The New York Times's Thomas Friedman wrote an article that looks at why young people (what he calls Generation Q) aren't protesting in the streets.
America needs a jolt of the idealism, activism and outrage (it must be in there) of Generation Q. That’s what twentysomethings are for — to light a fire under the country. But they can’t e-mail it in, and an online petition or a mouse click for carbon neutrality won’t cut it. They have to get organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize them.
Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy didn’t change the world by asking people to join their Facebook crusades or to download their platforms. Activism can only be uploaded, the old-fashioned way — by young voters speaking truth to power, face to face, in big numbers, on campuses or the Washington Mall. Virtual politics is just that — virtual.
Courtney Martin counters at the American Prospect with an article called
Generation Overwhelmed.
We are not apathetic. What we are, and perhaps this is what Friedman was picking up on, is totally and completely overwhelmed. One of the most critical questions of our time is one of attention. In a 24-7 news climate, it is all but impossible to emotionally engage all of the stories and issues you are taking in, and then act on them in some pragmatic way. So instead, young people become paralyzed. (It seems that all of us are a bit paralyzed. After all, what are Friedman's peers really doing? And aren't his peers the ones with the most straightforward kind of power?)
My generation tries to create lives that seem to match our values, but beyond that it's hard to locate a place to put our outrage. We aren't satisfied with point-and-click activism, as Friedman suggests, but we don't see other options. Many of us have protested, but we -- by and large -- felt like we were imitating an earlier generation, playing dress-up in our parents' old hippie clothes. I marched against the war and my president called it a focus group. The worst part was that I did feel inert while doing it. In the 21st century, a bunch of people marching down the street, complimenting one another on their original slogans and pretty protest signs, feels like self-flagellation, not real and true social change.
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.
This
diary at Daily Kos by georgia10, says we aren't motivated by the childish name calling, slogans, and jokes that fill the political arena.
I cannot speak conclusively as to how previous generations have viewed our government--as an oppressor, as an adversary, etc. But I would venture to say that my generation views government as a complete joke.
After all, we grew up and came of age in an era where our "government" was defined by blow jobs, blue stained dresses, and Bushisms. We have come of age in a time where political discourse revolves around childhood taunts and bumper sticker slogans. We have been shaped by an era of political absurdity, where government is neither threatening nor worthy of respect, but is rather viewed as a tragic parody of what once was the greatest system of governance.
Friedman fails to appreciate that as a result of this, there is no compelling need among youth to "rise up" and "fight against" disastrous government because this joke of a government we've grown up with doesn't call for antagonism--it calls for ridicule and, ultimately, reform.
And so, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and the Onion thrive. And so, we suffer through incompetence by turning to sarcasm and wit and, yes, cynicism to carry us through. We do so because it is much easier to laugh than to cry, much easier to embrace the carnival of it all than to contemplate the damage and its lasting impact.
Thus, there are no youth protests not because we are not angry, and not because we are tethered to our laptops and incapable of action in the offline world, but because this farce we call politics does not compel in our hearts the type of urgent action of generations past. Rather, we look upon our broken system and choose not to scream at the rubble, but to take it upon ourselves to promote social change in our own way.
So we volunteer. We join groups. We organize at the community level. We splinter off into thousands of glittering pockets of political change. We don't mobilize nationalize because there is no call, no sense of need to so.
Younger people are more serious these days than in the past. Some of this is forced upon us by demanding jobs, debt, and the complex nature of our world today. However, oftentimes we choose to be more serious than the debate that is going on in Washington. The vast majority of young people don't see the problem with two gay people that love each other, yet our elected officials debate this issue through taunts and name calling.
As georgia10 points out the good news is that young people are involved, but it is just not in the same way our parents got involved.
Young Americans are involved in many forms of political and civic activity. For example, 26% say they vote regularly (age 20-25 only); 36% have volunteered within the last year; and 30% have boycotted a product because of the conditions under which it was made or the values of the company that made it.
Young people just wish we could get down to solving the pressing issues we face instead of partisan bickering. We are just waiting for someone to ask us to get patriotic about something other than war.
Posts
