Morley Winograd

I wanted to follow up on yesterday's excellent presentation by NDN Fellows Mike Hais and Morley Winograd on the changing coalitions of the 21st Century Electorate by offering twoways to access the information from today's presentation online. 

You can download the slide show as a PDF and an Executive Summary of the poll here.

As you know, this poll is the first of three national polls of NDN's 21st Century America Project.  This project has been established to help policy-makers, elected officials and the public better understand the great demographic changes taking place in America today.  This new poll has been specifically designed to provide more insight into how the political coalitions of the two major political parties in America are adapting to these rapid changes.

Tomorrow, Thursday March 4th at 12 noon, we're going to be having a great event here at NDN,  a special presentation on a new poll regarding the changing political coalitions of the 21st Century.  I encourage partisans and political idealogues of all stripes, as well as those interested in changing demographics to join us.You can rsvp to jsingleton@ndn.org or by following this link.

Part of what is so great about this presentation is that it takes a look at very important segments of the electorate (Millennials, Unmarried Women, African-Americans and Latinos) and really emphasizes how their power exists in their emergence as a coalition - and how that coalition is growing. 

I know that this is going to be an exciting kickoff for our 21st Century America project.

Simon's series of essays on Iran have continued to be picked up in the blogshphere, starting with his June 16 column, "Obama: No Realist He," in the Huffington Post, where it has been retained a high profile since it was posted on the site. 

Another essay by Simon on Iran, "The Impact of the Iranian Uprising on Other Repressive Governments," was picked up by The Moderate Voice and Politics for the Common Good blogs.

Sam, Dan and Jake also have been writing about Iran, and NDN Fellows Morley Winograd and Mike Hais weighed in on the Huffinton Post with "Will Young people Unite to Save the World?"

Check the NDN on Iran often to see new essays and newsroundups from Simon and the rest of the team as this uprising continues into its third week.

NDN Fellows Morley Winograd and Mike Hais published a major op-ed ed on Millennials prospects for jobs during these tough economic times. The op-ed, "Are the Millennials the New GI Generation?" has been picked up by several newspapers across the country and beyond, including the Albany Times Union, the Glen Falls Post Star, the Concord Monitor, the Miami Herald, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, the Austin American-Statesman and the Guelph (Ontario, Canada) Mercury.

Morley and Mike also were quoted in a new FORBES column, "The Economics of Quarterlife."

Lastly, Simon, Morley and Dan are at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York City today. Simon and Morley have just wrapped up their compelling presentation -- moderated by the Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize-winning Jose Antonio Vargas -- on "America 2.0 - How Our Changing Demography Is Helping Create a New Politics." Dan Twittered throughout the panel. Check out what his Tweets here.

President Barack Obama is hitting the commencement trail. He gave a truly inspiring speech last night at Arizona State University and is headed to Notre Dame (a little bit of controversy brewing there) on Sunday.

Atlantic Media's (National Journal, The Atlantic, etc..) powerhouse political director Ron Brownstein has a fantastic piece on these young college graduates and their political preferences. In his report, he extensively quotes NDN Fellows Morley Winograd and Mike Hais, who've just wrapped up the most recent stretch of their book tour for the new paperback edition of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube & the Future of American Politics.

Brownstein writes about the huge edge Obama and the Democrats have with Millennials, born between 1982 and 2003, and the largest and most progressive U.S. generation ever.

"If anything, Obama's position with the Millennial generation appears even stronger today. Apart from African-Americans, these young people have been Obama's most enthusiastic and consistent supporters in office. In the Gallup tracking polling that's been conducted since January, Obama's approval rating among voters younger than 30 has never fallen below 66%. His approval rating among young voters consistently runs somewhere between six and nine points higher than his overall showing: today, Obama receives positive approval ratings from a dizzying 75% of voters under 30, compared to 66% from the country overall.

Another set of numbers Gallup released earlier this month shows how Obama's strength can bolster his party. Gallup cumulated all of its 123,000 interviews this year to examine party identification in the electorate. Among the Millennial generation, it found that just 21% identify as Republicans, compared to 36% as Democrats and 34% as independents. "Republicans, for all practical purposes, aren't even on the radar screen with them," says Michael D. Hais, a fellow at the Democratic advocacy group NDN, and co-author of Millennial Makeover, a recent book on the generation.

The enormous advantage among young people for Obama in particular and Democrats in general matters for two reasons. The more immediate is that this generation, which is generally defined as the 93 million people born between 1983 and 2002, will comprise a rapidly increasing share of voters through the next decade. Hais and his co-author, Morley Winograd, also an NDN fellow, have calculated that in 2008, 41% of Millennials were eligible to vote, and they constituted 17% of the electorate. They project that by 2012, 61% of the Millennials will be eligible, and they'll comprise 24% of the electorate; by 2016, the numbers will reach 80% and 30%. By 2020, virtually all of them will be eligible and they could constitute as much as 36% of all voters. If Obama maintains anything near his current strength among Millennials, they will produce a substantially larger vote surplus for him in 2012 than they did in 2008-leaving Republicans a larger deficit to overcome with older voters."

Morley and Mike have been speaking out on this issue (How to Lose a Generation) quite a bit lately. Last Sunday, the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed by Morley and Mike, "The Republican Party ignores 'millennials' at its peril." Later in the week and further north, the San Francisco Chronicle's Carla Marinucci had a front page story about the GOP's problems with young voters. Her article, "Is Meghan McCain the New Face of the GOP?" was a truly interesting read, with a lot of great quotes from Morley and Mike.

