Kids these days
Ezra sings the praises of this piece by Courtney Martin, who thinks that Thomas Friedman has lost perspective--that he fundamentally misunderstands her (my) generation and the reason for what seems like their quiescence. He has taken to calling us Generation Q. There's a lot to what she's saying, but I think she gets this wrong:
When Friedman was young and people were taking to the streets, there were a handful of issues to focus on and a few solid sources of news to pay attention to. Now there is a staggering amount of both. If I read the news today with my heart wide open and my mind engaged, I will be crushed. Do I address the injustices in Sudan, Iraq, Burma, Pakistan, the Bronx? Do I call an official, write a letter, respond to a MoveOn.org request? None of it promises to be effective, and it certainly won't pacify my outrage.
I don't think there's anybody out there keeping score, but just for starters I think this mischaracterizes the civil rights and Vietnam era rather badly. There were absolutely no shortage of injustices that young people then believed themselves to be struggling against; just as now. It's the other changes that have driven today's youth on to their computers and away from the activism Friedman thinks our generation lacks.
The smallest of these changes--the one Friedman puts far too much stock in--is the very existence of those computers in the first place. Much more important, though, are the backwards incentives we face today that didn't really exist 40 years ago. The world's many problems, in other words, are not the "problem". The problem is that. Tackling today's problems with yesterday's tactics carries a great risk of defeat--and even more so in an era when the consequences to oneself for putting oneself on the line are so high, and the consequences of inaction so low. We're not overwhelmed by the volume of tragedy in the world. We're overwhelmed because we're losing.
The good news is that I don't think it's necessarily bad that we haven't adopted yesterday's tactics. The results of fighting that way, after all, were decidedly mixed. But there's no denying that I and my peers exhibit a critical level of disengagement and it's unclear, at least to me, what we should do, and what tactics we should adopt, to snap out of it.
Comments
Hmmmm. How about leadership? No 'movement' gets traction without some leaders willing to outline problems/solutions, organize some response, and provide a way for people to becomes engaged in something that they think has a chance of making a change for the better. A vision and a path to change are essential prerequisites.
Dodd's recent actions on constitutional issues are a small example of how to get engagement. Howard Dean did the same in his nomination bid. Move-On did change the character of the response to the Clinton impeachment. Martin Luther King changed the civil rights environment nearly completely. Al Gore is changing the global warming discussion in front of our eyes.
Of these, the Deaniacs-become-progressives, and Move-On are indications of widespread movements with deep involvement. The Democratic party is a potential force for FDR/JFK-level public support, but it lacks a truly progressive leader with high prospects for nomination (Edwards IMO comes closest, but is becoming an unlikely candidate).
Now that the old-southern Dems and moderate Republicans have largely disappeared, the Dem. party left has an opportunity to change the face of our party and nation. But that won't come in one step or with one election - there are still too many Bushdogs or Bluedogs in the congressional Dem. party and the triumph of progressives require consistent filibuster-proof majorities which at best will take a couple of elections to accomplish - even with an organizing force to lead the progressive revolution that we need.
Will that happen? Two things are lacking: A leader or leaders, and folks willing to support a whole new approach in a highly committed mannner. It takes both to succeed.
Just recall the worldwide nature of the anti-Iraq marches before the invasion. Lots of mobilized people, no effective political leadership. No political response. It took years for Congressional leadership to emerge in response to the great outpourings of public anger over Vietnam - and that still wasn't enough because no effective leader emerged for the people to rally behind.
Post A Comment