was the "me" generation; Y seems to be the "us" cohort. Republicans may want to think about what that means for them.

• An examination of the new electorate in American politics.
• The Nation has a "You Voted. Now What?" post-election guide for young voters on how to stay engaged. Check it out.
• Young Australians are also politically engaged at record levels.
• "Liberal" just isn't pejorative with young voters. Deal with it.

I'm leaving to catch a train down to DC in about an hour. I'm going to try to do some number crunching on the train. If that works out, I might have something interesting to report Thursday morning. Otherwise, I've got meetings tonight and all day tomorrow, so posting may be light depending on how much down-time I get.

• Nate Silver has some excellent data on how young voters - of all races - drove the opposition to Prop 8 in California. While we are all disappointed at the moment, that bodes well for the future. (h/t Jesse Singal)
• The University of Michigan College Democrats didn't like my post about the Dingell/Waxman fight, however their opposition seems based more on blind loyalty to Dingell than on the merits of my argument.
• In the NY Daily News, Gen-We authors Eric Greenberg and Karl Weber talk about what young voters will expect from an Obama administration.
• This is a little old and I can't believe I missed it. Columnist E.J. Dionne swipes our brand and writes a column about Obama and the Future Majority:
  

  Since the Nixon era, conservatives have claimed to speak for the "silent majority." Obama represents the future majority. It is the majority of a dynamic country increasingly at ease with its diversity. It reflects the forward-looking optimism of the young. It draws in new suburban and exurban voters whose priorities are resolutely practical -- jobs, schools and transportation -- and who dislike angry quarrels about gay marriage, abortion and religious orthodoxy.

• NPR's Farai Chideya says America's youth vote grows up, wields power.
• Slate has a great article about the potential and pitfalls of transitioning Obama's participatory, tech-driven campaign into a new era of participatory governance.
• King Politics provides us with a more nuanced view of the 2008 "youth only" electoral map: