Get our most popular stories once a week!
Boarding schools are schools where the..."
Posted by bevanstraut in Where is Dr. King's Dream Today?
blessy posted in Tools for Activists: Turning Privilege Disparities into Just and Sustainable Action
Gayathri posted in Tools for Activists: Turning Privilege Disparities into Just and Sustainable Action
morganwardztas posted in Tools for Activists: Turning Privilege Disparities into Just and Sustainable Action
|
The Little Engine That McCouldn't
I know how wrong this sounds wrong --especially coming from a twenty-two year old --but John McCain’s age is a serious problem.
It isn’t that he is old. It’s the particular type of “old guy” McCain is wilting into. He isn’t wizened, insightful, or sincere like many elderly. The past month has revealed the senator to be delusional, mean, inappropriate, insensitive, and merrily out of touch with the rest of the world. Top those joyful characteristics off with an excessive sense of entitlement and McCain comes off less “Maverick" more like an angrier Grampa Simpson.
While Barack Obama was out touring -- and impressing --the world, a cranky McCain was left at home without the comfort of his adoring “base." In an effort to steer some much needed attention his way McCain made a number of appearances with the hopes of showcasing his superior foreign policy knowledge. Instead, what transpired was an avalanche of blunders and misinformation.
In a span of three weeks he confused the history of the surge, discussed pressuring the Somali government to end the Darfur conflict (Darfur is actually in Sudan), and talked about the tension along an Iraq/Pakistan border that isn’t there.
It sounds nitpicky, but these were just the tip of the inaccuracy iceberg.
Read the rest of the post »
McCain Addresses NAACP
Lots of happenings in the past few weeks to catch up on, perhaps none more interesting than a speech given by Senator McCain to the NAACP two weeks ago where he officially unveiled his education platform for the presidential campaign.
While the edu-world consensus seems to be that there wasn't too much in the way of earth-shattering policy suggested in the speech, there were at least a couple items that caught my attention.
The first observation has to do with the over-arching positioning behind Senator McCain's proposals. It's pretty clear that he has no intent of making education anything close to a center-piece of his campaign, instead choosing to allow education to serve as an echo and reinforcement of themes upon which he and his advisors have already bet their campaign livelihoods. For instance, the second and third sentences of his education platform declare:
"Now is the time to demand real, new reform earned through discipline, grinding work, tough choices and leadership. John McCain has dedicated his career in public service to the hard and sometimes unpopular work of achieving meaningful reform."
Sure, sounds great, but I couldn't help but notice that the same two lines could have been used in a campaign statement on health care, energy policy, campaign finance, the housing crisis--heck the two lines could be an intro to Senator McCain's position on Major League Baseball and steroids. My point here is not to criticize the Senator, especially since he has some thoughtful viewpoints on teacher pay, teacher recruitment, and school choice later on in his plan. But I do mean to point out that the first question his campaign asked when weaving an education platform was not, "what is best for children?" but rather, "what makes the most sense for this campaign?" To be fair, Senator Obama has arguably done the same on the issue.
Second observation has to do with Senator McCain's opponent and the issue of race. He spent a good minute in the opening of his speech praising Mr. Obama in front of a predominately African-American audience, both graciously and eloquently. But I wonder how much of Senator McCain's remarks and choice of venues--in front of the very same NAACP that he refused to speak at in 2007--have to do with this recent poll from the Public Education Network that shows that African American and Latinos actually support the No Child Left Behind Act more than do white voters, by a pretty significant 3-to-2 margin.
Calling All Young Bloggers
(Blogging from the annual Netroots Nation conference in Austin, Texas.)
Sunday was the close of the annual Netroots Nation conference, formerly known as YearlyKos. Over 3,000 bloggers, consultants, and curious politicos descended upon Austin, Texas to talk about independent, grassroots media.
At Thursday's Youth Caucus, people spoke about how much older most of the attendees were. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made the mistake in her Saturday morning keynote address when she referred to the bloggers in the audience.
The truth is the average age of bloggers is more like the age of your parents, or an ex-hippie who is in retirement and getting involved again. Youth being synonymous with blogging is a misnomer.
Ian Magruder, a young blogger and filmmaker from California agrees, saying:
"Most people outside of the blogosphere have this idea that bloggers are all a bunch of angry young liberals. In actuality, you're average blogger is a well-educated, middle class baby boomer.
The entire concept of blogging or at least political blogging, is still foreign to most Millennials."
Another major component to the demographic of Netroots Nation attendees is cost and accessibility. Most young people can't afford the various levels for ticket prices which begin at $175 and cap off at $400. Add to that the cost of a hotel --anywhere from $70-200 per night -- the cost of food and the fundraisers and parties during the conference, and it's clear why gatherings like these are out of reach for most young bloggers.
Democracy for America worked to help those who couldn't afford to attend by offering 30 scholarships, many of which were to young people. Netroots Nation is going to help with this for the 2009 conference and provide student rates.
Most young people may not call themselves political bloggers, but the prevalence of personal blogs written on Facebook, Myspace and Blogger shows that young people approach blogging differently than their older counterparts. For instance, Kevin Bondelli, a new media consultant and youth politics expert, believes there's a generational cultural preference:
"Blogging is not as exciting a tool for Millennials as it is for older generations. Social networking and other very quick tools for sharing themselves trump the blog as a form of expression. The older generation has never been able to express themselves to an audience before, yet are not entirely comfortable with this next step that Millennials have taken. For older generations, blogging is the new pamphleteering. I also think that the older generation writes more for the sake of writing where Millennials are writing for their friends."
When asked how bloggers can recruit more young bloggers they all agreed it was the million dollar question. It seems like a natural place for young people. Millennials are active, involved, and they know where they are on issues. They've got a better grasp on technology than any generation before them. Yet the struggle is figuring out how to include them in the larger political blogosphere.
Hipster Racism
(Editor's Note: This post originally appeared on Racialicious, and was updated on AJ's blog The Cruel Secretary.)
By now, you've seen the latest New Yorker cover, with the Obamas garbed in the gear of the latest fear-mongering Americans' wet dream.
Of course, people at Michelle Obama Watch, Daily Kos, Politico, and other blogs have expressed rightful and righteous outrage over the cover.
The Washington Post's and CNN's Reliable Sources' Howard Kurtz said: "I talked to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who tells me this is a satire, that they are making fun of all the rumors," Kurtz added. (Source)
Bill Burton, The Obama campaign spokesperson, responded: "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree." (Source)
My current live-in partner, who works at the New Yorker, just couldn't believe that so many people responded so angrily at the cover at the Daily Kos and other sites. He "wanted to see [my] reaction." When I emphatically told him that I didn't find it funny, he said, "You're so angry."
"Of course I'm angry. What do you expect? This is my reaction is to your employer doing something so racist." "I'm trying to have some fun here."
Humph, you gotta love hipster racism.
I define hipster racism (I'm borrowing the phrase from Carmen Van Kerckhove) as ideas, speech, and action meant to denigrate another's person race or ethnicity under the guise of being urbane, witty (meaning "ironic" nowadays), educated, liberal, and/or trendy. This racist and sexist balderdash that's the New Yorker cover fits squarely into that definition. So, honestly, does the behavior of my partner, who prides himself on coming from a California family of educators who taught him to be colorblind and on working at a magazine renown for being, well, urbane, witty, educated, liberal, and trendy yet likes to view me as the Angry Negress.
Read the rest of the post »
Can We Talk?
I've been thinking a lot about the magnitude of these elections, and I have decided that the one person worthy of leading this great country is…Condoleezza Rice. Sure she's an enabler for warmongering megalomaniacs and the architect of one of the most embarrassing, destructive regimes in United States history. We are probably opposites on every important issue at stake. But, I don't really care about silly things like ideologies. I'd throw every belief out the window to get Condi in the White House. Looks are what count, specifically, how much a person looks like me. Unlike the guy stumping in for the Democrats, Ms. Rice is not only Black, she's a woman too! It's a win-win situation, right?
