The Conservative Youth Factory
Yesterday we talked about the Millennials – who they are, what they believe, and the characteristics with which demographers and generational theorists attribute them. Today I want to talk about the political playing field onto which Millennials emerged in 2002 and 2003.
There’s a saying that if you are under 30 and conservative you have no heart, but if you are over 30 and liberal you have no brain. The implication is that people’s political ideology changes as they grow older. This is a nice bit of conventional wisdom, but like so much other conventional wisdom it’s also false. Partisanship is a habit instilled early in life, which is why reaching out to young voters is so important – it builds the base of your future coalition. Unfortunately, during the late 1970s through the beginning of this century, Democrats almost completely ceded the playing field to conservatives.
In the 1970s, just as new conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation were finding their seed funding from a cadre of wealthy conservative families and foundations (Koch, Olin, Coors, Bradley), so too were conservative youth organizations finding their own angel investors. It was at this time that Young America’s Foundation, the most well-funded conservative youth group, with an average annual budget of around $9 million, was revitalized, and new organizations like Morton Blackwell’s Leadership Institute, which has trained upwards of 50,000 conservative activists on an average annual budget of $7 million, were getting their start.
Within the Republican Party itself, the College Republicans also experienced a revitalization at this time. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the number of College Republican chapters climbed from a nadir of 250 during the Johnson administration to over 1,100 by the time Reagan was in office.
By 2003, there were over a dozen leadership and training nonprofits in the conservative youth movement, and they receive upwards of $48 million a year in funding from 75 different conservative foundations. More importantly, their was not cyclical (ie election-based), but steady, providing a measure of stability on which to build and sustain their operations for years. Together, these organizations train hundreds if not thousands of conservatives a year, almost the entire cost of which is subsidized for the trainees.
Budding conservatives are taught about public speaking, campaign and nonprofit fundraising, GOTV and field work; future journalists and policy wonks are trained, and their writings published; activists are schooled on the history and philosophical underpinnings of modern conservatism; conservative newspapers/magazines were started and speakers brought to campus; many of these trainees are placed in conservative campaigns or institutions once their training is complete.
It is from these institutions that many of the stars of today’s Conservative stars – Gover Norquist, Ralph Reed, Karl Rove – received their start. Contrary to conservative political mythology, these individuals did not emerge as fully formed political geniuses on the national scene. They were the beneficiaries of a highly subsidized and intensive youth training apparatus that values new blood as the backbone of the movement, and pumps out thousands of activists on a yearly basis. It was also thanks to the work of these institutions – particularly the College Republicans, who worked in close partnership with the Reagan campaign – that in 1984 and 1988, young voters swung heavily towards Republicans. Those voters – tail end Boomers and the early Gen Xers, remain the most conservative voters in the electorate today.
Conservatives talk a good game about “lifting oneself up by their bootstraps,” but that’s a trial rarely forced on conservative youth, who as I’ve explained are afforded every subsidized opportunity imaginable. Because of this, they’ve created a highly meritocratic youth movement in which the talented rise, and no one is excluded based on their economic means.
Before 2003, no comparable infrastructure existed on the progressive side of the aisle. While the College Republicans were an integral part of the Reagan campaign, and raised upwards of $30 million between 2001 and 2005, the College Democrats weren’t even part of the Democratic Party for most of the 70s and 80s (LBJ kicked them out for their anti-war activism). According to Open Secrets, between 2000 and 2004, the College Democrats raised and spent a mere $210,000. In the last 30 years, most non-conservative youth activism took one of two forms: issue activism like the work performed at first by the Student PIRGs (and later by a bevy of disparate social justice organizations), or non-partisan GOTV work of the kind performed today by the New Voters Project. In almost all cases these institutions were underfunded, caught in a cyclical "boom-bust" cycle around elections, or not at all funded. Many of them were non-partisan, and thus only indirectly (at best) contributing to building the progressive movement and Democratic Party.
While progressive youth activism existed, it was disorganized, disconnected from the party apparatus, understaffed and underfunded with little strategic vision. Ironically, while progressives talk about a more fair and equal society, the progressive movement itself prior to 2003 was structured to the benefit of the children of the wealthy and well-connected. With so little money or institutional support, what few training opportunities existed often came at the expense of the trainee. Internships at progressive institutions (think tanks, magazines), which provide valuable experience and networking connections, are frequently non-paying, with little in the way of economic help for those not from privileged families. Other entry points into the progressive movement – like canvassing operations – offered slave-labor wages and little in the way of upward mobility or skills training.
As I’ve alluded a number of times, this situation began to change in 2003. It was at that time that a number of high-level donors privy to the now infamous Jonathan Stein Power Point on the Conservative Money Machine, and tired of contributing to campaigns that over-paid consultants to deploy the same 50 +1 swing state strategy, began to look for a smarter way to invest their money and build the Democratic Party. Their vision (and their bankroll) would soon run head-on into the entrepreneurial spirit among Millennials that we discussed yesterday. That collision of ideas, energy, and money would produce a veritable “[dot] Org Boom” in progressive youth organizing outside of the Democratic Party during the 2004 election cycle
That Boom will be our topic tomorrow.
Eric Schneiderman in 'The Nation' suggests that the conservative tsunami of the last 30 years was accomplished because the conservatives moved the voters closer to them, rather than changing their positions or rhetoric to move toward the voters. He calls this transformational politics rather than transactional.
Transformational politics is the work we do today to ensure that the deal we can get on, say, gun control reform in a year, or five, or twenty will be better than the deal we can get today. On the other hand, "Transactional politics requires us to be pragmatic about current realities and the state of public opinion. It's all about getting the best result possible given the circumstances here and now."
If there's ever an example of transactional politics in action, it's the health-care 'reform' policies of our present Dem candidates. Repubs, on the other hand, long ago convinced the electorate that the 'government in our medicine chests' would spell the end of good health care in this country. So today McCain can say he'll let the free market 'solve' the problem and the voter says OK.
March 4, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I confess, that I've been swamped and haven't yet read Digby or any of the other pieces on transactional vs. transformational politics that have emerged in the last week, but I'm in total agreement that what we need is a total change in the playing field. A sustained (non-cyclical/electoral) youth movement building is part of that.
Encouraging a participatory, progressive ethos among young people will alter the face of the electorate and make possible many policy changes that progressives have dreamed of for decades.
March 4, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree with you that Progressives have been deliquent in funding access points for youth development and training. It hasn't always been that way, and one of the consequences of not knowing and telling the history of things like youth participation and organization, is the sheer fact that an absence of a history can disillusion today's young people.
I was in High School in the early and mid 50's, and participated in the Encampment for Citizenship -- a 1000 strong summer camp sponsored by Eleanor Roosevelt and many of her associates, that stressed internationalism, racial equality, civic participation and organizational institution building. The Encampment was focused on 16 - 19 year olds -- last two years of High School, first year of college. It was held for several years in Puerto Rico, largely because of the need for a large venue that was not segregated, and that would welcome an interracial youth assembly. For many years in both the Civil Rights Movement and in the mid-60's Anti-War movement, I ran into other "campers" who understood how to assume leadership responsibility and stay focused on goals. Sadly, most of us moved out of the "youth" cohort before things came apart in the 67-68 period, and we were replaced by the early boomers who distrusted organization and institution building.
But "Encampment for Citizenship" was a historical model for networking and training progressive teen agers (in the 50's mind you) that should be remembered -- in someways it seems to me that the Yearly Kos conference notion is somewhat like it, though it is less focused on developing High School aged progressives. The Encampment was also sponsered by Walter Reuther -- and thus a significant contingent of participants were recruited through the Labor Movement, making it much more an inter-class effort.
March 4, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sara
I agree w/r/t history, and hope that my book will in part fill in that "gap" in institutional memory that has long plagued progressive youth organizing. Hopefully it does a good job at examining the broad trends of the last 30 years generally, and an even better job explaining what happened in the last 5 years to begin reversing the trends I've outlined above.
With regard to high school, this has long been a neglected area in progresive and Democratic outreach, and CIRCLE, the youth civic participation research center, just put out a great study on civics education in high school illustrating economic and racial disparities in how students learn about civics and what it means for rates of participation.
Additionally, some of the new organizations that I will discuss tomorrow - particularly those state based orgs in the Pacific Northwest and Mountain West (Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Montana) have vigorous high school outreach programs that are just starting to bear fruit.
Finally, I would add that the Obama campaign has made high school outreach a priority - most significantly in Iowa, where it paid huge dividends.
