News Feature
Milennial Politics:The
Times They Are A Changin'
By Torey Van Oot
They're young, they're
restless and they're
ready to remake American
politics. Millennials —
the generation of
Americans born between
1982 and 2003 — flexed
their civic muscles this
last election cycle by
hitting the campaign
trail and voting booths
in droves. Record-high
turnout among young and
first-time voters left
politicians, pundits and
the public wondering
whether this budding
interest in politics
from American youth, who
had been typecast as
apathetic and apolitical
in recent years, was
here to stay or a
passing trend, doomed to
the same destiny as
wearing Uggs with
skirts.
According to Morley
Winograd and Michael D.
Hais, authors of
Millennial Makeover:
MySpace,YouTube & the
Future of American
Politics there's no
question these
cyber-savvy,
group-oriented
20-somethings will
continue to influence
and shape American
politics. And, drawing
upon the predictions of
generational theorists
William Strauss and Neil
Howe, the authors
contend Millennials'
entry into the political
arena was a longtime in
the making.
As Barack Obama, the
first president elected
by Millennials, trucks
through his first 100
days in office, Neon
Tommy national affairs
correspondent Torey Van
Oot sat down with the
authors to talk about
the impact Millennials
will have on taxes,
immigration and the
future of the Republican
Party; how a man born on
the border of the
Boomers convinced young
voters he was one of
them; and why "My Super
Sweet 16," the
ultra-consumerist show
on MTV, isn't an
accurate reflection of
the up-and-coming
generation.
One of the differences
you point out between
Millennials and the
preceding generational
archetypes is how they
perceive morality. How
does the Millennials'
perception of morality
and fairness impact the
reaction to something
like Tom Daschle
withdrawing his name as
nominee for secretary of
Health and Human
Services Department and
Obama saying, "I messed
up, it's my fault," and
taking responsibilities?
Morley: Taking
responsibility is a big
attitude shift that
Millennials will help
reinforce. Millennials
believe that social
rules are important and
that there are
consequences for
breaking the rules. They
may want to negotiate
the rules, and that kind
of goes back to their
days as children when
they were disciplined
through time outs and
they would argue the
length of the time out.
That's a completely
different attitude than
the generation that
preceded them, the Gen
X-ers, for whom rules
are to be ignored and
they don't really think
that they should be
subject to rules imposed
by anybody in society.
So would you tend to
think that Millennials
would be less tolerant
of political slip-ups
but more likely to
forgive leaders for
their digressions?
Morley:
Absolutely. The
refreshing change in the
"I screwed up, it's my
fault" reaction to the
first mistake of the
Obama administration
demonstrates that the
President, even though
he's not born in the age
group of Millennials, is
still very
Millennial-like.
In an Op-Ed recently
published in Roll Call,
you predict there will
be little-to-no use of
ideological labels in
this age of Obama. What
about this concept of
post-partisanship — is
that an ideological
label?
Mike: In eras
dominated by civic
generations, people in
the public tend to
identify more strongly
as individuals with
political parties. So in
fact Millennials are
much more likely to
identify either as
Democrats — as they do
to about a 2-to-1 margin
over Republicans — or
much likelier,
Independents. But what
they really expect is
that since we're trying
to resolve issues,
particularly in a time
of crisis, while people
may think of themselves
as Democrats or
Republicans, primarily
they need to think of
themselves as American
and work beyond party
labels ... and, while
acting in a
post-partisan or
bi-partisan manner, with
the other party to
resolve issues.
Morley:
Millennials enjoy being
on a team and certainly
root for their team to
win, but they don't want
to win the game with bad
sportsmanship. And so in
the political arena it
comes out as a much
greater likelihood or
tendency to... be either
Democrat or Republican
but not at the expense
of being a bad sport of
taking your team's
interest ahead of the
country or ahead of the
game. You still have to
play by the rules.
Post-partisanship in
this era is not what
many in Congress think
it is — when one
Democrat and one
Republican reach a
compromise that takes a
little bit from one guy
and a little bit from
the other and neither
side gets all it wants
in order to get
something they both
agree on — What we're
arguing is that we're
actually in a world of
post-partisan behavior
where both parties look
for a win-win solution
that works for both
sides ... because it
addresses a higher
cause, a higher need
that satisfies
everybody.
So how do Millennials
react to the economic
recovery package in
general and House
Republicans voting "no"
in a block against the
stimulus plan? Is that
perceived as "bad
sportsmanship?"
Mike: Polling
data suggest that
Millennials certainly do
believe more than older
generations that
government has a major
roll to play in this.
Having said that, I
think they would also
look at the issue and
figure, "These guys have
got to get it together."
They want Congress to
try to figure out a way
to get this done. They
recognize it will
involve some government
spending, it will
involve perhaps some tax
cuts but they want to
get it taken care of,
instead of simply saying
we should blame one
party or the other. They
are Democrats, so by in
large their sympathies
will be in that
direction, but I don't
think they're going to
give Democrats a blank
check on this either.
You note in your book,
"Millennial Makeover,"
that even before the
stimulus spending, in
order to pay off the
national debt, you'd
have to at least double
federal income taxes for
the rest of my lifetime.
As part of this sort of
team player mentality,
do you foresee the
Millennial Generation
being more receptive to
tax increases?
Morley: Yes,
civic generations in the
cycles of American
history have
traditionally been more
supportive of higher
burdens of taxation.
Millennials would be
much more in favor of
steeply progressive
income taxes that would
encourage a greater
degree of economic
equality then they would
simply raising taxes. So
there would be a lot of
support for the
Democrats' plan and the
Obama administration's
plan to let the Bush tax
cuts expire. In the
1940s, the last civic
generation, the GI
generation's support for
these ideas gave us
marginal tax rates of
almost 90 percent for
wealthy individuals.
Millennials are also
likely to support taxes
that tax consumption
more than taxing income
or work.
For example, a gas tax?
Morley: Yes,
because unlike the
generation that preceded
them, the Gen X-ers,
Millennials are not
shoppers, they're not
consumption alcoholics,
they are much more
interested in preserving
the earth and keeping
things within limits and
consumption tends to be
a bad word as opposed a
good word.
Mike: I think
that's true of things
that might be considered
luxury items. ... So if
a person wants to have a
very expensive car, they
can certainly have it,
but it's only legitimate
or justified if they are
taxed for it.
Now I've always thought
of Millennials as being
portrayed, especially by
the media, as very
consumer-driven. You
read about little kids
going to spas and
watching gross excess on
"My Super Sweet 16"— Is
that more of a
reflection on the
generation just a little
above us, or our
parents?
Morley: Yes, it's
a reflection of the
generation just above
you, Gen X-ers. It's a
portrait written by
Boomers. Some people
call Gen X Cuspers Gold
Collars because they
were so interested in
shopping, but that's
fading away very rapidly
and continues to do so.
MillennialsBookCover.jpg
In the book, which you
started working on far
before the election, you
describe the seeds of
this civic realignment,
which seems to create a
perfect storm for his
election. How much of
Barack Obama's victory
was him the candidate,
and how much was the
realization of this
shift that had already
started?
Morley: Winning
political campaigns and
losing them, too, has to
do with the "four Ms" of
politics: you've got to
get the media, the
message, the messenger
and the money, together.
What Obama proved was
that he understood and
was comfortable with the
new media, in terms of
social networks,
peer-to-peer
communication, letting
go of control, the
things that no other
candidate was willing to
do in the race. But that
would not have been
sufficient had he not
also had the message and
the messenger right.
His message of unity and
hope and everybody
coming out better was
appealing to Millennials
and the perfect kind of
message to put out on a
new media of social
interaction, compared to
hot rhetoric, or
screaming at people,
which doesn't work on
social networks.He
couldn't do anything
about the messenger
part, but as we just
said, he was also the
perfect messenger for
that message given his
biracial background, his
living abroad, and his
work as a community
organizer, which
reinforced sort of the
civic spirit. Now all of
that led to him getting
a lot of money, too, but
if he had been out of
sync with one of those,
he probably would have
done as well as say, Ron
Paul, who had the media
but not the message and
and certainly not the
messenger.
In using peer-to-peer
communication and social
networking as the
messenger, you risk, as
political consultant Joe
Trippi has pointed out,
losing control of the
message. Do you think
Obama's message was
successful because his
message of hope and
unity resonated so
deeply with people that
they were loyal not just
to the candidate or
campaign, but to the
message itself?
Morley: Yes, once
[voters were] enrolled
in the vision, [Obama]
really didn't have to
use other means of
control to keep control
of the message because
everyone got the message
and agreed with it. But
one of the things we are
witnessing in his first
few weeks of president
is the greater
difficulty of getting
that done when you're
not leading a sort of
cause campaign, you're
leading a process to get
people to change and
accept responsibility.
... He still hasn't
found the precise way to
run a peer-to-peer
persuasive campaign as
president and he's still
looking for that. First
we had change.gov and
now we've got Organizing
for America, but it
hasn't really gelled or
come together yet.
Millennials also seem to
demand a level of
authenticity in the
application of
technology for political
communication purposes.
There was a great skit
on the "Daily Show" that
mashed up YouTube spots
from different
Congressional Offices.
The whole thing seemed
like kind of a joke
because the politicians
don't seem comfortable
with the format — the
creation of the media is
forced, not organic. How
important is it that
everyone hires
Millennials to get not
just the technology, but
the use of the
technology right?
Morley: Of
course, in the private
sector, that's been the
only solution. There
will be a lot of
opportunities for
Millennials in
government service if
for nothing else, people
will want their tech
savvy.
Mike: Where i
think Millennials will
be most helpful is not
just understanding the
medium but understanding
the message,
understanding how to
craft the message that
appears on that. In the
'60s and '70s
Republicans were much
better at utilizing
television and talk
radio and Democrats
thought, "All we need to
do is adopt that medium
and we've got that
problem licked," but it
was the wrong message
being delivered over
that medium at the wrong
time.
Is this how you explain
why Hillary Clinton's
attempts to incorporate
new technology into her
campaign communications
— such as the Sopranos
spoof YouTube video —
fell flat on its face,
while the "Yes We Can"
mashup, created by Obama
supporter Will.i.am, was
such a huge hit?
Morley: Yes.
Clinton's using a brand
new technology, and what
does she do with it? She
takes the old technology
of television and does
essentially a
non-interactive, "here's
our clever story"
presentation. Boomers
would think, "wow that's
really great, they
created a little short
television thing," and
Millennials will say,
"But I want to find out
what she really thinks."
So then the Will.I.Am
video comes along and
says "we're all one
group, we're all one
family and we have to
work together," and it
allows and gives people
an opportunity to do so.
You can mash it up, you
can do your own thing,
whatever you want with
it. Completely
different.
You contend in your book
that crisis is a
necessary ingredient for
a civic realignment but
that Sept. 11 and
Katrina weren't big
enough events. Is the
current state of the
economy a big enough
crisis to signal this
type of shift?
Morley:
Absolutely. In the
paperback version, we
have an afterword about
2008 and we basically
say the civic
realignment occurred the
week of Sept. 15, 2008
when Wall Street melted
down and the country
moved into a whole
different economic
environment. It shifted
the American public
opinion in the
presidential election.
It also shifted
everybody else in the
country who said, "We
need regulation. What
was all this
deregulation talk? Where
did that come from? We
need government
intervention." That's
all a triggering event
for a civic realignment.
Mike: Civic
realignments have
occurred really at times
across history when the
whole viability or even
existence of the country
or of the republic is
threatened. I think we
are at a point which is
approaching that level
where the whole
viability of our
economic system is
really at question at
this particular time. So
we're in full swing
civic-mindedness. What
about people who say
that if the stimulus
doesn't work, if the
economy isn't fixed by
2010, it's going to be a
whopping for Democrats
in the midterms?
Morley: We would
point people to 1934,
that's when the last
civic era began. FDR
tried a whole bunch of
things, just like
Obama's trying a lot of
things. The country got
a little better. It
wasn't great, but it was
better than it was. FDR
got all the credit for
trying something and the
Democrats gained
Congressional seats in
1934 and the Republicans
were stunned and of
course that wasn't the
end of their defeat.
1936 was an even bigger
electoral landslide for
the New Deal.
We think what is going
to happen is President
Obama and the Democrats
will gain support from
the electorate for
trying something new,
and I think people will
have a surprising level
of tolerance for how
long it might take to
make it better.
How do centrist
Republicans, like Sen.
Susan Collins (R-Maine),
fare in all of this?
Mike:
Traditionally, civic
eras are times when
political parties figure
out a way to work across
the aisle and you don't
have the ideological
divisions. In the 1940s
and '50s there were
plenty of centrist
Republicans, they used
to call them liberal
Republicans, and it was
a very important wing
within the Republican
Party. Over the past 10
or 15, 20 years, liberal
Republicans or moderate
Republicans have
disappeared and moderate
Democrats have
disappeared, gone. What
we would expect in this
era that there is an
opportunity of growth
for moderate or liberal
Republicans.
You note that Latinos,
African-Americans and
Asians represent about
40 percent of the
Millennial generation.
Latino Millennials are
especially interesting
to look at because that
was such a hot voting
bloc in this past
election — We saw real
ideological shifts, with
more Latinos supporting
the Democratic Party.
Voter turnout was up
among Latinos as well.
40,000 U.S.-born Latinos
turn 18 each year. How
does the growing Latino
population and increased
interest in this voting
bloc shape the views and
collective ideologies of
the generation?
Morley: Twenty
percent of Millennials
have an immigrant
parent. Not all
immigrants are Hispanic
obviously, but you can
get some sense of the
power and importance of
the Hispanic operation
within this generation.
Their movement to the
Democratic Party is
partially a result of
the Republicans
insisting upon a
relatively harsh and
punitive approach to
immigration. Now
Millennials love their
parents, unlike other
generations, and so when
people talk badly about
immigrants, Millennials
think, "Wait a minute,
you're talking about my
mom and dad! They
struggled to get here,
and they worked hard to
create a life for me in
this country. Why do you
want to penalize them?"
And so part of the
movement toward the
Democratic Party was
this kind of Hispanic
Millenial reaction
toward the Republican
emphasis on a less
inclusive immigration
policy.
Historically, civic
generations, like
Millennials, like the GI
generation before them,
have always had a large
component of immigrants
in their population. In
every case, that has led
to immigration law
reform that takes into
account the nature of
the families that these
people grew up in. We
expect that Millennials
will cause Congress to
finally address a more
comprehensive and
inclusive, rather than
exclusive, immigration
policy.
Mike: This is
also a generation that
dates across and marries
across ethnic lines ...
and also tends to vote
across ethnic lines. It
is the only generation,
for example, in which a
majority of white people
actually voted for
Obama. It is a
generation that, because
of its diversity, found
a candidate like Barack
Obama very comfortable,
very appealing because
he was, in many
respects, like
themselves.
Is the tendency to be
"more inclusive" true
across the board — with
Democrat and Republican
Millennials? Did this
impact the elections of
Gov. Bobby Jindal (R),
the first non-white to
serve as governor of
Louisiana since
reconstruction, and Rep.
Joseph Cao
(R-Louisiana), the first
Vietnamese-American
elected to Congress?
Morley: I think
you'll find a winning
candidate that tends to
have a more mixed
background a more
inclusive history. That
doesn't mean there won't
be plenty of people
still running and
campaigning based upon
ethnic identity and
racial politics, that's
true in both parties.
That whole identity
politics thing is not a
current way that will
last into this era, but
that doesn't mean there
won't be people who
aren't that way.
The next generation is
what you describe as an
adaptive, or recessive
generation type. Can you
predict what effect this
generation — children
born since 2004 — will
have on American
politics?
Morley: They are
over-protected and
indulged as children.
They will have to come
along and fix the
excesses of the civic
era that the Millennials
are going to create...
smooth out the rough
edges. But they'll be
mild changes in
comparison to the ones
their children will
make. Their children
will be the next Boomer
generation who will tell
their parents that
they're all wrong. Our
favorite line if they're
going to say to their
parents: "You're so
virtual. Let's get
real."