Just kidding. Like most people, basic intelligence and a sense of responsibility inform my decisions, not demographics. If you missed my sarcasm, I won't hold it against you. The opinions of Black women have routinely gone unnoticed in the media's election coverage.
Which brings me to a question that has been bothering me: In an otherwise boisterous election, why have African American women been so silent?
Read the rest of the post »
Bold Education Ideas for Senators McCain and Obama
News yesterday from the presidential campaign trail was that Senator McCain was preparing to give an address before the NAACP next week discussing his plans for how the federal government can help improve public education outcomes in America. While his talk, even by his own campaign's admission, is unlikely to be as deep and detailed as Senator Obama's parallel speech on education more than a month ago, word is that he will discuss No Child Left Behind and a handful of more intricate issues such as teacher pay-for-performance.
The fact that none of the presidential candidates have been so measured in their approaches on education -- even Senator Obama's 19-minute address six weeks ago did not contain any headliners -- indicates that they have both bought into the current orthodoxy of education reform in Washington, DC: the standards-based accountability movement. This is the movement that has resulted in states setting standards for what students should know in each subject area by each grade level, and implementing testing systems to measure whether those standards are being met.
In principle, the standards based accountability movement is a sound strategy that owes much of its genesis to successful business practices designed to monitor and enhance productivity. But unlike the business world, where workers rarely object to the idea that they will be held to a set of performance indicators to determine their efficacy, we have seen a fair deal of back-lash from educators and other stakeholder groups against the standards based model in education, particularly on the testing front.
I have often been quick to play devil's advocate against this brand of backlash, asserting the general logic that anytime an institution is suddenly and openly confronted with its own failures (and in the institution of public education, the magnitude of those failures is immense indeed), that the institutional stakeholders will reject and rail against the accountability system that reveals its weaknesses. But it must also be admitted that there is some degree of resonance to what those who object to NCLB and standards-based school reform are saying. The appeal of their arguments can be described this way: is the end goal and sum-total of what we are trying to achieve in public education reform really just an increase in the number of students who correctly fill-in some arbitrary percentage of bubbles on an annual test?
To be sure, those bubbles, the arbitrary percentage, and the tests themselves represent real skills that are indicators of what our children need to know to compete in the world economy. But that's also the problem: they are only indicators. If Susie Q. passes her state-written 4th grade reading proficiency test she still has a ways to go before she has earned her way into a prosperous participation in the global economy.
None of this would be a problem if we didn't have better indicators. That is to say, most people agree that institutions, whether public or private, ought to be held accountable to meeting their stated purposes, and we should use the bets-tailored indicators possible to decide if they are in fact succeeding. But in the case of public education, I believe we do have better indicators to determine whether our schools are meeting the goal of preparing all youth for productive future lives as democratic citizens and members of an ever-changing global work force: college completion rates and, by extension, high school drop-out rates!
Read the rest of the post »
Trick or Vote: The Best Way on the Best Day
(Editor's Note: This post originally appeared on Future Majority.)
Pop Quiz Time:
1.What is the single most effective way to mobilize voters?
a) Visibilities
b) Sitting on a couch and bitching
c) Talking to 'em face-to-face
2.What holiday always immediately precedes Election Day and has a built-in tradition of door-knocking?
a) Halloween
b) The 4th of July
c) Festivus
3.What does everyone love?
a) Rick Rolling
b) Costumes!
c) Voting
d) All of the above
All of us who work in the field of youth engagement face big competition. The biggest competition we face - for volunteers, for attention - is not from one another's organizations either. It's from the Wii (which is sweet) and the bar scene and friends and loved ones. Our biggest challenge is overcoming that noise and building a politics that is fun and exciting and relevant to people's lives.
That's what makes Trick or VoteTM so freaking sweet. It's the Best Way on the Best Day. It's actually such a sweet idea it doesn't even really need an explanation. But here it is in a nutshell: Get some people who are a bit too old to trick or treat (go as young as high school and as old as the retirement home for your recruitment), rally 'em in costume, meet in a centralized location, train these folks to canvass effectively, and knock some doors. In short, we combine a cultural more (knock doors on Halloween) with hard-minded political research (knocking doors is an effective voter mobilization tool). The result?