March 4, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there a link available for the "Jonathan Stein Power Point on the Conservative Money Machine" referenced in this post?
I think it'd be interesting further reading for this topic, and I don;t know very much about this presentation.
March 4, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe the Stein power point is shared anywhere online, though it is discussed in detail in Matt Bai's book The Argument.
The corresponding data for conservative youth - only some of which I mention here - comes primary from a research document created by Iara Peng, the founder of Young People For. Those figures (along with the topics touched upon above), are discussed in much further detail in my own book, Youth to Power.
March 4, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was a high school conservative and very vocal about it. As I recall it was kind of a fun and subversive way to go to school. It was really an expression of my own arrogance and of a libertarian streak that I still remember something that seems to support Michael Connery:
When I was in high school we went to a speech by Jonathon Kozol, the liberal sociologist who wrote "Savage Inequalities" about inequality in public education. I really laced into him about school choice. He said, "Why aren't the liberal students as motivated as this guy?" Then he talked about all the outreach that conservative groups did. I remember getting a free subscription to the National Review just for writing them a letter.
I became a liberal in college and have gotten more progressive as I've gotten older. I don't know if Millenials feel that way. But I was born in 1975 so my experience isn't that different than that of older millenials...
Anyway, just riffing. This generational talk is always fun.
March 4, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with your premise that the conservative movement has been much more effective at nurturing the next generation of activists over the past 30 years, I disagree with your assertion that canvassing operations offer little more than "slave-labor wages and little in the way of upward mobility or skills training." I worked with a canvassing organization for many years that provided (and continues to provide) reasonable wages, great training and lots of room for advancement. In fact, many thousands of public interest professionals and lifelong political activists got their start canvassing and I suspect that will be the case well into the future. That being said, I agree with the rest of your article and find it very exciting that the infrastructure for progressive change continues to grow. I look forward to part 2 tomorrow.
March 4, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
barnecledpanda,
I'm aware that this is something of a controversial isue, and in large part I'm basing this on the research of Columbia Professor of Dana Fisher and her book, Activism Inc., which tracks the incredibly high attrition rates suffered by many canvassing organizations, what canvassing operations do to local grassroots, and the reluctance of national organizations to hire from within these groups (opting instead to promote from within).
I also know that there are currently two class-action lawsuits against some of the major progressive canvassing outfits: GCI and The Fund. The GCI lawsuit is about canvassers not getting their proper overtime pay and how employers are classified. The Fund case is about mandatory "volunteer" hours and proper pay. I'm not sure where these lawsuits are just now, but I do know that one of the canvassing outfits conceded part of the plaintiff's case and revised their pay policies.
If you've followed or been involved in these lawsuits, I'd love to hear your take.
March 4, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, for the love of God, let's not do this sort of crap!
For years, liberals have bemoaned the fact thatwe lacked the think tanks and foundations of the right. We've had no Eagle Forum, no Heritage Foundation, no AEI or the like and the only organizations which do lean our way seem to do so reluctantly. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Brookings Institution.)
But one only has to glance at the current state of political affairs to see that's a good thing. Look at the current crop of youngish Republican "thought leaders" and tell me who among them could get the American people to follow them--Jonah Goldberg? Rich Lowry? Michael Goldfarb? Kathryn Lopez? I think not. The reason conservatives are so out of favor right now is that they have raised an entire generation of conservative thinkers inside the dark dens of Republican Sinecureland. It doesn't take Gregor Mendel to tell you that this inbreeding has led to the sorriest lot of hothouse flowers you'll ever see.
This point is driven home this week with the death of William F. Buckley. Buckley made mistakes, certainly, but he was a man who founded a magazine, fought in a war and was, no doubt, a true intellectual. He made his own way on the strength of his intelligence and spirit and not the think tank connections of his parents.
Can you imagine John Podhoretz or Bill Kristol living a Buckleyesque life if it weren't for their famous daddies? Hell, no. Kristol would be working in some law firm writing contracts and Pohoretz would probably be selling insurance. Or cars. Or subscriptions door-to-door.
The right is going to be hurting for a long time because of their successes in creating perfect little environments for the restating of the same old thoughts and the assembly of anti-everything automatons. We need to learn from their failures, not replicate them.
March 4, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nitpicker,
I'm not advocating for completely mimicking what the Right has done to organize their rising stars, but the need to match their investments in youth with our own seems to be indisputable.
