Book Review
“Millennial
Makeover: MySpace,
YouTube and the
Future of American
Politics,” by Morley
Winograd and Michael
D. Hais
Authentic Messages, Delivered by Credible
Messengers
By
Andrea Balzano
“Millennial Makeover” is
about political
realignment theory,
which posits that in the
U.S., generational
changes cause critical
political realignments
in predictable 40-year
cycles. The authors
predicted that 2008
would be a realigning
election and, if the
theory holds true, the
coalition responsible
for the Democrats’
electoral success in
that election will
continue to put more
Democrats than
Republicans into office
for about the next four
decades.
This book is upbeat.
Morley Winograd and
Michael Hais have many
good things to say about
the generation born
between 1982 and 2003.
Although the authors
paint the generation
with somewhat broad and
generalized strokes, as
the parent of a
Millennial — people aged
about 6 through 27 — I
found my own experience
echoed in this book. The
authors use survey data
to draw a portrait of
the generation that will
increasingly influence
U.S. electoral politics
and this survey data,
along with relatively
concrete numerical
information, seems
pretty solid. On the
other hand, some of
their historical
generalizations are by
their nature
unquantifiable and
untestable, and may
appear to some to be,
shall we say, exuberant.
Given President Obama’s
persistent focus on
bipartisanship, one
might believe the
president has read
“Millennial Makeover.”
According to the
authors, the newest
generation of voters
prefers cooperation and
positive government
action to polarized
“culture war” politics
and gridlocked
government. As Winograd
and Hais put it,
“endless arguments over
ideas and values turn
off a generation of
activist doers” (Winograd
& Hais, 2008, p. 5).The
Millennial generation is
the largest in size of
any generation up to
this time. In 2000 the
first of the Millennials
were eligible to vote;
by 2021 almost all of
the members of this
generation will be
voting age, and will
over time assume
positions of power as
their parents and
grandparents retire. It
is no wonder a
politician would want to
appeal to them.
“Millennial Makeover”
extends to the present
the political
realignment theory
developed by several
political scientists,
most notably William
Strauss and Neil Howe,
who published an
influential book on this
topic in 1991 called
“Generations: The
History of America’s
Future, 1585 to 2069”
(New York: Morrow).
According to political
realignment theory,
every 40 years or so, a
realignment of political
coalitions occurs that
typically “reverses the
fortunes of the
political parties” (Winograd
& Hais, 2008, p. 23).
These changes in the
coalitions that back
political parties are
driven by predictable,
cyclical generational
changes in voters’
values and attitudes
and, secondarily, by
advances in
communication technology
that campaigns use to
mobilize voters.
Theorists term the two
types of generations
that drive political
realignments “idealist”
or “civic,” and either
type will support either
of the two political
parties, depending on
which party best
represents their
concerns. Previous
“idealist” realignments
occurred in 1828
(Democrats), 1896
(Republicans), and 1968
(Republicans); prior
“civic” realignments
occurred in 1860
(Republicans) and 1932
(Democrats). According
to realignment
theorists, the election
in 2008 represents a new
realignment of
coalitions resulting in
the ascendancy of the
Democratic Party with
the new “civic”
generation behind it.
While this book is about
electoral politics, its
underlying argument
about generational and
technological changes
can shed light on
philanthropic efforts.
Realignment theory tells
us that people’s
attitudes and values
tend to remain the same
throughout their
lifetimes, and are
shaped in predictable
ways by their formative
experiences. Politics
and philanthropy both
depend on getting the
attention of those who
would be supporters with
a persuasive message
that moves them to act,
and understanding who
they are and why, can
help with that task.
Realignment theory also
tells us that while
advances in
communication technology
might be secondary to
generational
characteristics in
determining behavior,
those advances are
important for
understanding how
members of each
generation are
accustomed to relating
to others, how they
acquire and distribute
information, and how
politicians and
fundraisers might get
their attention and
persuade them to support
their cause. “Millennial
Makeover” provides
insight into both the
values and attitudes of
young people and their
preferred styles of
communication - insights
that can inform the work
of fundraisers.
According to realignment
theory, changes in
political attitudes and
values follow 80-year
cycles, made up of
20-year-long generations
that alternate between
four types, or
“turnings,” as Strauss
and Howe call them.
Every other “turning”
alternates between
“dominant” and
“recessive” generations.
As one might guess,
recessive generations
are less influential in
the political sphere
than dominant ones. The
influential, and
largest, generations are
termed “idealist” and
“civic;” the less
influential are termed
“adaptive” and
“reactive,” the last two
corresponding to the
Silent Generation and
Generation X,
respectively. Baby
Boomers were the
“idealist” generation
that drove the 1968
realignment.
The cyclical theory of
generational change
suggests that the new
generation of
Millennials may be more
like their grandparents
and great grandparents
than they are like their
parents, the Baby
Boomers and Generation
X. The last “civic”
generation was born
between 1901 and 1924,
and is popularly called
the GI Generation.
Winograd and Hais
compare the attitudes of
the two “civic”
generations using survey
data. Their comparison
of the historical
conditions in which the
two generations grew up,
however, relies on
highly generalized
historical similarities,
and here their argument
seems more tenuous.
For example, Winograd
and Hais find
significance in the fact
that both the GI
Generation and the
Millennials grew up in a
time of prohibition
(alcohol prohibition
compared to the drug
war. They claim that
both generations
experienced a time of
growing international
isolationism (after
World War I and after
the Cold War and
Vietnam), followed by
sudden traumatic
domestic attacks that
“forced Americans to pay
closer attention to
events in the world than
they might otherwise
have preferred” (Winograd
& Hais, 2008, p. 68).
One might argue the
authors have drawn some
questionable
equivalencies here. On
the other hand, claiming
both generations were
similarly influenced by
their experience of an
economic boom time
characterized by a large
and growing wealth gap,
culminating in an
economic crisis, is a
generalization that,
while still untestable,
rings a little truer.
Even so, the current
crisis is not (yet)
comparable to the Great
Depression, when there
was no social security
or other social
supports, there was a
longstanding drought,
and many people starved.
More convincing are
Winograd and Hais’
assertions about
Millennials attitudes
and behavior. According
to them, Millennials are
like the GI Generation
with respect to voting
and social concerns.
Millennials vote in
relatively high numbers,
identify with “specific
political parties”
rather than as
independents, and tend
toward “straight-ticking
voting,” rather than
ticket-splitting between
politicians of different
parties. Like the GI
Generation, Millennials
have positive attitudes
toward and greater faith
in political
institutions and focus
not on “divisive social
issues” (like drug use,
immigration, the role of
women and sexual
behavior) but on
“broader social and
economic issues” like
economic inequality.
They favor policies that
lead to greater economic
equality and more
consistently turn to
political institutions
for solutions to social
and economic problems.
They value racial and
ethnic inclusion, rather
than “exclusionary
racial and ethnic
concerns” (Winograd &
Hais, 2008, p. 28).
Indeed, one survey shows
Millennials are “close
to unanimity” in their
acceptance of
interracial dating (Winograd
& Hais, 2008, p. 95).
Significantly,
Millennials are the most
ethnically diverse and
“the most
gender-neutral”
generation in American
history (Winograd &
Hais, 2008, p. 41). One
result, as Winograd and
Hais put it, is that
“social issues lose
their punch” for
Millennials, suggesting
that concern over
divisive issues related
to personal behavior and
belief (like the
criminalization of
substance abuse,
conflicts over the role
of women and controversy
about teaching
creationism or
evolution) may recede.
Winograd and Hais
predict “a return to a
politics of inclusion
and tolerance on issues
such as immigration
[and] civil rights” (Winograd
& Hais, 2008, p. 45).
Realignment theory
posits that “recurring
patterns of childrearing
and parental attitudes
toward their children”
also help to define the
political culture
produced by each
generation (Winograd &
Hais, 2008, p. 66).
According to Winograd
and Hais, Millennials
are “the first
generation to experience
the concept of
co-parenting,” (Winograd
& Hais, 2008, p. 71) and
have had a “protected,
structured, and
positively reinforced
upbringing” (Winograd &
Hais, 2008, p. 81). As a
result, Millennials “are
an exceptionally
accomplished, positive,
upbeat, and optimistic
generation” (Winograd &
Hais, 2008, p.81). Data
show that “reading and
mathematics achievement
levels of American
children were
consistently higher in
the early years of the
twenty-first century
than they had been at
any point during the
previous thirty years” (Winograd
& Hais, 2008, p. 83).