•More volunteers. In Portland in 2004, 850 canvassers assembled for the largest mass canvass in the history of the state. By all accounts, this year will be even bigger.
•More virgin volunteers. Out of that same crowd in Portland, more than one-in-three were first-time political volunteers who came out of the woodwork for a program well-suited to help our fellow citizens lose their voter virginity.
•More conversations. On Halloween evening, people are home - either waiting for trick-or-treaters or getting ready for their parties. They're even prepared to open the door. And they're definitely ready to engage in a conversation. All of which means that we don't just hit more doors, we hit more doors in a more effective manner.
•More voters. Do the math -- more canvassers, more conversations, and more doors? More people are hitting the polls. The Bus Federation wants to take Trick or VoteTM national this year - and we can do it with your help.
If you're part of a local or national organization that is serious about doing Trick or VoteTM, get in touch soon so we can coordinate our efforts. Contact Alex Aronson at the Oregon Bus Project @ 503-233-3018. Just looking for a project for the fall and think you could pull off a kick-ass Trick or Vote in your hometown? Or even just want to assemble 15 of your closest friends and friends-of-friends and friendly-friends-of-friends'-friends and go hit some doors? Drop us a line. I swear to you, you'll be glad you did.
Major props, by the way, to our friends at the Bus for this innovative program -- Trick or Vote is their brainchild.
Answers to the pop quiz: 1-b, 2-c, 3-a
Jesus for President
The Jesus for President has been flying under the radar for the past several months until they recently caught up with a CNN reporter, curious about their campaign efforts.
Shane Claiborne, co-author and campaign manager for "Jesus for President" describes past experiences with his faith trying to understand the differences between being a believer and a doer. Believers, he explains at a speaking engagement, are the folks who have been messaged to death with the concept of believing, but rarely do churches focus on how to turn that belief into action.
"This whole project is about the political imagination of what it means to follow after Jesus," Claiborne said. "The language of Jesus as Lord and savior is just as radical as it would be to say 'Jesus as our commander-in-chief' today."
"Young evangelicals represent an important swing-voting bloc. They're not a lock for Republicans as their parents were. Their feet are firmly planted on issues dear to both parties. Traditional family values are, as they have been in the past, an important issue," the CNN piece says.
This information isn't new, I've reported on it here, and here and here. But the distribution of the message is a new one. Claiborne is taking his message to young people of faith in true evangelical style for the 21st Century.
According to the CNN piece, the meetings are met with curious and disaffected faith based voters who are backing away from the Republican leadership.
"There were voters from across the board: Republicans, Democrats and independents. Most were young, Christian by background, evangelical in theology, and they say they're hungry for something more than partisan politics.
Steph Walker and Amanda Widing had to settle for seats in the back.
"I would say that social justice and issues like that have definitely arisen as an important part of my faith and, because of that, it affects how I vote and think of those things definitely," said 21-year-old Walker."
Read the rest of the post »
Idle Hands: Why The Candidates Must Focus on America's Youth
(Editor's note: This post originally appeared on Jeff Chang's blog, Zentronix.)
This summer could be the worst ever for teens looking for work, according to experts. Less than one in three youths may find summer jobs.
In recent years, the youth jobless rate has soared to record highs. In cities like Chicago, three in four teens, including seven in eight Black teens, did not work in 2006. But this summer could mark the highest level of youth joblessness since the end of World War II.
The shrinking economy and rising unemployment rates are to blame, as laid-off workers compete with young people for shrinking piece of the pie. Budget cuts have led to the ending of federal, state, and city youth jobs programs.
But the biggest problem is a lack of political interest.
Earlier this year, George W. Bush and Democratic Congressional leadership killed a $1 billion proposal to create youth jobs. At the same time, the Justice Department gave a $500,000 grant to a George H.W. Bush-chaired golf program supposedly meant to stop juvenile crime.
"We need something really attractive to engage the gangs and the street kids," the Justice Department's administrator was quoted as saying. "Golf is the hook."
Dozens of other effective programs were denied. Many grants were disbursed via affirmative action for friends of the administration, the domestic equivalent of handing out no-bid work to firms for "Iraqi reconstruction".
It was still more proof that politicians have neither a clue nor a care as to how to really address the needs of young Americans.
Read the rest of the post »
Farewell Revolution
The Washington Post chronicled the end of the Ron Paul presidential campaign in their Sunday edition, declaring Viva Revolution! for its supporters.
Like some before him, Paul will broaden his campaign into a larger movement that will hopefully harness his active youth following. The Campaign for Liberty aims to:
"promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity."
While this year was overwhelmed with youth turnout, that turnout has not been able to sustain the Paul campaign. According to the Post, Paul's history doesn't lend itself to the kind of youth-based mobilization campaign officials envisioned. The Post writes:
"Aside from a strict adherence to libertarian principles -- an adherence that earned Paul the nickname "Dr. No" for his tendency to vote against any legislation that extended the government's role beyond that specifically enumerated in the Constitution -- Paul was regarded as something of an oddball in the House."
It's the kind of mystery that has left even the Washington Post questioning the reasons for the phenomenon. They ask voters in a poll what they attribute Paul's right wing popularity to, listing: "the opposition to the war," "disaffected voters looking to send a message," and "The appeal of a straight talker."
Personally, I ignore the "What Ron Paul revolution?," choice. Amid all these questions, many pundits ignore an obvious sentiment: the right wing desire to see change in the White House.
We've seen it with Barack Obama, who has based his entire campaign on change. Wouldn't it stand to reason that the need for something different would also be carried over to the GOP? It could be that Ron Paul speaks a different language than both rank and file partisans. Another noteworthy commentary about Paul is that once it became apparent that his base was with young voters, his campaign made great strides to continue to do outreach with those voters. Ron Paul's moderate stance on conservative issues may have made his campaign more accessible to young voters than his GOP counterparts. Or, as one campaign manager I know pointed out, it could have just been the drugs. (Ron Paul once said that we should decriminalize drugs including marijuana.)
The recent Mother Jones article has this interesting graphic also explaining the crossover communities that followed Ron Paul
Obama, McCain And Midwest Youth Voters
I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the good Senator and her hard work on the campaign trail. She is a dedicated public servant and a dedicated candidate.
Much of the media has spent the last week talking about mistakes the Clinton Campaign made in a year that was formerly seen to be all hers for the democratic nomination and opportunities the Obama Campaign capitalized on early and often.
In Sunday's New York Times, top campaign adviser to the Clintons Mark Penn attributes a number of problems, but most notably says
"From more aggressively courting young people earlier to mobilizing the full power of women, there are things that could have been done differently."
In the new TIME Magazine headline article How Obama Did It young voters also earn a lot of credit.
"In most presidential elections, the Iowa caucuses are an anomaly. Competing there is a complicated, labor-intensive undertaking that, once finished, is cast off as an oddity and never repeated. But in 2008 it became for Obama the road test of a youth-oriented, technology-fueled organization and the model for many of the wins that followed. It was also a challenge to history...
"But counting on new voters had proved disastrous for Dean in 2004. The Obama campaign knew that it would have to build a network of Iowans rather than supporters brought in from other parts of the country, says Plouffe, but "we didn't have to accept the electorate as it is."
"Show up they did, shattering turnout records. Obama prevailed with a surprising eight-point margin over Edwards, who came in second. Obama counts Iowa as his biggest victory, the one that foreshadowed the rest. "Voters under 30 participated at the same rates as voters over 65. That had never happened before," the Democratic nominee says. "That continues to be something I'm very proud of — how we've expanded the voter rolls in every state where we've campaigned. I think that means we can put into play some states that might normally not be in play."
(emphasis mine)
As Mike over at FM points out "this is a far cry from Mark Penn at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner" back in January.
"At least two of Hillary Clinton’s upper-echelon advisers, Mandy Grunwald and Mark Penn, were decidedly unimpressed .
“Our people look like caucus-goers,” Grunwald said, “and his people look like they are 18. Penn said they look like Facebook.”
Penn added, “Only a few of their people look like they could vote in any state.”
This all proves once again, if you build it... they will come.
Several months ago I wrote a blog about how surprised I was at the turnout for Republican candidates in Oklahoma. This week I learned of another candidate nearby that has polling information that shows young people in the district trending more conservatively in another heartland state. This is different from the national trends that indicate young people tend to favor more progressive candidates.
Read the rest of the post »
Wanted: Superhero
A well coiffed offering from comedy king Will Ferrell couldn’t deliver, nor could a steamy bodice-ripper from It Girls Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson. The Wachowski brothers (the duo behind The Matrix) bombed spectacularly with their $160 million revision of Speed Racer. The standard formulas for Hollywood hits -- marquee actor, pricey special effects, sexy starlets – just aren’t working like they used to.
A look at the year’s most talked about films and recent box office numbers shows the public wants more than big names. From well-known icons like Iron Man, Batman, and the Incredible Hulk to fringe characters Hellboy and The Spirit, the public is on a full-on superhero binge.
Read the rest of the post »
Light on Opportunity or Light on Interest?
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/05/08/presidential-candidates-have-little-opportunity-to-talk-about-education.html?PageNr=1A US News & World Report article published earlier this month provides an accurate overview of how education has been treated on the presidential campaign trail so far this election cycle.
In short, education has played an insignificant role in both of the primaries, and appears to be headed in the same direction in the general election. None of the three remaining candidates have staked out bold positions on the most important K-12 and higher education issues, and none of them have made much in the way of headlines in terms of promises or policy proposals.
Both Senators Obama and Clinton appear to be content with criticizing funding levels for NCLB, clamoring for increased loans to help with college affordability, and drawing moderate lines on teacher pay and quality initiatives. One disjunction between the two is that Senator Clinton has toed the teachers union supported line of rewarding teachers based on how well whole schools are doing whereas Senator Obama has taken the more controversial stance of rewarding only those individual teachers who are dramatically improving student achievement.
For his part, Senator McCain has had even less to say about education. He doesn't even yet have a full education platform published on his campaign website, and has really only issued standard GOP responses on education, trumpeting such ideas as school choice, merit pay for teachers, charter schools, and sometimes even vouchers. To the degree that education remains a low-priority issue, it will benefit Senator McCain since he has little expertise on the matter, especially given a traditional Democratic advantage among voters who consider education to be a key election day issue.
My only challenge to the article regarding low attention paid to education on the campaign trail is to the title. US News has the piece printed under the headline, "Presidential Candidates Have Little Opportunity to Talk About Education." I question whether this gets to the heart of the matter, or if it actually gives the candidates a bit more credit than they deserve regarding this issue which, after all, may be one of the most pressing policy matters facing our nation's future.
To me, the presidential candidates have plenty of opportunity to address whatever issues they deem to be important. After all, we're talking about candidates who give multiple speeches each day talking about all of the changes they'd like to make to the country. Senator McCain, for instance, has had no trouble making headlines with his unique views on global warming and climate change--issues which he has raised on his own, without having to wait for the right "opportunity". In other words, I'm afraid the candidates have not lacked in opportunity to address education, but have instead lacked sufficient interest to make it a crucial topic. And if you're wondering why none of the candidates (not just this year, but really for the past half-century since K-12 education has become a federal issue) have made K-12 school reform a priority, allow me to ask you a question to offer a hint why education will take a backseat for the foreseeable future: how many elementary, middle, and high school students are allowed to vote?
Kentucky and Oregon Youth Turnout
Tuesday's primary brought out the young people in the Pacific Northwest and folks in a southern state to weigh in on their decision for president. Sen. Hillary Clinton won Kentucky by a 35% margin and Sen. Barack Obama won Oregon by a 16% margin.
Participating in those elections were 180,000 voters under the age of 30 according to CIRCLE (The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement).
Because no one does exit polls in the Republican Primary, there are no ways to calculate the extent of young voters that cast ballots for GOP candidates yesterday. This means that while there were 180,000 who voted for democratic candidates, there were more young people that were not counted and were voting in their own party's primary.
Interestingly, when examining the exit polls for Kentucky, 71 percent of those surveyed said they decided the candidate of their choice further than a month ago.
The demographics of both states indicate an overwhelming majority of voters were Caucasian white voters, a majority of which make under $50,000 a year. But their choices and reasons for their choices couldn't have been more different.
In Kentucky, 53 percent of those surveyed by the exit polls said that Sen. Obama's and his pastor Rev. Wright share the same opinions. When asked if race was a factor in their decision, 21 percent of voters said yes, and of those yes votes nearly all voted for Hillary Clinton (81 percent).
I'm not an expert, but I also believe that there were some primary crashers yesterday as well. With closer examination of the exit polls, 32 percent of those surveyed who voted in the democratic primary said that they will cast a ballot for Sen. John McCain in November. Of those who said they would vote for McCain a whopping 85 percent vote for Sen. Clinton yesterday.
In both Oregon and Kentucky an overwhelming majority declare the economy to be one of their biggest concerns. In Kentucky 44 percent say that they have been affected by the recession.
The blog watch numbers over at DailyKos were welcoming for those like me who didn't have access to a TV last night. A particularly funny moment came when Kos posted the 40 percent reporting mark for Oregon
" Vote by raceWhite (85%): 55-O, 43-C
Vote by Income
Less than $50,000 (40%): 52-O, 46-C
Cue exploding heads...."
Sometimes the reporters on TV (aka talking heads) like to say that it's all about race. It will be interesting to explain how they explain the votes in Oregon.
Can We Have Real Democracy in a Two-Party System?
Like generations before them, Millennials lament the two-party system. They want more choices, more accurate representations of their ideals and values. As one student in CIRCLE's study measuring political attitudes among college students, said, "I think everyone is just too afraid to agree with one another because there's this mindset where you have to either be completely Democratic or completely Republican."
The two-party system controlled by the Democrats and Republicans shuts out voices of other, legitimate political parties and interests. Other forces, such as the media, have colluded with the two major parties in order to define America's political choices. A fellow WireTap writer, Kameelah Rasheed, has criticized already some of the positions of the Democratic candidates, as not her cup of tea.
So here's my -- unabashedly -- very unoriginal plan that can move us close to a multi-party system in the next few elections. Let's move to small towns and big cities in states across the country, to affect very local elections, such as city and school boards. Conservatives have already done just that - created small pockets of conservatism by controlling local school boards.
Let's say there is an existing party, Party M, that has a small presence in towns and cities all over the country. We then identify where elected seats could be won. One vote really matters in local elections and our experience in peer-to-peer outreach and online fundraising can make us a serious voting bloc for any local election. Assuming we win, we next build upon that base, getting more Party M candidates elected to municipal- and city-level seats. After securing those seats, we can now make a run at state districts, and so on. The goal isn't to get one person elected to the highest office, but to elect many people in many different localities and in many different states. This way is very grassroots, which is to our advantage, and it is more pluralistic than segregating oneself in a political oasis. We join the system, but with fresh ideas and attitudes, and more importantly, we bring a progressive ideology that won't bent to the politics of those before us. And we offer others another choice.
Now is the time because of today's political engagement and the evolving work culture. Millennials are energized and participating in politics at level not seen since 1992, perhaps earlier. The presence is real and it's already helping to decide this election's outcome. Not only has voting been up in all the primaries, save New York, but young people have been the face of politics in the media and on the campaign trail. So, we must use this energy to make seismic changes in the political system, just as in other areas of civic engagement. Isn't that why we're getting involved in the first place?
We are not limited to a few geographic locations, and picking the right community is not as difficult as before. Millennials are demanding a change in work culture that allows us to work from where we want to live (and where we want to bring democracy). For example, one of my colleagues works full-time from her home in Chicago; our office, where I work, is in Washington, DC. I've encouraged her to run for school board and I hope that she does, but as a third party candidate.
Some Millennials don't want to choose between the two parties, but still we give into the system. But this moment is our chance to carry forth on our lofty goals and ambitions. Let's leap at the opportunity, because we've arrived.