The lack of investment caused great atrophy in progressive youth participation, which has only reversed recently as more money and time has been invested in cultivating young talent. First this happened outside the party in 2004 (as we'll discuss tomorrow), and now the party is sitting up and taking notice. Campaigns are investing in youth with positive results.
March 4, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
I wish I could offer a personal story to support your argument for improving youth engagement in politics here. I am of what you are labeling the Millennials Generation myself (born in 1983), but this means that my early college experience was in the time before the great organizational force that you're talking about had come into play.
I was at a public university in Maryland and our chapter of the College Democrats was lucky to have a half dozen people at all the meetings. There was basically no guidance from elsewhere in the organization on how to build and maintain an effective group at this time. My experience was that things were little better at the state level; offices existed in name only and these people really couldn't do much to help because there was no infrastructure and nobody knew how to build one. There was really no outreach from the party apparatus.
What's more, my experience with the national level of this organization (2002 and early 2003) revealed a group of people who seemed to have decided a year ahead of time who was going to win the next year's elections, and really struck me as the kind of people who were just trying to polish their credentials to get themselves elected somewhere in a few years, rather than people who wanted to change things. These people were not about the Dean "50 state strategy" in any way (though in fairness, this was before Dean had come up with it) and harnessing activism did not enter into the calculus. I showed up at the national convention that year heavily motivated to send a strong message against the Iraq war. This was two months before the invasion was launched, but in any case there was really no widespread interest in actually, you know, articulating something that "the party", which had clearly chosen to not oppose it in a meaningful way for the 2002 elections, would not like.
As someone who is rather unabashedly liberal in a state that is pretty liberal in its politics, the whole thing was extremely disappointing. Instead of feeling like someone who was involved in making a difference I really just felt like some schmuck who was wasting his time so that some egotists could preen and feel important by having empty titles like president, vice president or secretary of this or that level of the organization.
I say all of this in hopes that things have started to change since 2004 with the lingering influence of the Dean campaign. As I was rather disillusioned with the whole process the first few years I tried to be involved, I have not tried to get back into it. If what you say is true, it may be worth giving things another try.
March 4, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
MWB,
I agree and am in much the same boat. I graduated from college in 2000 and was completely politically inactive (though I've always been a political junkie) during those years. Mostly because the few outlets of participation available to me at the time were wholly unappealing.
It wasn't until the Dean campaign and until my friends and I founded Music for America that I really became politically active.
I think the landscape is changing, and those in college now find themselves in a much different situation they we did. They have far more options for engagement of the kind I just described in my latest piece.
March 5, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
Well, I deeply disagree with many of Ms. Fishers' premises in Activism Inc. One of the biggest criticisms that I have of the book is the idea that because the Fund or GCI isn't doing the exact kind of organizing that she prescribes, (i.e.- neighbor-to-neighbor or community organizing) that somehow any other way of doing it is fundamentally flawed, or as she calls it "scorching the grassroots". Of course, we need people working in their own neighborhoods to identify local problems and solutions, but does that mean we don't need established progressive grassroots organizations building support for highly effective advocacy groups that have won countless campaigns? I don't buy that argument. She completely discounts any good the organizations do and focuses almost entirely on the negative.
In short, I think the premise that canvassing organizations "do" anything to "local" grassroots is off the mark.
I don't know that much about the current status of the lawsuits. The Fund did change their pay policies to protect themselves after the lawsuit was filed. I personally don't feel that the lawsuits have merit (full disclosure: I worked for the Fund). Their pay policies are very clear: if you can't raise enough money to cover your salary, then you can't work for the organization. It seems to me, anything less would be a bad business model. People contribute money on the phone, at the door because they want the money to go to the organization, not to go to the person at the door. I am not saying that this is the only model to run a grassroots organization, but it has been effective in raising over $400 million, getting 20 million petition signatures signed, helping provide the seed money for 76 different organizations, identifying over 1.3 million consistent members, etc.
March 4, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: This is a nice bit of conventional wisdom, but like so much other conventional wisdom it’s also false.
There are a couple reasons why this seem to be true though.
One is that while people may not change their underlying beliefs as they age, they do change the intensity with which they hold and express those beliefs. Young people tend to be extremists (as true of the Right as of the Left). As they grow older they begin to see the shades of grade, understand what a "nuance" is, and find half-loaves acceptable. They also realize that maybe they don't know it all.
