Monday, September 15, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Bye bye boomers
The formal ratification of the outcome of the primary elections at the party’s national conventions marks more than just the beginning of a new era in American politics. It signals the demise of Boomer generation attitudes and beliefs as the dominant motif in American life.
After 16 years of Baby Boomer presidents, first Bill Clinton and then George W. Bush, primary voters in both parties rejected quintessential Boomer ideologues (Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee) in favor of candidates who were explicitly opposed to Boomer-style politics. Although Barack Obama is chronologically a very young Boomer, he signaled, in a March 2007 Selma, Alabama speech, his desire to break with the divisive politics of an earlier, “Moses” generation. Instead he embraced the beliefs of this century’s “Joshua” generation, Millennials, born between 1982 and 2003. For his part, John McCain is a member of the older Silent Generation, born between 1925 and 1945 and has constantly exhibited that generation’s style, positioning himself as a political maverick who attempts to bridge ideological gaps to achieve larger goals.
But the big break is with the Boomer generation. Unlike Boomers, Millennials have been raised to play nice with each other and find win-win solutions to any problem. Boomer (and Generation X) parents sat toddler Millennials in front of the television set to watch “Barney” and absorb each episode’s lesson of self-esteem and mutual respect (even as they bolted from the room, sick from the sweetness of it all). With the show’s “my friend is your friend and your friend is my friend” lyrics hard wired into their psyche, Millennials have a strong desire to share everything they do with everyone else.
The arrival of social network technologies enabled Millennials to create the most intense, group-oriented decision-making process of any generation in American history. This generation’s need to make sure the outcome of both minor decisions, like where to hang out, and major decisions, such as whether go to war, reflects both a penchant for consensus and team work which will become the future benchmarks for American political life.
In contrast Senator Clinton made a definitive—if sometimes a bit too strenuous—case for a Boomer style of leadership in her primary campaign, emphasizing the value of her experience and wisdom. Governors Huckabee and Romney’s approach, for their part, stridently insisted upon the need to preserve the superior set of traditional values .
Now it’s time to encourage the Boomers to take their well-deserved retirement, and offer the opportunity for newer, Gen X leaders and their values. This may be difficult for many Xers, who will need to overcome their own lack of understanding of, and in some cases outright disdain for, the youngest generation. Humorists Steven Colbert and John Stewart, both quintessential Gen Xers, recently demonstrated their risk-taking mindset by mocking Millennial attitudes as demonstrated by Senator Obama’s rock star reception in Berlin. The failure of their Millennial audience to laugh at the joke, or buy into Senator McCain’s attempt to suggest it somehow made Obama less qualified to be President, demonstrates the challenge the Millennial zeitgeist will pose for those seeking to become the nation’s leaders.
The change from Boomer to Millennial style is already becoming evident in other areas of American life as well. At the 1968 Olympics, as the Boomer inspired, idealist era began, African-American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos, the gold and bronze medalists in the men's 200-meter race, raised a black-gloved fist in a protest for black power as the Star Spangled Banner was played to celebrate their victories. Forty years later, Jason Lezak, captured the values of the new Millennial era as he explained how he was able to swim the fastest 400-meter freestyle leg in history to bring gold to his teammates. “It’s the Olympics and I’m here for the USA . . . .I got a supercharge and took it from there. It was unreal.” Lezak was joined at the award ceremony by his Millennial teammate, Cullen Jones, only the second African-American to ever win a gold medal in swimming. In sharp contrast to Smith and Carlos forty years earlier, Jones happily celebrated the victory of his team and country.
Ultimately the 2008 election will turn on which candidate can bring these new attitudes and beliefs to bear on the number one issue facing the country—the economy. Unlike Boomers, whose focus was on economic growth to support their workaholic personalities, Millennials are more concerned about economic inequality and believe government has a key role to play in bringing about a greater degree of economic fairness. Almost 70 percent of Millennials express a preference for “a bigger government that provides more services,” compared to only 43 percent of older generations who agreed with that statement.
Connecting the current sorry state of the American economy and its dependence on foreign oil with the other favorite concern of Millennials, global warming, is an even better way to win this generation’s support on economic issues. Whoever is elected this year will need to reshape America’s economy in line with Millennial expectations of inclusiveness and fairness as dramatically as FDR’s New Deal created a new economic framework for the Millennial’s generational forbearers, the GI Generation.
The Broadway musical, “Bye Bye Birdie,” captured the end of the conventional era of the ‘50s, as the onslaught of Rock n’ Roll pitted child against parent and ushered in an age that celebrated rebellion in all its forms. The confrontations between Boomer “Meathead” (Michael Stivic) on “All in the Family,” with his tradition bound father-in-law, Archie Bunker, captured his generation's desire to overturn the establishment using the power of ideas to persuade the recalcitrant of the error of their ways.
Now it’s time to realize new values are ascending. Millennials generally get along great with their parents and celebrate the wholesome values of “High School Musical,” where boys and girls of all types come together to defeat those that seek to win only for their own personal ambition. Those nominated in the next two weeks at their party’s convention should heed this lesson. To gain the presidency, the winning ticket will have to appeal to the Millennial sense of pride and teamwork in meeting the challenges the country faces.
After 16 years of Baby Boomer presidents, first Bill Clinton and then George W. Bush, primary voters in both parties rejected quintessential Boomer ideologues (Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee) in favor of candidates who were explicitly opposed to Boomer-style politics. Although Barack Obama is chronologically a very young Boomer, he signaled, in a March 2007 Selma, Alabama speech, his desire to break with the divisive politics of an earlier, “Moses” generation. Instead he embraced the beliefs of this century’s “Joshua” generation, Millennials, born between 1982 and 2003. For his part, John McCain is a member of the older Silent Generation, born between 1925 and 1945 and has constantly exhibited that generation’s style, positioning himself as a political maverick who attempts to bridge ideological gaps to achieve larger goals.
But the big break is with the Boomer generation. Unlike Boomers, Millennials have been raised to play nice with each other and find win-win solutions to any problem. Boomer (and Generation X) parents sat toddler Millennials in front of the television set to watch “Barney” and absorb each episode’s lesson of self-esteem and mutual respect (even as they bolted from the room, sick from the sweetness of it all). With the show’s “my friend is your friend and your friend is my friend” lyrics hard wired into their psyche, Millennials have a strong desire to share everything they do with everyone else.
The arrival of social network technologies enabled Millennials to create the most intense, group-oriented decision-making process of any generation in American history. This generation’s need to make sure the outcome of both minor decisions, like where to hang out, and major decisions, such as whether go to war, reflects both a penchant for consensus and team work which will become the future benchmarks for American political life.
In contrast Senator Clinton made a definitive—if sometimes a bit too strenuous—case for a Boomer style of leadership in her primary campaign, emphasizing the value of her experience and wisdom. Governors Huckabee and Romney’s approach, for their part, stridently insisted upon the need to preserve the superior set of traditional values .
Now it’s time to encourage the Boomers to take their well-deserved retirement, and offer the opportunity for newer, Gen X leaders and their values. This may be difficult for many Xers, who will need to overcome their own lack of understanding of, and in some cases outright disdain for, the youngest generation. Humorists Steven Colbert and John Stewart, both quintessential Gen Xers, recently demonstrated their risk-taking mindset by mocking Millennial attitudes as demonstrated by Senator Obama’s rock star reception in Berlin. The failure of their Millennial audience to laugh at the joke, or buy into Senator McCain’s attempt to suggest it somehow made Obama less qualified to be President, demonstrates the challenge the Millennial zeitgeist will pose for those seeking to become the nation’s leaders.
The change from Boomer to Millennial style is already becoming evident in other areas of American life as well. At the 1968 Olympics, as the Boomer inspired, idealist era began, African-American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos, the gold and bronze medalists in the men's 200-meter race, raised a black-gloved fist in a protest for black power as the Star Spangled Banner was played to celebrate their victories. Forty years later, Jason Lezak, captured the values of the new Millennial era as he explained how he was able to swim the fastest 400-meter freestyle leg in history to bring gold to his teammates. “It’s the Olympics and I’m here for the USA . . . .I got a supercharge and took it from there. It was unreal.” Lezak was joined at the award ceremony by his Millennial teammate, Cullen Jones, only the second African-American to ever win a gold medal in swimming. In sharp contrast to Smith and Carlos forty years earlier, Jones happily celebrated the victory of his team and country.
Ultimately the 2008 election will turn on which candidate can bring these new attitudes and beliefs to bear on the number one issue facing the country—the economy. Unlike Boomers, whose focus was on economic growth to support their workaholic personalities, Millennials are more concerned about economic inequality and believe government has a key role to play in bringing about a greater degree of economic fairness. Almost 70 percent of Millennials express a preference for “a bigger government that provides more services,” compared to only 43 percent of older generations who agreed with that statement.
Connecting the current sorry state of the American economy and its dependence on foreign oil with the other favorite concern of Millennials, global warming, is an even better way to win this generation’s support on economic issues. Whoever is elected this year will need to reshape America’s economy in line with Millennial expectations of inclusiveness and fairness as dramatically as FDR’s New Deal created a new economic framework for the Millennial’s generational forbearers, the GI Generation.
The Broadway musical, “Bye Bye Birdie,” captured the end of the conventional era of the ‘50s, as the onslaught of Rock n’ Roll pitted child against parent and ushered in an age that celebrated rebellion in all its forms. The confrontations between Boomer “Meathead” (Michael Stivic) on “All in the Family,” with his tradition bound father-in-law, Archie Bunker, captured his generation's desire to overturn the establishment using the power of ideas to persuade the recalcitrant of the error of their ways.
Now it’s time to realize new values are ascending. Millennials generally get along great with their parents and celebrate the wholesome values of “High School Musical,” where boys and girls of all types come together to defeat those that seek to win only for their own personal ambition. Those nominated in the next two weeks at their party’s convention should heed this lesson. To gain the presidency, the winning ticket will have to appeal to the Millennial sense of pride and teamwork in meeting the challenges the country faces.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
A Generational Guide for Watching the Conventions
The key to waging a successful presidential campaign by either Barack Obama or John McCain will be their ability to use their respective conventions to overcome generational tensions. What happens in Denver and the Twin Cities could give the nominees freedom to embrace the generational changes that will shape American politics for decades to come.
If the candidates pay proper attention to generational politics, each convention will begin with a nod to their party’s Boomers and then pivot away from the past to address, on the final night, new voters whose support they will need to win in November.
The candidates must take the lead in managing their party’s convention so that the ticket and its platform reflect the desire of the electorate to move beyond the cultural wars of the 1960s. Each party’s understanding of this generationally driven challenge will be evident in how it handles the iconic, Boomer figures demanding center stage at their conventions.
Obama, in an acknowledgement of the generational strains in his party, has agreed to Hillary Rodham Clinton's request to not only address the convention in prime time on Tuesday night, but to have her name placed in nomination the following night. In return, he has gained the agreement of former president Bill Clinton to, in effect, lead the Boomers in the Democratic Party to embrace and endorse Senator Obama's nomination on Wednesday night.
As tough as that challenge has been for Obama, the problem is more acute for John McCain. President Bush's job performance ratings are among the lowest of any president. But he remains popular with Boomer ideologues in the GOP, who are continually looking for signs that McCain has stayed from party orthodoxy. Any attempt to deny a sitting president the spotlight at their national convention, as Democrats did in keeping Lyndon Johnson from addressing their 1968 convention, will be met with cries of “I told you not to trust him” from Republican true believers.
It appears that McCain’s advisers have decided to throw cultural war red meat to the delegates with appearances by Bush and Vice President Cheney on Monday, in hopes that the electorate won’t pay too much attention until later in the week.
If history is any guide, the place where both candidates will be willing to make concessions to their party’s ideological base will be the party’s platform. Since this policy statement is debated early in the convention, with little penalty for abandoning a plank or two later in the campaign, platforms are the easiest way to throw a bone to ideological purists. The Generation X and Boomer Democratic blogosphere has previously attacked Obama for failing to adhere to hard left positions on post 9-11 issues and offshore oil drilling.
Similarly, a number of conservatives have condemned McCain's former positions on climate change, immigration, and campaign finance reform.
The choice each candidate must make is whether to use the platform debate to give the cultural warriors in their party a final opportunity to replay the political drama of the nation’s Boomer past or to use the platform debate as a “Sister Souljah” generational moment and decisively break with that kind of divisive politics.
In the end, however, there will be no better place for the two candidates to demonstrate their break with the politics of past generations than in their acceptance speeches.
The McCain campaign has signaled its intention to use their candidate’s story of personal sacrifice on behalf of the nation throughout the convention. This effort will likely culminate in an acceptance speech attempting to simultaneously distinguish his life’s experience from those of the Woodstock generation (“I was tied up at the time”) and arouse the passions of his party’s Boomer base.
The challenge, however, is how to do that that without awakening a set of related thoughts among Millennials about just how old and potentially out of touch with their generation he is. Millennials weren’t around for Woodstock, don’t care about it, and prefer that everyone “play nice” together. Passion displayed as anger turns them off. To capture a new and winning coalition in this campaign, McCain would be better off using his acceptance speech to underline his national security credentials based on a lifetime of service, both of which appeal greatly to Millennials.
Obama’s decision to deliver his acceptance speech before a large outdoor audience on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech comes with its own set of risks. Echoes of that remarkable speech are sure to arouse the passions of the liberal half of the Boomer generation. But, it will also remind viewers of the turmoil of the 60s that drove a majority of the nation to embrace the Republicans’ appeal for “law and order.”
Obama’s rhetoric will need to inspire a new generation to take the next steps toward achievement of King’s dream, without creating a backlash among the rest of the electorate that wasn’t enamored with the racial overtones of the Democratic primary campaign.
To succeed in November, both candidates will have to speak explicitly to the future and demonstrate that their campaign represents the hopes of a new generation. The country is waiting for a new leader with a new approach to guide it out of the Boomer briar patch in which it has been stuck since 1968. After the conventions, we will have a clearer idea who can best lead the country into a new era of American politics.
If the candidates pay proper attention to generational politics, each convention will begin with a nod to their party’s Boomers and then pivot away from the past to address, on the final night, new voters whose support they will need to win in November.
The candidates must take the lead in managing their party’s convention so that the ticket and its platform reflect the desire of the electorate to move beyond the cultural wars of the 1960s. Each party’s understanding of this generationally driven challenge will be evident in how it handles the iconic, Boomer figures demanding center stage at their conventions.
Obama, in an acknowledgement of the generational strains in his party, has agreed to Hillary Rodham Clinton's request to not only address the convention in prime time on Tuesday night, but to have her name placed in nomination the following night. In return, he has gained the agreement of former president Bill Clinton to, in effect, lead the Boomers in the Democratic Party to embrace and endorse Senator Obama's nomination on Wednesday night.
As tough as that challenge has been for Obama, the problem is more acute for John McCain. President Bush's job performance ratings are among the lowest of any president. But he remains popular with Boomer ideologues in the GOP, who are continually looking for signs that McCain has stayed from party orthodoxy. Any attempt to deny a sitting president the spotlight at their national convention, as Democrats did in keeping Lyndon Johnson from addressing their 1968 convention, will be met with cries of “I told you not to trust him” from Republican true believers.
It appears that McCain’s advisers have decided to throw cultural war red meat to the delegates with appearances by Bush and Vice President Cheney on Monday, in hopes that the electorate won’t pay too much attention until later in the week.
If history is any guide, the place where both candidates will be willing to make concessions to their party’s ideological base will be the party’s platform. Since this policy statement is debated early in the convention, with little penalty for abandoning a plank or two later in the campaign, platforms are the easiest way to throw a bone to ideological purists. The Generation X and Boomer Democratic blogosphere has previously attacked Obama for failing to adhere to hard left positions on post 9-11 issues and offshore oil drilling.
Similarly, a number of conservatives have condemned McCain's former positions on climate change, immigration, and campaign finance reform.
The choice each candidate must make is whether to use the platform debate to give the cultural warriors in their party a final opportunity to replay the political drama of the nation’s Boomer past or to use the platform debate as a “Sister Souljah” generational moment and decisively break with that kind of divisive politics.
In the end, however, there will be no better place for the two candidates to demonstrate their break with the politics of past generations than in their acceptance speeches.
The McCain campaign has signaled its intention to use their candidate’s story of personal sacrifice on behalf of the nation throughout the convention. This effort will likely culminate in an acceptance speech attempting to simultaneously distinguish his life’s experience from those of the Woodstock generation (“I was tied up at the time”) and arouse the passions of his party’s Boomer base.
The challenge, however, is how to do that that without awakening a set of related thoughts among Millennials about just how old and potentially out of touch with their generation he is. Millennials weren’t around for Woodstock, don’t care about it, and prefer that everyone “play nice” together. Passion displayed as anger turns them off. To capture a new and winning coalition in this campaign, McCain would be better off using his acceptance speech to underline his national security credentials based on a lifetime of service, both of which appeal greatly to Millennials.
Obama’s decision to deliver his acceptance speech before a large outdoor audience on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech comes with its own set of risks. Echoes of that remarkable speech are sure to arouse the passions of the liberal half of the Boomer generation. But, it will also remind viewers of the turmoil of the 60s that drove a majority of the nation to embrace the Republicans’ appeal for “law and order.”
Obama’s rhetoric will need to inspire a new generation to take the next steps toward achievement of King’s dream, without creating a backlash among the rest of the electorate that wasn’t enamored with the racial overtones of the Democratic primary campaign.
To succeed in November, both candidates will have to speak explicitly to the future and demonstrate that their campaign represents the hopes of a new generation. The country is waiting for a new leader with a new approach to guide it out of the Boomer briar patch in which it has been stuck since 1968. After the conventions, we will have a clearer idea who can best lead the country into a new era of American politics.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Millennials and the Future of American Suburbs
In his autobiographical film, Avalon, Barry Levinson captured the impact of
But the very same generational trends that pulled American families apart in the late 1960s and ‘70s, is about to return full cycle to the attitudes and beliefs of a “civic” era very much like the 1950s and early 1960s, with equally profound impacts on where and how we live.
Just like their GI Generation grand-parents or great grand-parents, Millennials have a deep and abiding interest in the communities they participate in. Growing up, this interest was captured by the enormous popularity of social networks, such as MySpace and FaceBook. Over eighty percent of all Millennials have a personal site on at least one of these networks.
The same desire to connect to their friends and build better communities is evidenced in the volunteer participation rates of Millennials, especially in comparison to their older Gen X siblings or parents. Eighty percent of Millennials performed some sort of community service while in high school, triple the rate of high school Gen Xers. Not only do seventy percent of college-age Millennials report having done voluntary community service, but 85 percent of them consider it an effective way to solve this nation’s problems. It is no coincidence that the candidate with the most appeal to Millennials, Senator Obama, issued a call for mandatory programs of service in high school and college in return for financial assistance with higher education during the week leading up to
Now the first initial indications of how this sense of community will impact Millennial behavior as they enter young adulthood are available and it contains good news for
But there is one more generational trait that portends well for
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Interview with Justin Krane of Weoped
While attending the 2008 Personal Democracy Forum in NYC the other week, I had the pleasure of listening to an enlightening and motivating talk by Morley Winograd, who along with Michael D. Hais co-authored Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American P...
. The book is a illuminating and detailed study of American generations and how each one has redefined the political and cultural landscape of our history.
Mr. Winograd was kind enough to speak with me at length after his lecture and both he and Mr. Hais agreed to an interview for Weoped, which was conducted over email and is published below. On behalf of the Weoped community, Geoffrey, and myself, I want to thank both Mr. Winograd and Mr. Hais for their time and for building a case for the potential of my generation to effect some real change around here. What's a-matter with kids today? Absolutely nothing!
Q. What is your definition of the Millennial Generation?
A. Millennials are young Americans born 1982-2003. The Millennial Generation is the largest in American history. There are nearly 100 million Millennials living today, about 40-percent of whom will be eligible to vote in the 2008 presidential general election. This means that the Millennial Generation has the potential to be as large a voting bloc this year as senior citizens (persons 65+). The power of Millennials will only increase in the future as more of them join the electorate and members of older generations inevitably pass from the population.
In addition to being America's largest generation, the Millennials are also the most ethnically diverse. About 40-percent of Millennials are non-white: African-American, Latino, Asian American, or of mixed race. One in five Millennials has at least one immigrant parent. The Millennial Generation also has a less pronounced sense of gender-role distinctions than any previous American generation. In fact, if anything, the Millennial Generation may be the first female-dominant generation in U.S. history. Certainly this is the first time a majority of college undergraduate and professional school students are female rather than male.
Q. In your book, Millennial Makeover, you note that Millennials vote more Democratic than previous generations. Since much of the Democratic Party platform--not to mention Obama's recent trending toward centrist positions--appears to be maintaining the status quo, in what ways would you characterize Millennials as "progressive" and not just "Democratic?"
A. In effect, these are two different questions. The political attitudes and behavior of Millennials are separate and distinct from whatever tactical positions the Democratic Party and Barack Obama may take in contesting the 2008 election. Specifically, at least at this point, the Millennial Generation is both Democratic and "liberal" or "progressive." They identify as Democrats over Republicans by a 2:1 ratio and they are the first generation in at least four decades in which more people consider themselves to be liberals rather than conservatives.
The "liberalism" or "progressivism" of the Millennial Generation is reflected in its attitudes on a range of specific issues. On economic matters, Millennials are "liberal interventionists," favoring governmental activity to deal with matters such as economic inequality and health care. Upwards of seven in ten Millennials agree that "government should take care of people who can't take care of themselves," favor "a bigger government that provides more services," and believe that "government should guarantee health insurance for all even if this requires raising taxes." Two-thirds of them favor increased environmental protection even at the cost of higher prices.
On social issues, Millennials may be characterized as "tolerant non-meddlers." Six in ten of them have no objections to gay marriage and reject the idea of women returning to traditional roles in society. Nine in ten white Millennials believe that interracial dating is acceptable.
In foreign affairs, they are "activist multilateralists." Like other generations, a majority of Millennials (six in ten) perceives that the Iraq war has hindered the overall battle against terrorism. This rejection of the Iraq war and the way it is being managed should not be interpreted as isolationism, however. A solid majority of Millennials believes that it is necessary for the United States to be highly involved in international affairs Specifically, two-thirds of them favor an American foreign policy focused on building international ties rather than relying on U.S. military strength.
Q. Why did the "idealist" efforts of the 60s generation (Baby Boomers) appear futile in retrospect. How will the Millennial Generation succeed in its "civic" agenda?
A. The Baby Boomer and Millennial generations represent two unique and distinctive generational archetypes. It is necessary to understand the differences between these two types of generations to know why the Millennial Generation will succeed in achieving its goals while the Baby Boomers failed.
As an "idealist" generation, the Baby Boomers are driven by deeply held values that they attempt to enact through the political process and on which they are unwilling to compromise. While idealist generations want to use the political process to achieve their values, they tend to regard institutions, including government, as incompetent and morally bankrupt. As a result, they attack and weaken those institutions, thereby lessening the chances they will succeed in accomplishing their aims.
In addition, like other "idealist" generations, the Baby Boomers were, in the 1960s, a highly divided, even fragmented, generation, and remain so today. Because of the participation of some of its members in the civil rights, women's rights, and anti-Vietnam war movements, there is a perception that the Boomers were a liberal generation. In fact, even on the college campuses of the 1960s there were about as many conservatives as liberals and Republicans as Democrats. Among the majority of the Boomers who did not attend college, conservatives and Republicans may have actually outnumbered liberals and Democrats. Beyond this, the Baby Boomer Generation is divided along demographic lines. For example, it is this generation that gave us both the term and the persistent reality of the "gender gap" (liberal and Democratic women versus conservative and Republican men). The Boomers are also divided ethnically in their political attitudes. Virtually all African-American Baby Boomers consider themselves to be Democrats, while most white Boomers say they are Republicans. Indeed, the Boomers are so politically and demographically divided that it is really impossible to find an agenda that can be said to represent the entire generation. Given this, is it any wonder why the efforts of the "idealist" Baby Boomer generation appear futile in spite of its four-decade long domination of American elections and politics.
By contrast, the Millennials are a "civic" generation. Politically, such generations are characterized by a desire to find win-win solutions that meet the needs of and resolve the problems facing the entire group (society). Unlike idealist generations, civic generations tend to have positive attitudes toward societal institutions. This aids civic generations in achieving their goals because, rather than weakening societal institutions like their idealist parents and grandparents, they strengthen existing institutions and build new ones.
In addition, unlike the Baby Boomer Generation, the Millennial Generation is unified politically. We have already indicated that Millennials identify as Democrats and liberals by about a 2:1 ratio and that majorities of them hold "liberal" or "progressive" positions on most political issues. These attitudes and identifications cross demographic lines. A majority of both white and non-white and male and female Millennials identify as Democrats. In the just concluded contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, clear majorities of Millennials, regardless of gender and race, voted for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.
In sum, because of their numbers, their group-oriented desire to find win-win solutions to America's problems, their support for and willingness to enhance societal institutions and their attitudinal and behavioral unity and cohesion, Millennials will likely succeed, where Baby Boomers failed, in achieving their political goals.
Q. How sweeping a change do you believe us capable of? What other generations would you compare us to in this regard? Will ours be a revolution or merely a reformation of the current bureaucratic system?
A. As just detailed, Millennials belong to a generational archetype labeled “civic” because of their intense interest in rebuilding society’s governmental and political institutions. Prior civic generations in American history created our republican form of government at the Constitutional Convention that delivered on the promise of political independence of the American Revolution, at least for white males. Eighty years later, the next civic generation provided the political support for Lincoln to abolish slavery and extend and guarantee those freedoms while asserting the primacy of the federal government over State’s Rights when it came to matters of constitutional principles. The next and most recent civic generation was the GI Generation, whose support of FDR’s New Deal allowed the federal government to become the arbiter of economic and social justice. That generation’s liberalism made progressive government possible in America after thirty years of debate about the wisdom of a strong central government.
Given this historical track record and the characteristics of America's next civic generation, we believe that Millennials have both the numbers and the attitudes to once again transform American government. The changes will be sweeping because, as indicated, Millennials are more unified than other recent generations in their beliefs about what needs to be done. They will demand the federal government take the lead in finding solutions to America’s broken health care and educational systems, while lessening the degree of economic inequality. The programmatic solutions Millennials will favor will be a synthesis between the federal government establishing new systems and priorities and local, individual action to accomplish the desired results within the new systems. Millennial era government will represent just as much of a change from today’s Progressive Era bureaucratic form of government as FDR’s New Deal was from the laissez-faire policies of his predecessors.
Q. Millennial Makeover emphasizes the potential of the Internet to enable us to organize and communicate for political and civic action. During this election, we have seen the candidacy of Ron Paul receive overwhelming, fervent support on the Internet, but it translated into less than 1% of the popular vote in the Republican Primaries. How do you account for this discrepancy? Does a candidate's support on FaceBook or MySpace actually have political currency?
A. There are many studies, many of which have been cited on the daily TechPresident blog, which have demonstrated a corollary this year between social network activity/support and votes for both Democratic and Republican candidates. The case of Ron Paul, however, demonstrates that just having an online presence doesn’t mean a political campaign can count on that activity to translate into a significant amount of political support. Instead, as we point out in discussing the four Ms of politics in our book, Millennial Makeover, a campaign needs to make sure the Media of social networking, is aligned with its Message. If that is done with the right kind of Messenger, then Money will flow to the campaign. Ron Paul’s message is an intensely libertarian, anti-government message. It is not a Message that appeals to civic-oriented Millennials. So while the Messenger (Paul) could raise surprising quantities of Money on the Media of the Internet, he was not able to build the kind of communities on social networks that Obama’s Message of unity and hope was able to do. And so he also failed to generate the level of support and Money that Barack Obama (or for that matter, Hillary Clinton) was able to do. In sum, all four Ms have to be in alignment for the power of the Net to be truly transformative.
For further analysis and information, please pick up a copy of the book Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics
. The book is a illuminating and detailed study of American generations and how each one has redefined the political and cultural landscape of our history.Mr. Winograd was kind enough to speak with me at length after his lecture and both he and Mr. Hais agreed to an interview for Weoped, which was conducted over email and is published below. On behalf of the Weoped community, Geoffrey, and myself, I want to thank both Mr. Winograd and Mr. Hais for their time and for building a case for the potential of my generation to effect some real change around here. What's a-matter with kids today? Absolutely nothing!
Q. What is your definition of the Millennial Generation?
A. Millennials are young Americans born 1982-2003. The Millennial Generation is the largest in American history. There are nearly 100 million Millennials living today, about 40-percent of whom will be eligible to vote in the 2008 presidential general election. This means that the Millennial Generation has the potential to be as large a voting bloc this year as senior citizens (persons 65+). The power of Millennials will only increase in the future as more of them join the electorate and members of older generations inevitably pass from the population.
In addition to being America's largest generation, the Millennials are also the most ethnically diverse. About 40-percent of Millennials are non-white: African-American, Latino, Asian American, or of mixed race. One in five Millennials has at least one immigrant parent. The Millennial Generation also has a less pronounced sense of gender-role distinctions than any previous American generation. In fact, if anything, the Millennial Generation may be the first female-dominant generation in U.S. history. Certainly this is the first time a majority of college undergraduate and professional school students are female rather than male.
Q. In your book, Millennial Makeover
, you note that Millennials vote more Democratic than previous generations. Since much of the Democratic Party platform--not to mention Obama's recent trending toward centrist positions--appears to be maintaining the status quo, in what ways would you characterize Millennials as "progressive" and not just "Democratic?"A. In effect, these are two different questions. The political attitudes and behavior of Millennials are separate and distinct from whatever tactical positions the Democratic Party and Barack Obama may take in contesting the 2008 election. Specifically, at least at this point, the Millennial Generation is both Democratic and "liberal" or "progressive." They identify as Democrats over Republicans by a 2:1 ratio and they are the first generation in at least four decades in which more people consider themselves to be liberals rather than conservatives.
The "liberalism" or "progressivism" of the Millennial Generation is reflected in its attitudes on a range of specific issues. On economic matters, Millennials are "liberal interventionists," favoring governmental activity to deal with matters such as economic inequality and health care. Upwards of seven in ten Millennials agree that "government should take care of people who can't take care of themselves," favor "a bigger government that provides more services," and believe that "government should guarantee health insurance for all even if this requires raising taxes." Two-thirds of them favor increased environmental protection even at the cost of higher prices.
On social issues, Millennials may be characterized as "tolerant non-meddlers." Six in ten of them have no objections to gay marriage and reject the idea of women returning to traditional roles in society. Nine in ten white Millennials believe that interracial dating is acceptable.
In foreign affairs, they are "activist multilateralists." Like other generations, a majority of Millennials (six in ten) perceives that the Iraq war has hindered the overall battle against terrorism. This rejection of the Iraq war and the way it is being managed should not be interpreted as isolationism, however. A solid majority of Millennials believes that it is necessary for the United States to be highly involved in international affairs Specifically, two-thirds of them favor an American foreign policy focused on building international ties rather than relying on U.S. military strength.
Q. Why did the "idealist" efforts of the 60s generation (Baby Boomers) appear futile in retrospect. How will the Millennial Generation succeed in its "civic" agenda?
A. The Baby Boomer and Millennial generations represent two unique and distinctive generational archetypes. It is necessary to understand the differences between these two types of generations to know why the Millennial Generation will succeed in achieving its goals while the Baby Boomers failed.
As an "idealist" generation, the Baby Boomers are driven by deeply held values that they attempt to enact through the political process and on which they are unwilling to compromise. While idealist generations want to use the political process to achieve their values, they tend to regard institutions, including government, as incompetent and morally bankrupt. As a result, they attack and weaken those institutions, thereby lessening the chances they will succeed in accomplishing their aims.
In addition, like other "idealist" generations, the Baby Boomers were, in the 1960s, a highly divided, even fragmented, generation, and remain so today. Because of the participation of some of its members in the civil rights, women's rights, and anti-Vietnam war movements, there is a perception that the Boomers were a liberal generation. In fact, even on the college campuses of the 1960s there were about as many conservatives as liberals and Republicans as Democrats. Among the majority of the Boomers who did not attend college, conservatives and Republicans may have actually outnumbered liberals and Democrats. Beyond this, the Baby Boomer Generation is divided along demographic lines. For example, it is this generation that gave us both the term and the persistent reality of the "gender gap" (liberal and Democratic women versus conservative and Republican men). The Boomers are also divided ethnically in their political attitudes. Virtually all African-American Baby Boomers consider themselves to be Democrats, while most white Boomers say they are Republicans. Indeed, the Boomers are so politically and demographically divided that it is really impossible to find an agenda that can be said to represent the entire generation. Given this, is it any wonder why the efforts of the "idealist" Baby Boomer generation appear futile in spite of its four-decade long domination of American elections and politics.
By contrast, the Millennials are a "civic" generation. Politically, such generations are characterized by a desire to find win-win solutions that meet the needs of and resolve the problems facing the entire group (society). Unlike idealist generations, civic generations tend to have positive attitudes toward societal institutions. This aids civic generations in achieving their goals because, rather than weakening societal institutions like their idealist parents and grandparents, they strengthen existing institutions and build new ones.
In addition, unlike the Baby Boomer Generation, the Millennial Generation is unified politically. We have already indicated that Millennials identify as Democrats and liberals by about a 2:1 ratio and that majorities of them hold "liberal" or "progressive" positions on most political issues. These attitudes and identifications cross demographic lines. A majority of both white and non-white and male and female Millennials identify as Democrats. In the just concluded contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, clear majorities of Millennials, regardless of gender and race, voted for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.
In sum, because of their numbers, their group-oriented desire to find win-win solutions to America's problems, their support for and willingness to enhance societal institutions and their attitudinal and behavioral unity and cohesion, Millennials will likely succeed, where Baby Boomers failed, in achieving their political goals.
Q. How sweeping a change do you believe us capable of? What other generations would you compare us to in this regard? Will ours be a revolution or merely a reformation of the current bureaucratic system?
A. As just detailed, Millennials belong to a generational archetype labeled “civic” because of their intense interest in rebuilding society’s governmental and political institutions. Prior civic generations in American history created our republican form of government at the Constitutional Convention that delivered on the promise of political independence of the American Revolution, at least for white males. Eighty years later, the next civic generation provided the political support for Lincoln to abolish slavery and extend and guarantee those freedoms while asserting the primacy of the federal government over State’s Rights when it came to matters of constitutional principles. The next and most recent civic generation was the GI Generation, whose support of FDR’s New Deal allowed the federal government to become the arbiter of economic and social justice. That generation’s liberalism made progressive government possible in America after thirty years of debate about the wisdom of a strong central government.
Given this historical track record and the characteristics of America's next civic generation, we believe that Millennials have both the numbers and the attitudes to once again transform American government. The changes will be sweeping because, as indicated, Millennials are more unified than other recent generations in their beliefs about what needs to be done. They will demand the federal government take the lead in finding solutions to America’s broken health care and educational systems, while lessening the degree of economic inequality. The programmatic solutions Millennials will favor will be a synthesis between the federal government establishing new systems and priorities and local, individual action to accomplish the desired results within the new systems. Millennial era government will represent just as much of a change from today’s Progressive Era bureaucratic form of government as FDR’s New Deal was from the laissez-faire policies of his predecessors.
Q. Millennial Makeover
emphasizes the potential of the Internet to enable us to organize and communicate for political and civic action. During this election, we have seen the candidacy of Ron Paul receive overwhelming, fervent support on the Internet, but it translated into less than 1% of the popular vote in the Republican Primaries. How do you account for this discrepancy? Does a candidate's support on FaceBook or MySpace actually have political currency?A. There are many studies, many of which have been cited on the daily TechPresident blog, which have demonstrated a corollary this year between social network activity/support and votes for both Democratic and Republican candidates. The case of Ron Paul, however, demonstrates that just having an online presence doesn’t mean a political campaign can count on that activity to translate into a significant amount of political support. Instead, as we point out in discussing the four Ms of politics in our book, Millennial Makeover, a campaign needs to make sure the Media of social networking, is aligned with its Message. If that is done with the right kind of Messenger, then Money will flow to the campaign. Ron Paul’s message is an intensely libertarian, anti-government message. It is not a Message that appeals to civic-oriented Millennials. So while the Messenger (Paul) could raise surprising quantities of Money on the Media of the Internet, he was not able to build the kind of communities on social networks that Obama’s Message of unity and hope was able to do. And so he also failed to generate the level of support and Money that Barack Obama (or for that matter, Hillary Clinton) was able to do. In sum, all four Ms have to be in alignment for the power of the Net to be truly transformative.
For further analysis and information, please pick up a copy of the book Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Obama's vs. McCain's strategy for Victory
Now that pundits have exhausted themselves asking and answering the question, "Why did Hillary lose?" it's time to turn to the much more important question, "Why did Obama win?" Asking that question encourages a look beyond the tactics of the just concluded primary campaign to the broader strategic and historical trends that made him victorious. Examining those trends, which we did for our book, Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics, demonstrates that the 2008 election is a realigning event marking the end of one political era and the start of another.
Historically, when these types of realignments or makeovers occur, they produce changes in the voting coalitions that support the two parties, and this year’s political transition is no exception. For example, the previous realignment in 1968 shifted the South from the Democratic bastion that it had been for well over a century to a solidly Republican region, while at the same time former GOP strongholds in New England, the upper Midwest, and the Pacific Coast moved toward the Democrats.
Despite the clear historical evidence that these makeovers, which occur regularly about every forty years, are as American and normal as apple pie and baseball, many observers seem unable to recognize the changes in party coalitions that are a part of this year’s political dynamic. As New York Times columnist, Frank Rich, perceptively noted, this sometimes leads commentators to ignore their own polling data. NBC did this recently when it emphasized the unwillingness of most white males to support Democrat Barack Obama--in spite of the fact that the last time a majority of white men had voted for a Democratic presidential candidate was in 1964, prior to the last political realignment.
What NBC and others seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge is that the Democratic coalition (indeed that of both parties) continues to evolve. As the title of a recent article by Alan Abramowitz put it, "This is Not Your Father's (Or Mother's) Democratic Party." The Democratic coalition is no longer the New Deal coalition of the Deep South and urban white blue-collar workers assembled by Franklin Roosevelt. It is now a coalition heavily comprised of both the most downscale and upscale ("gentry liberal") voters; ethnic minorities, not only African-Americans, but also the rapidly growing Latino and Asian populations; and young people. Geographically, at this early point in the general election campaign, Barack Obama has a solid lead in the East and Pacific Coast blue states, more than hold his own in the "swing states" of the Midwest and Florida, and is even competitive in a number of formerly red states in the upper South (Virginia and North Carolina) and West (Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Nevada and Alaska).
What is underpinning the newly emerging Democratic coalition and propelling the unfolding political makeover are the same two elements that have produced all of America’s earlier realignments: a new generation of voters and a new communication technology that mobilizes that emerging generation. The 2008 realignment is being fueled by the Millennial Generation, born 1982-2003, and the social networking communications Millennials use so well. The Millennial Generation is the largest in American history. There are nearly 100 hundred million Millennials, about 40-percent of whom will be eligible to vote in November. This will give the Millennial Generation the capacity to have as much impact in 2008 as that of the more frequently touted senior citizens (those age 65 and older).
Like their GI Generation forbearers who fueled FDR’s New Deal realignment, the Millennials are a "civic" generation, focused on basic economic and foreign policy matters, rather than the cultural wars of the Baby Boomers. In the economy, Millennials are "liberal interventionists." In foreign affairs, they are "activist multilateralists."
Upwards of seven in ten Millennials agree that "government should take care of people who can't take care of themselves," favor "a bigger government that provides more services," and believe that "government should guarantee health insurance for all even if this requires raising taxes." Two-thirds of them favor increased environmental protection even at the cost of higher prices. While, like other generations, most Millennials have now come to believe that the Iraq war has hurt the fight against terror, virtually all favor active American participation in world affairs. However, they believe that such activism should be based on building international ties rather than relying primarily on U.S. military strength.
As a result of these attitudes, Millennials identify as Democrats over Republicans by a greater than 2:1 margin according to a March 2008 Pew survey Barack Obama led John McCain among Millennials nationally by a similar ratio (54% vs. 34%) in a June 2008 Rasmussen Survey.
Obama and the Democrats may be assembling a new majority voting coalition, but recent surveys indicate that important numbers of some groups important in recent Democratic victories, such as white suburban women, have not yet fully warmed to the Obama candidacy. And while Obama and the Democrats hold the advantage on most issues, national security and John McCain's military and governmental experience offer McCain opportunities to win over the Millennial Generation--if he can break decisively with current Republican Party orthodoxy. His Vice Presidential choice and the role George W. Bush will play at the Republican national convention in September will reveal just how much political courage this war hero will bring to the fall campaign.
Focusing on the broader historical and societal trends that helped propel Obama to victory in the primaries also makes clear the strategic path that he must take to be victorious in November. Who he chooses for Vice President and how he orchestrates the Democratic National Convention will reveal whether his own campaign understands, and is willing to ride, the wave of change that has lifted his candidacy so far. A new political tide is rising. Whichever side takes advantage of the changing tide will claim victory in November--and political dominance in America for the next four decades.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Will the Democrats Look Forward or Backward in 2008…and Beyond?
Makeovers or realignments occur about every four decades in American politics, resulting in forty years of partisan advantage for the party that catches the next wave of generational and technological change. For the other party, it means spending forty years in the minority. Whether a party prospers or loses ground at the time of a realignment depends, in large part, on whether it is willing to embrace a new coalition of voters that is aligned with the larger changes taking place in society or whether it remains locked in the divisions and debates of the past.
In 1896, the Democrats and William Jennings Bryan looked back to an agrarian America and to Jefferson's and Jackson's "yeoman farmer", leaving it to Republicans William McKinley and Mark Hanna, the Carl Rove of his era, to appeal to an emerging urban America. The result was GOP dominance of U.S. politics for the next forty years.
The Democrats got it right in 1932. That year, spurred by the Depression, Franklin Roosevelt built a coalition based on the economic egalitarianism of the GI Generation, many of whom were blue-collar workers and the children and grandchildren of the last great wave of European immigrants to the United States.
But as late as 1968, many Democrats still wanted to rely on the New Deal coalition even as a young idealist generation, Baby Boomers, attempted to get the party to focus on a different set of concerns including civil rights, women's rights, and opposition to the Vietnam war. The resulting divisions presented an opportunity that the Republicans have exploited ever since.
Now, forty years later, American politics is undergoing another period of political and generational change just as it did in 1896, 1932, and 1968. If the Democratic Party has the courage to embrace a new generation of young voters and the group-oriented values it favors, it can once again recapture the political advantage for the next four decades.
Unfortunately, most of the advice the party is getting on what constitutes a winning coalition in 2008, is being provided by pundits and candidates who seem locked in the politics and divisions of the past. Some tell the party to focus on the "white working class," or "hardworking white people." On the other hand, a recent Wall Street Journal article suggested that the focus should be on "senior citizens," virtually all of whom vote and who, together, comprise about 20-percent of the electorate. But these approaches to coalition building neither recognize the major demographic changes continuing to take place in America nor the factors that lead to political makeovers or realignments.
Throughout history, realignments have been produced by the political coming-of-age of a large, dynamic generation and its use of a new communication technology that mobilizes the opinions and votes of that generation. Today's realignment stems from the emergence of the Millennial Generation (Americans born 1982-2003) and its use of Internet based social networking technologies.
The Millennial Generation is the largest in American history. There are over 90 million Millennials, about four in ten of whom are of voting age, making them just as powerful a force in the 2008 election as the much more frequently touted senior citizen cohort.
The Millennial Generation is also the most diverse in our history. Four in ten are non-white and about 20-percent are the children of at least one immigrant parent. Reflecting their gender-neutral behavior, a majority of college undergraduates are women, for the first time in U.S. history. Solid majorities of Millennials are tolerant on social and racial issues, favorable to governmental intervention and egalitarian policies in the economy, and an activist, but multilateral, approach in foreign affairs. With few exceptions, Millennials have overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in this year's presidential primaries and caucuses.
At the same time, changes in America's economy and the composition of its population serve to continue the half-century long trend, noted recently by Alan Abramowitz in the Rasmussen Report, of the diminishing contribution of "white working class voters" to the American workforce overall and to the Democratic electorate specifically:
"In the 1950s, manual workers made up 47 percent of the white electorate in the United States while sales and clerical workers made up 21 percent and professional and managerial workers made up 32 percent. By the first decade of the 21st century, however, manual workers made up only 24 percent of the white electorate, while sales and clerical workers made up 33 percent and professional and managerial workers made up 43 percent. Since the 1960s, however, Democratic identification among both white manual workers and white sales and clerical workers has declined sharply while Democratic identification among white professional and managerial workers has risen. Today, white professional and managerial workers are actually more likely to identify with the Democratic Party than either white manual workers or white clerical and sales workers."
As Joel Kotkin and Fred Siegel wrote recently, the Democratic Party is rapidly becoming a party of "gentry liberals", minorities and youth with little resemblance to the working class-based party coalition assembled by FDR almost eighty years ago.
This shift in America's economic dynamics and demographics, coupled with the generational and technological changes the country is experiencing, produces an historic opportunity for the Democratic Party in 2008. In a March 2008 Pew Survey, Millennials identified as Democrats over Republicans by a greater than 2:1 margin. Millennials are the first generation in more than forty years in which a larger number say they are liberal rather than conservative. In contrast to older generations that are sharply divided by sex and race in their ideology and party identification Millennials are united in their political leanings, a fact that serves to enhance the potential decisiveness of this powerful new generation.
All of this gives the Democrats a clear leg-up in the Millennial makeover that's under way. Whether the Democratic Party takes advantage of this historical opportunity largely depends on the choices it makes in building its electoral coalition. Will it look backward, as it did to its detriment in 1896, or forward, as it did in 1932, to its benefit? The consequences of that choice will shape the fate of the party and the nation, not just in 2008, but also for the coming four decades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)