Finally, Millennials
have fewer children out
of wedlock and commit
fewer crimes (Winograd &
Hais, 2008, p. 81-83).
With respect to
relationships,
Millennials are very
close to their parents
compared with children
of the same age in
earlier generations. For
example, “virtually all”
Millennials talk to
their parents weekly,
and 45 percent “talk
with their parents on
the phone daily”
(Winograd & Hais, 2008,
p. 83). Considering that
most of them are under
the age of 18, this
frequent communication
is perhaps to be
expected; still, the
data show that people
into their mid-twenties
communicate more
frequently with their
parents than did
comparable cohorts of
Baby Boomers and
Gen-Xers. All in all,
the picture the authors
paint of the younger
generation is quite
positive.
A point emphasized
consistently in the book
is the Millennials’
strong connection to
friends and family, and
their genuine concern
for the wider community.
This strong connection
to others is facilitated
by communication
technology that allows
them to interact with
each other literally on
a continuous basis.
Winograd and Hais point
to the introduction of
broadband, specifically,
as a key development
which allows
inexpensive, constant
access to the Internet
and all the
communication tools it
has generated — e-mail,
instant messaging and
social networking sites.
This inexpensive,
constant access is
related to another
central conclusion of
the book, namely, that
Millennials expect
communication to be
authentic and relevant.
Winograd and Hais argue
this is a result of the
new “fundamental
architecture of
communication networks …
[that] places all power
in the hands of the
user” (Winograd & Hais,
2008, p. 141).
User-driven
communication technology
is unmediated compared
to more costly media,
like newspapers,
magazines and
television. Winograd and
Hais point out that one
of the consequences of
this “user-driven,”
peer-to-peer
communication is that
political messaging is
no longer in the control
of the candidate or the
party. The authors
predict that candidates
or parties that do not
adapt to this change
will not fare as well in
future political
contests as those that
do.
The Internet has become
ubiquitous in the
workplace, in schools
and in homes over a
short period of time.
One of the most
fascinating chapters in
this book, called
“Politicians Love to
Talk,” summarizes the
history of advances in
communication technology
in the U.S. and the
political uses to which
technology has been put,
and reveals that this
rapid dissemination of
new technology isn’t new
at all but in fact
characterizes all
advances in
communication
technology. From
newspapers to the
telegraph, steam engine,
movies, radio and
television, change came
as rapidly as we see
today with the Internet,
and sometimes even
faster. Only eight years
after the first
telegraph message was
sent, carrying news of a
political convention in
1844, there were 12
pages of employment
categories related to
the telegraph in U.S.
Census documents. By
1858, the
Lincoln-Douglas debates
were reported within
days in newspapers
across the nation,
thanks to the instant
information flow made
possible by the
telegraph. Radios,
similarly, were
purchased by 60 percent
of U.S. households by
1930, just 10 years
after the first
commercial radio license
was granted on November
2, 1920. By 1935, 60
million Americans could
listen to Franklin
Delano Roosevelt’s radio
broadcasts he called
Fireside Chats.
Television spread just
as quickly; by 1960, 88
percent of U.S.
households owned a
television, up from 11
percent in 1950 (Winograd
& Hais, 2008, pp.
51-61).
If the new technology is
seen in this historical
context, the alarmed
response by some to the
rapid deployment of the
Internet (for example,
the “moral panic”
displayed in articles
such as “Is Google
Making Us Stupid?” by
Nicholas Carr, printed
in The Atlantic
July/August 2008 issue)
might seem like just so
much handwringing. An
example of a more
measured view of these
changes is expressed by
Dennis Baron, the author
of a new book on digital
communications
technology, “A Better
Pencil,” in an interview
in Salon.com. Asked
whether he thinks
instant messaging,
social networking sites,
and e-mail “in some
sense remove… us from
living in the world,”
Barron says, citing
conversations with his
students and survey data
from the Pew Internet
and American Life
Project, “that, in fact,
what people are using
programs like
Facebook and e-mail
and chats for is to
reinforce friendships
and to maintain
friendships across
distances....I don’t
think that for most
people it replaces
anything. I think it
extends it.” (“Is the
Internet Melting Our
Brains?” by Vincent
Rossmeier, Salon.com,
September 19, 2009).
Whether or not one
believes more
communication is better
than less, the
generation of people who
have grown up with cell
phones and the Internet
have integrated the new
communication technology
into their lives. With
respect to the Internet,
cell phones, television
and radio, “the
Millennial Generation
[is] the first to be
able to multi-task by
using all these media
simultaneously and
effectively” (Winograd &
Hais, 2008, p. 164).
This embrace of new
communication
technology, combined
with what Winograd and
Hais say is “a strong
group and community
orientation and a clear
tendency to share their
thoughts and activities
with other — friends,
teachers, parents,”
creates in Millennials
an expectation that
communication should be
authentic and relevant (Winograd
& Hais, 2008, p. 83).
YouTube is a
particularly good
example of the impact of
the new technology on
how we communicate and
behave in the political
arena. For many of us
who use YouTube, it may
be startling to realize
that it was introduced
only four years ago, in
February 2005, when
three PayPal engineers
wanted a way to share
their own videos. By the
end of 2006, “YouTube
visitors initiated
almost one billion video
streams.” Those visitors
represented an increase
in usage of 1,922
percent over about two
years (Winograd & Hais,
2008, pp.168-169).
The use of YouTube has
not only spread rapidly,
but has had a major
impact on political
campaigning. The role of
YouTube in the last two
elections illustrates
how Millennials use and
experience the new
technology to
communicate in authentic
and relevant ways,
without the intervention
of centralized control.
Anyone with a cell phone
and access to an
Internet connection can
expose and publicize any
gaff or controversial
statement made by a
politician, and turn an
election almost in an
instant. When a young
campaign worker for the
Democratic challenger to
Senator George Allen
caught Allen on video in
2006 calling him a
derogatory name and
posted the video on
YouTube, George Allen’s
campaign was effectively
over. Not all
politicians have caught
up with the new media
environment but one
guesses it won’t take
long.
Mobilizing for political
campaigns is
fundamentally different
from fundraising in that
political campaigns are
high-stakes contests
with a clearly defined,
real deadline — election
day. Certainly
fundraising for disaster
relief involves serious
deadlines, but
time-delimited
high-stakes elections
for political office
focus efforts in a
unique way. Be that as
it may, the insights of
“Millennial Makeover”
have implications for
fundraising and other
kinds of social
mobilization. Nonprofit
organizations and
advocacy groups can use
Millennials’ “penchant
for social expression on
the Net” to reach them
in new ways (p. 167).
Winograd and Hais say
that “the key to
reaching Millennials
[with respect to
political organizing] is
clearly through their
friends on the Net” (p.
170).
The new communication
technology is relatively
inexpensive, user-driven
and constantly available
— it is practically free
and almost frictionless.
While this accessibility
creates opportunities
for all nonprofits to
reach donors and
volunteers, it also has
the disadvantage of
creating information
overload. Given
Millennials’ propensity
to share with and listen
to their friends and
family, solving this
problem perhaps leads,
ironically, back to
basic, old-fashioned
methods of fundraising,
namely, peer networking
and peer solicitation.
What is a major gift
committee or a
fundraising event but
social networking? Given
that this new “civic”
generation is similar to
the GI Generation,
perhaps looking back at
methods that worked with
that older generation
could yield results with
Millennials.
Organizations that
advocate for poor
people, disadvantaged
children, or the civil
rights of prisoners, for
example, may lack the
natural constituency of
means that universities,
museums and hospitals
have. Over time these
organizations can
perhaps benefit
immensely from
Millennials’
community-minded
inclusive attitudes and
from the use of the new
inexpensive technologies
that are the preferred
means of communication
for younger, sympathetic
potential supporters.
Social networking for
the purpose of gaining
support for an
organization or a cause,
whether through
Facebook or
in-person events, is
effective when
messengers are credible
— when they are trusted
by others. This is as
true in 2009 as it was
in 1959 or 1909.
Philanthropy
professionals can adapt
what they already know
about what works to the
new communication
technology, conveying
“authentic messages
delivered by credible
messengers,” and
navigate the flood
waters of digital
information to reach
those who already have
an affinity for their
cause and motivate them
to act.
Andrea Balzano has
worked in fundraising
for 16 years and is
currently Research
Analyst at Cornell
University. Previously
she worked for Pomona
College, Rensselaer and
Bennington College. She
has degrees in
government and public
policy from Goddard
College in Vermont and
The Claremont Graduate
University in California
and volunteers as a
prospect research
consultant and grant
writer.