Two, many ideas which seem radical when we are young can become accepted wisdom and standard practice as we grow older. No one but a true reactionary questions civil rights (as in desegregation) or women's suffrage. In another 30 years gay unions may be old hat too.
March 4, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that is right, but it doesn't necessarily mean that their ideology shifts - or their partisan (party) loyalties.
I'm saying that the ideology and partisanship remains steady, while the CW I quote implies that it changes as one ages.
March 5, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael, this issue is among the most critical problems in the our country today. Intelligent young people, seeing no opportunity to make a living in progressive thought/politics, have no choice but to seek paychecks elsewhere instead of putting their talents toward winning hearts and minds for progressives.
We want cars and houses and families, and you cannot afford them on minimum wage (or less, which is what canvassers frequently earn). And contrary to what a commenter alleges, there are no opportunities for advancement at paid canvassing firms.
The Republicans put their youth in charge of the Iraqi Provisional Authority, while we tell our youth to fend for themselves.
Whenever progressives get to make hires, they hire experienced workers at high pay levels instead of promising young talent -- every time. When progressives are in charge of budgets, they spend on established consultants. Campaigns and political organizations are so risk averse they will never hire young talent. In order to be considered as a potential hire, you have to have some grandiose-sounding accomplishment (e.g. He registered 10,000 people to vote during the 2004 election cycle). How about just being a smart capable worker with good ideas? How is it possible that those people are considered completely useless?
Currently, you have to be a Rhodes scholar for any progressive institution to give you the time of day. Out of thousands of applicants, we elevate two three stars and congratulate ourselves, giddy over their "potential". I'm sorry but two or three people do not have that much potential no matter how amazing they are. We need to make it possible for scads of young progressives to make a living doing progressive politics, not just two or three Rhodes scholars every year.
Progressive money players need to remove their heads from their asses and recognize that spending a couple thousand on a youth internship is worth it even if the work could have been done more cheaply. Investing in youth in a large scale way is absolutely the only avenue to maintain progressive policies long term. Progressives do not deserve to hold sway over Americans if they continue to turn their backs on the everyday young progressives who could be future leaders.
I take this all very personally. I went to one of the best liberal arts colleges in the country 10 years ago. A year ago, after working as a policy analyst at a government contractor for four years, I decided to pursue a career in progressive policy analysis and advocacy, where my heart has always been. I've spent months volunteering on various campaigns, and have excelled at every task I've ever been given, but no one has offered me a job. There are about a dozen progressive orgs in my area, and positions open up very rarely. I'm confident I'll find paid employment eventually if I wait long enough, but even though I can afford to wait, I'm not going to wait forever. Being successful is important to me, and if I go long enough without being given a chance, I am going to give up. I will go to work for corporate interests, because advocacy is what I'm good at and I am going to do it come hell or high water. They pay well and there's plenty of opportunity.
Progressives have gone for so long with this policy of utter disregard for the careers of young progressives that it is very hard to be hopeful for change. It will take a profound values shift amongst progressive leaders, who are not known for embracing new ideas. If I were Catholic, I'd be praying to Saint Jude about this.
Thanks for bringing this up, Michael. Best of luck with getting anyone to do anything about it.
March 4, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is right on. Conservatives pay market rates for their talent while Progressives insist on "psychological pay" and sacrifice for the movement. When you undervalue your supporters and talent, it shows, and our potential best and brightest head off to the private sector.
March 5, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michaelburdick,
I almost entirely agree with your views and I dont mean to nitpick, but the canvassing organization that I worked for has documented over 1,000 people that work for over 400 progressive organizations, foundations and government offices. To say that there is no opportunity for advancement is just false. That being said, this shouldn't be the only way that young (or older) progressives get their foot in the door at liberal institutions. It just so happens that paid canvassing jobs are one of the only ways at the present time to get involved at the entry level (this needs to change). If you look at it another way, thousands of people who wouldnt have otherwise gotten involved at all in progressive politics have this opportunity to canvass. The cream of the crop rise to the top and go on to do great things. We shouldnt discount that. It is not that this shouldnt happen, there just needs to be more options (like the ones that you and Michael Connery speak of).
March 5, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink