youth engagement

In my work with college students, one of the things I have observed is that anytime students hear the word "politics," they tend to exclusively link it with our national political discourse. With our national political dialogue and process failing to solve the large problems we face, we shouldn't be surprised that many students consequently develop a negative attitude toward politics and believe the political world is unproductive and difficult to access and navigate. Basically, trying to get through the large mess isn't worth the effort.

These observations have led me to question a few things.

First, isn't everything political? Politics isn't merely a game we play (the notion of someone "playing politics" is false and misleading); it's a reality that, if analyzed, reveals the power dynamics at work in our society that impact everything, from our national budget to whether a student or an administrator reads the morning announcements in a high school. If everything is political, we all bear responsibility as citizens to examine and critique not only the large-scale debates -- about job creation (for young people especially), education, climate change, voting rights, and social justice issues -- but also the smaller, seemingly insignificant and taken-for-granted aspects of our life. One does not need to be in, or thinking about, all things Washington, D.C. to be an activist or create positive change.

So, if we as young people adopt this view of politics -- that it's everywhere -- don't we produce more opportunities for engagement in politics, on a smaller, somewhat more manageable level? One challenge that young people and activists often face in working with local governments to create change is the community's adherence to tradition: "It's always been done this way, and who are you to drop in and suggest we change it?" Local elected officials have the least to gain personally from transforming the way they operate, as they believe they will be shouldering the blame for whatever might go wrong in the future. Yet, sadly -- and in a way, luckily -- the dire fiscal status of many local governments can serve as an opportunity to try new things. As the idea that moving forward in the same direction is no longer comforting to local officials, but actually a threat, innovation suddenly becomes more enticing.

In order to recognize and take advantage of these strategic opportunities, though, I propose that we need to begin with our local media, especially newspapers. Last week, a federal study reported that state and local reporting had severely weakened over the last few years, as news operations shifted their priorities elsewhere.

“In many communities, we now face a shortage of local, professional, accountability reporting,” said the study, which was ordered by the Federal Communications Commission and written by Steven Waldman, a former journalist for Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report. “The independent watchdog function that the Founding Fathers envisioned for journalism — going so far as to call it crucial to a healthy democracy — is in some cases at risk at the local level.”

On Thursday, Mr. Waldman is to issue a number of recommendations, none binding. Those include making actual in-the-field reporting a part of the curriculum at journalism schools, steering more government advertising money toward local instead of national media and changing the tax code to encourage donations to nonprofit media organizations.

Unfortunately, as the article goes on to note, many of today's local media outlets simply relay a politician's press release word for word, strengthening the government's power in its relationship with citizens, whether this official is a member of Congress, or a city council member. The lack of youth reporting in local media outfits is also troubling, and I believe this blame lays at the feet of young people, as well as these media operations. We need to wise up and understand that reporting on local news is just as civically critical as teaching in a challenging classroom environment or working in a low-income setting; simultaneously, local media also need to look for ways to shift funding to allow for a younger, fresher reporting staff, more familiar and comfortable with technology. Further, I would argue the copy-and-paste fest also leads to heightened use of Associated Press content rather than local reporting.

The problem with these tendencies is that citizens do not play on a level playing field with their representatives. Community members, lacking the "expertise" about local public affairs, self-select out of the political process because they receive little information about community issues, and the information they do receive is not properly vetted by the media.

If we as young people want to take advantage of these difficult economic times to create positive change, we must embrace our responsibility to critique, infiltrate, and strengthen our local media. We must be willing to voice our displeasure with its current product, pointing out where and how coverage could improve. We must accept strong, quality journalism as a critical component of active citizenship, incentivizing young people who choose to give back to their community through reporting on local current events. And we must beef up local journalism, exploring better ways to deliver local, scrutinized information to citizens to encourage their engagement (even if these local outlets are operated by larger conglomerates).

A more robust local media would enhance our efforts to beat back the tradition-minded crowd by allowing for the articulation of challenging questions and the examination of new ideas in our local politics. Politics is not an episodic game in which we can choose to participate or not participate. We are all engaging in politics whether we admit it or not. Improving the quality of our local media will make it easier to embrace the role we all have in our democracy and ever-present political world.

This week Chris Bowers over at Open Left predicts that the voters upon which Barack Obama depended in 2008, a large bloc being young voters, will fail to turn out this November. Bowers grounds his argument in what he calls "long-term civic trends" that show "drop-off voters" participating in presidential elections and failing to go to the polls just two years later. Bowers contends that the importance of young voters to Obama's coalition will exacerbate this situation come Election Day, as youth consistently form a smaller share of the vote in midterm elections compared to presidential elections (for information on "share" versus "turnout," please read the first bullet point here). Thus, Bowers calls for a strategy of persuasion as opposed to mobilization.

I disagree with Bowers. In covering youth political participation, one quickly identifies the chicken-egg nature of the topic. Politicians and parties believe youth cannot and will not be politically engaged, so many of the ads, phone calls, and messages are tailored to older voters, alienating the youth demographic. When youth do not turn out after politicians largely ignore them, the media, pundits, parties, and candidates express disappointment in young voters for failing to engage. Thus, youth naturally view electoral politics with cynicism.

In unquestionably consuming the line that youth won't turn out without unearthing why this might be, we perpetuate the cycle. In a tough political environment thus far, with 435 House races this November and over 30 Senate campaigns, it's going to be easy this cycle for timid and weak Democratic incumbents and their consultants to stick their fingers in their mouths, hold them out in front of them, and avoid making tough decisions. And with the GOP disgusting young voters, Republicans have little incentive to target youth. Accepting this as inevitability is what gets us to this situation in the first place, because it doesn't shine the light on the ineffectiveness of this stale strategy. The result is an electorate that's older, more moralistic, and polarized. Boomer-like ideological strength is at the heart of midterms, not Millennial problem solving. Thus, I heartily disagree with Bowers' resigned argument because it reflects the hegemony that silences youth and leads to more of the same in our political dialogue, which we can no longer afford.

Perhaps if candidates were to truly engage youth in medium (use up-to-date technological communication) and message (a strong, progressive discussion of the economy, higher education, climate crisis, and national service framed in a problem-solving approach) and possess a strong record of consistent conviction, they might respond. Furthermore, youth suffer from a lack of access, not apathy. When young people are registered to vote, they turn out. For example, according to the US Census, 81.6% of all registered young voters actually cast a ballot in 2004. That is on par with other portions of electorate.

It's not going to be easy. It's harder to register/inspire a younger group of people to vote when they are collectively facing over 500 decisions without a headlining candidate/campaign at the top. But it won't be as hard if we're willing to challenge our candidates' conventional campaign strategies.

Bowers is right on one thing -- young voters do form the heart of Obama's base. Unlike Bowers, though, I argue that 2010 is so important, our issues are so pressing, and our demographic is so critical to Democratic success that there's no choice but to view this as a mobilization struggle. Political interest is at an all-time high among youth; to capitalize, we must recalibrate our campaigns to attract the support of young people.

One of our biggest battles in reporting on youth progressive politics is pushing back against the faulty view that the use of technology/social networking among youth keeps them from practicing successful activism. Thankfully, we have yet another package of data noting the opposite -- those youth who participate in online social networking opportunities tend to be more engaged and involved in their communities offline.

From the National Conference on Citizenship's 2009 Civic Health Index report:

This year’s survey allowed us to explore the relationships between online forms of engagement and community-based civic activities. We selected a group of Millennials who use social networking sites to promote civic causes, express their opinions on issues, and gather information related to civics, and compared their levels of engagement to that of their peers. We found that Millennials who use social networking sites for civic purposes are far more likely to actively engage in their own communities in each of the activities we measured.

Although we cannot conclude that belonging to social networking sites promotes civic engagement in their community, it is encouraging that civic use of social networking sites cut across income and educational gaps, meaning that low-income youth and youth without college experience were nearly as likely to use social networking sites for civic purposes as youth who had higher income or college experience. As we found in 2008, the civic engagement gap appears to be smaller among young people who engage online, and this year, we found that young Americans who are highly engaged online come from diverse economic and educational background, and are also highly engaged off-line.

Emphasis is mine.

It's understandably very tempting for elder generations to dismiss peer-to-peer internet-based activism. Even though Boomer and Xer parents continue to join Facebook, they do so for novelty's sake. The link between technology and youth activism can't be seen every day, and so, for many, it doesn't exist.

This report is one more reminder that the connection is there -- youth who use social networking sites online are doing more than changing their avatars. They do get involved/engaged in their local communities and make a difference.

I wrote a post the weekend following the election that referenced "thick democracy." During the campaign, President Obama had signaled a paradigm shift in the relationship citizens would have with their government should he be elected. Citizens were not going to merely be spectators, shut out from the government's work. Instead, the new president would ask everyone to pitch in and problem-solve using whatever backgrounds they had to benefit the country. Democracy would be thickened by the infusion of substance. Voting would not serve as the only way to embrace civic engagement; things like serving others, being involved (campaigning, canvassing, etc.) in local politics, pursuing the highest degree attainable, and staying abreast of current affairs also are ways to strengthen citizenship and our country.

We're seeing much of this campaign enthusiasm translate into fulfilled promises and even more enthusiasm. For instance, the Serve America Act has tripled the size of AmeriCorps and increased the education award to over $5,000 per year. The number of applicants for programs like City Year and Teach for America, which was already on the rise before the election, has surged even higher. The increase in number and popularity of service opportunities is a great sign for the future.

But to continue progressing, we need to examine ways to improve opportunities for engagement, especially as these opportunities continue to surge in popularity among young folks. Jo Fullmer at Beyond Bread is correct: we need to continue building the service infrastructure in order to ensure its permanence over the long haul. Fullmer describes her experience in the Lutheran Volunteer Corps, an organization that's not officially related to AmeriCorps, but whose volunteers can receive education awards. Fullmer believes she was fortunate to have an experience that was so engaging and supportive, as many others' do not.

My own service was conducted through the Lutheran Volunteer Corps (which is not technically part of AmeriCorps, though we can receive AmeriCorps education awards). LVC also provides participants with additional financial support, a programmatic structure, and living accommodations within an intentional community. Through this community, I’ve found the support and inspiration to sustain a year of low pay and difficult work. And with the LVC’s support, Bread for the City has provided me the space and trust to try my hand at the work of social justice. As a result, I consider this year of service to have been a privilege.

And yet, that privilege itself is not as widely available and readily exercised by young Americans as it could be. Debt prevents so many from participating, and those who try anyway must struggle to attain loan relief. Even if a year or more of service can be financially feasible, many are daunted without a proper social network or access to a feasible living situation. Opportunities to serve are taken to best advantage when there is sufficient support inside the program.

Supportive living conditions; sustained and sustaining financial support; social engagement – these are the critical components of my successful service. Through improvements designed to foster these conditions, AmeriCorps could become an even more powerful engine of volunteerism and civic participation.

With Jo’s account, we are reminded that not every direct service opportunity within AmeriCorps might be beneficial for Americans wishing to serve, and that some change in that program might be a positive development. I wonder if it is forgetting the political element of service in its work. Service and politics are undeniably related. Common sense says that those participating in direct service to treat small-scale problems (community cleanups, working at a soup kitchen, etc.) care enough about the larger parent issue (the Green Movement, hunger and homelessness, etc.) to support larger, more proactive measures aimed at destroying them. But, to my knowledge (and please comment and correct me if I am incorrect), the majority of those working with/benefited by AmeriCorps have little to do with any larger political approach to solving problems.

But what if it did? How might that take shape? My girlfriend (who's been involved with and has some knowledge of the organization) and I quickly thought of a few changes that might strengthen the civic engagement involved in working with AmeriCorps. While this is by no means a closed list with no opportunity for feedback, I thought I would post what we thought of here.

The expansion of the AmeriCorps appointment from its current two year term to an extra year could improve a variety of problems. Jo discussed the absence of a supportive network in many positions; perhaps a longer term might help this a bit, opening the possibility of longer working relationships between the agency, the AmeriCorps member, and those. Also, another year of eligibility could allow for longer deferment periods on student loans. Finally, the lengthened term could lead to additional changes for the better, listed below.

With an expanded term, AmeriCorps members could be given the space to confront larger, more systemic issues and do so with more than just direct service. Instead of maintaining a static term in which the AmeriCorps member performs direct service each year of his or her eligibility, the term could be tiered: while the first year of service might be direct, AmeriCorps could then create a series of "Issue Advocate" positions for second and third year members of the program. Issue Advocates would become civic experts in their policy area, learning and teaching the ropes of government and non-profits, identifying and leveraging support for certain policies that reinforce the direct service work already being performed.

As it turns out, there's an excellent model for this kind of experience already in place. At the Congressional Hunger Center, the Bill Emerson National Fellows Program links the direct service with the additional issue advocacy needed to solve the massive hunger problem in this country. A description of the program's structure from the website:

Twenty Fellows begin the program in Washington, D.C. for a 10-day orientation and training session, and are then placed for six months with community-based organizations involved in direct anti-hunger and anti-poverty efforts, such as food banks, local advocacy organizations, community organizing groups and economic development agencies. Each host organization identifies specific goals and objectives for the Fellows and provides the supervision and resources necessary to accomplish them. In mid-February, the Fellows move to Washington, D.C. and regroup for another week-long training session before starting their policy placements. Policy placements are with national organizations involved in the anti-hunger and poverty movement. These placements give the Fellows insight into the process that shapes policy on the national level. The program ends in early August.

Someone who I consulted when writing this pointed out that such a holistic experience would be akin to receiving a master's degree in that policy area by the end of that person's direct service and advocacy work. Not only would our problem-solving efforts in various policy arenas be fortified with an expanded version of the Fellows program, but the nation's local communities could gain a considerable number of skilled civic experts.

In order to build the programmatic elements of AmeriCorps though, Jo's call for more infrastructural support should be heeded. Providing a separate housing stipend for participants would provide the additional support Jo called for. The increased stipends in the Serve America legislation was a great start, but starting a separate housing stipend would institutionalize housing support for AmeriCorps members, broadening their compensation package. Those working for AmeriCorps could then focus more on the work they do as opposed to finding an affordable place to live.

In the end, the thinking here is to ensure that we continue to move forward in building a progressive youth movement, which must, at its core, include a vision for expanding programs like AmeriCorps. When expanding AmeriCorps and other programs, we should be concentrating on moving past the direct service and embracing the other civic opportunities inherent in these initiatives. The ideas discussed above are just a few ways to thicken our service infrastructure as we move further into the 21st Century.

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.

As we've been blogging progressive youth politics, it seems that we've heard more stories about young candidates running for mayoral and city council seats across the country. Chalk up another, but this time it's for a New York City Council seat.

Dodge Landesman, an eighteen year old Democrat running in a primary election for the Second District seat on New York's City Council, labels himself as "pro-growth" and "anti-bailout." Landesman's campaign seems to take a page or two from President Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, as Landesman continually calls for a "participatory campaign" in which constituents mold his positions on various issues and other youth get involved in politics, specifically local politics. Landesman's three big issues are education, marriage equality, and community service. Landesman calls for a more efficient education system, in which "good teachers" are rewarded, noting that education is an issue that has largely fallen off City Council's priority list. Landesman promises to propose legislation in New York City that allows everyone the right to marry should he be elected. Finally, Landesman plans to offer tax cuts to those volunteering in their communities, hoping to foster a generational culture of service within the city.

Landesman's campaign has reached out to Facebook, creating a group called "Dodge Landesman for City Council in 2009." Dodge is also on Twitter; he can be followed @Dodge_Landesman. The Landesman campaign is working on developing a full website, but in the meantime, a temporary one has been constructed at http://www.dodgeforcitycouncil.org.

Landesman's opponent is City Councilmember Rosie Mendez. Her official page on the city council site can be viewed here.

Kudos to Dodge for getting things off the ground. We'll be checking in down the road to see how the campaign is going.

The other day I stumbled upon an interesting piece by Ethan Porter and Elon Plotkin at Campus Progress arguing for a new National Youth Administration, a piece of Roosevelt's New Deal in the '30s and '40s.

In 1935, via Executive Order, President Roosevelt created the National Youth Administration to boost their economic prospects. Today, President Obama would be wise to dust off this oft-overlooked item in the New Deal toolbox, and restart the NYA. Under the auspices of the NYA in the 1930s, young people built ballparks and buildings; today, they should build wind turbines and solar panels.

Obviously, much has changed in 70 years, and a reconstituted NYA would have to differ dramatically from Roosevelt’s in order to be successful. But if it incorporated the lessons of the original NYA, and adapted to the contours of the twenty-first century economy, a new NYA could bring youth out of the doldrums and give the whole economy a shot in the arm. Moreover, a new NYA could be the incubator for a life-long productive relationship between government and the youngest generation of workers—who, as part of the “Millennial Generation,” are the largest age cohort in American history.

Porter and Plotkin point out in their introduction that when assessing the economic health of young people today, the situation is no better than it was in the Great Depression. Porter and Plotkin cite Bureau of Labor Statistics and Data from 2008, which shows young workers (16-24 years old) suffered through the largest increase in unemployment when compared with every other age bracket. Furthermore, young people, who make up about fourteen or fifteen percent of the work force, make up one-third of the total number of unemployed Americans -- the same proportion young workers reached during the Depression.

So something absolutely needs to be done. And we're on our way to some improvements. This week President Obama signed the Serve America bill into law, tripling the size of Americorps, and retooling the program to address heretofore unmet needs. By establishing the Healthy Futures Corps, the Veterans Corps, and the Education Corps, the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act establishes a new sense of pragmatism in the federal government's service efforts, teaches young Americans new skills, and assists them financially in their college search.

As Porter and Plotkin note though, more is needed. The National Youth Administration would provide more of an economic boon, creating secure jobs for a younger, and therefore more mobile, work force. If a future NYA were to be constructed similar to the way it was seventy years ago, student aid would also be connected to the new jobs. In fact, Porter and Plotkin argue for a program as a part of a new NYA that would "pay the top third of all graduating public high school classes." I'm not sure that this is the most effective way of solving the problem, as I don't trust our education system enough to base such a reward on grades and achievement. Nevertheless, the NYA would provide secure jobs to young people, significantly assist youth in receiving an education, and provide some muscle to spur the construction of important infrastructure, such as T. Boone Pickens' wind corridor in the Midwest, as Porter and Plotkin suggest.

Of course, with such a connection to the New Deal, conservatives would have a fit. This would just be one more sign of socialism seizing American capitalism. (You'd think their passion would prod them to produce their own vision for the country, but of course, they're content saying "no" and offering nothing but pettiness and division.) And so the legislative effort might be difficult. But it would be an opportunity for our organization to shine, and it would give us significant press. It'd serve as an issue that would link young people, the economy, possibly the environment, and education. It'd once again put the GOP on the defensive, forcing them to explain away their inability to support a policy that would be so beneficial to youth. But most importantly, such a program might bring the youth employment numbers out of Great Depression territory, allowing multitudes of young people to get their lives back on track.

I'm not going to write at length on this again, because I've already done so a couple times. I will, though, continue to point out Republicans who don't understand that it's their message that's the problem with young voters, not the machine.

The latest is found in a St. Petersburg Times article on Thursday discussing the Florida Republican Party's difficulty attracting youth to the party. Emphasis is mine.

Among the most ominous trends for the state GOP? Younger voters.

Exit polls showed Obama beat John McCain among Florida voters 18-29 by 24 percentage points. Just as Ronald Reagan won over younger voters and kept them aligned with the GOP for a generation, today's younger voters stand to be a reliable Democratic voting block.

That threat also is reflected in Greer's priorities for the coming year. He has created a "youth outreach department" to promote the party to young voters and plans a big youth conference this summer. The party is also borrowing a page from the Obama campaign by ramping up its technological capacity to promote the GOP.

"We're going to develop alternative methods of communicating with the party, and we're going to be developing outlets for people to help drive the Republican message and in some cases create the Republican message," Greer said. "We're going to be utilizing that with much more extensive use of blogging, FaceBook, Twitter, multiple components."

They're going to need much more message creation than message driving. As we've constantly discussed here, today's youth simply don't like the Republican message. If the Florida GOP wants to break through with youth, Greer should realize that no matter what kind of "new" medium they use to communicate with youth, in the end, they need something worthwhile to communicate.

The national service movement continues.

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter wrote last week about the "new era of national service" beginning under President Obama. As Alter noted, the impetus for this new era appears to be ready to pass through Congress soon.

The House's legislation -- the GIVE (Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education) Act -- and the Senate's Serve America Act will serve as the backbone for this new government-led movement (I wrote about the Serve America Act last month). Alter ran down what is included in the House legislation.

• A boost in the educational stipend offered in exchange for service to $5,350, with the provision that it will continue to rise in tandem with Pell grants. (Pay for full-time AmeriCorps service is about $11,000 a year.)
• A $500 education award for middle-school and high-school students who take part in a "Summer of Service" or other service activities.
• The establishment of a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Services Corps.
• The establishment of new ServeAmerica Fellowships.
• The expansion of the Civilian Community Corps to include work on weatherization and other energy-conservation projects.
• The expansion of the Peace Corps (to 16,000) and other existing programs.
• The designation of September 11 as a National Day of Service and Remembrance.

George Miller, the California representative who chairs the House Committee on Education and Labor, guided GIVE through his committee this week, with a strong bipartisan vote in favor of the legislation (34-3). The House is expected to vote on the bill early this coming week.

We've covered the bad economy's effect on youth in recent weeks here; these bills would increase the number of available options for those youth either looking for gainful employment or unable to pay for college.

Miller stresses two new components in particular. "We wanted to make sure that veterans are a fundamental part of it," he says. "And all through the process we were trying to link students to education, education, education." The idea is that young people having trouble paying for school—or looking for a job after graduation from high school or college (hundreds of thousands this spring)—will consider national service. An increased college stipend in exchange for tutoring, mentoring, feeding and other service activities could be attractive for students who have been dropping out of college in record numbers.

We have a ways to go in solving our myriad problems, but this legislation definitely gets us moving in the right direction. Cheers to Congressman Miller and Senators Hatch and Kennedy, and to all those working hard to get this bill passed.

I hope you're enjoying your Saturday evening. Here is some reading...

• Neil Howe (of Millennials Rising fame) and Reena Nadler co-authored a mammoth report that has just been released by the New America Foundation as a part of its Next Social Contract Initiative. The report's title is "'Yes We Can': The Emergence of Millennials as a Political Generation."
• Marc Ambinder ponders the success of Organizing for America's first set of meetings.
• Matt Cooper sizes up Obama's week over at TPMDC.
• Ron Brownstein praises Millennials' practicality.
• To arm or not to arm? That's the question on many college campuses. Campus Politico has the story.
• Bloggers have rights too. The Electronic Frontier Foundation tries to simplify them here.
• Detroit's mayoral candidate, Freman Hendrix, is targeting the youth vote via technology. Kudos to him.
• Jesse Arreguin was the first Latino and youngest person ever to be elected to Berkeley's City Council. Youth Outlook interviews him to find out how he seeks to catalyze positive change.