As I noted, the Millennial Generation is the largest ever -- and very engaged, both socially and politically. If I were a Republican, I'd take one look at those numbers and do some very serious "rebranding" -- and soul searching.

For much, much more on Millennials, click here.

As NDN Fellows Morley Winograd and Mike Hais wrap up another successful leg of their tour to promote the new paperback edition of "Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube & the Future of American Politics," we are pleased to present a collection of the authors' additional essays for NDN:

• Millennial Enthusiasm is Contagious, 1/31/08 - Big things are on the horizon in America. After decades of gridlock and disillusionment, a new and, in Caroline Kennedy's words, "hopeful, hard-working, innovative, and imaginative" generation is spurring massive change and renewal in our nation's political life.

• Millennials Makeover the Four Ms of Politics, 3/05/08 - With the showdown primaries on March 4 over and the outcome of at least the Democratic contest still to be finally decided, it is a good time to point out what the 2008 primary campaigns have already made clear about the future of American politics. After this year, the four basic elements of any campaign - Messenger, Message, Media and Money - will never be the same.

• Will the Democrats Look Forward or Backward in 2008…and Beyond? 5/31/08 - Makeovers or realignments occur about every four decades in American politics, resulting in 40 years of partisan advantage for the party that catches the next wave of generational and technological change. For the other party, it means spending forty years in the minority.

• Generational CONVENTIONal Wisdom, 8/20/08 - The key to waging a successful presidential campaign by either Barack Obama or John McCain will be their ability to use their respective conventions to overcome generational tensions.

• Governor Palin Is No Millennial, 9/22/08 - Much of the lost ground for the GOP as a result of Sarah Palin's nomination has come from the Millennial Generation, those 26 and younger. Millennials reject the confrontational or risk-taking style that Palin -- a classic Gen Xer -- exhibits.

• Will Millennials Vote in November?, 10/08/08 - The second presidential debate left few observers willing to predict anything but an Obama victory in November. But one nagging question remains in the minds of many pundits. Will Millennials, whose overwhelming support for Senator Obama’s candidacy represents his margin of victory in polls in many battleground states, actually turnout to vote in November?

• Coming Soon to Decide an Election Near You…the Millennials, 11/03/08 - The Millennial Generation is poised to play a decisive role in the election of Barack Obama on November 4.

• America in the Millennial Era, 11/05/08 - Senator Barack Obama’s success in the 2008 presidential campaign marks more than an historical turning point in American politics. It also signals the beginning of a new era for American society, one dominated by the attitudes and behaviors of the largest generation in American history.

• Results From The First Election Of The Millennial Era, 11/05/08 - The first large wave of the Millennial Generation, young Americans born from 1982-2003, entered the electorate to decisively support President-elect Barack Obama. Young voters preferred Obama over U.S. Sen. John McCain by a greater than 2:1 margin (66% vs. 32%). And, dispelling the myth that young people never vote, Millennials cast ballots in larger numbers than young voters had in any recent presidential election.

• It’s Official: Millennials Realigned American Politics in 2008, 11/17/08 - The 2008 election not only marked the election of America's first African-American president, it also saw the strong and clear political emergence of a new, large and dynamic generation and the realignment of American politics for the next 40 years.

• Reinforcing Obama's Millennial Army, 12/01/08 - The Obama campaign took full advantage of the ability and willingness of Millennials to self-organize on behalf of the campaign and its voter turnout efforts. Now the former candidate and his incoming Administration must decide how to maintain Millennials' enthusiasm while ensuring that it channels their energies into the most productive activities.

• It's a Brand New Ballgame: Presidential Transitions in a Civic Era, 1/06/09- Almost before the echoes of Barack Obama's Grant Park victory speech had died away, pundits and the blogosphere began to keep score about the effectiveness of his transition. In a way, a presidential transition is like a political spring training that gives the incoming manager and his team a chance to prepare and set the tone for what amounts to a four-year long regular season.

• National Service and National Pride: Obama/Powell Initiative Is Down Payment to Millennials, 1/09/09 - The support of young voters was decisive in Obama's narrow nomination victory over Hillary Clinton and their 2:1 margin for him over John McCain accounted for 80 percent of his nearly nine million national popular vote lead last November.

• Mr. President: Bring Us Together, 1/14/09 - Reducing ideological divisions and unifying Americans to achieve important common goals has been a focus of Barack Obama since even before he announced his presidency. It is one of the key reasons his campaign had strong appeal to the emerging civic Millennial Generation, which he carried by a margin of more than 2:1.

• New Rules for a New Era, 1/27/09 - One week after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, it is clear that his election and ascension to the presidency have moved America from one political era to another. Realignments like these occur about every four decades with the coming of age of a new, large, dynamic generation of young Americans whose political participation is enabled by a new communication technology.

• It's No Time for Politics as Usual, 2/06/09 - Unfortunately, many in Congress, including much of the leadership of both parties, still don't understand that the United States has entered a new civic political era, demanding new rules of behavior in response to our dire economic circumstances.

• New Attitudes for a New Era, 2/18/09 - President Barack Obama’s signature on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is the clearest signal yet that America has entered a new civic era, very different from the idealist era of the past four decades. As has been the case with all previous realignments or makeovers in our history, this new era will be marked by a far different conception of the role of government and of the way in which public policy is made and judged.

• Positive Partisanship for a New Era, 3/24/09 - Bipartisanship. Other than "stimulus" or "bailout," perhaps no word has been written or spoken more often by politicians and pundits alike in Washington since the inauguration of Barack Obama. Commentators have generally characterized President Obama's attempts to engage Republicans as almost completely unsuccessful, while Republicans have derided his efforts as charming but ineffective, especially in light of the more partisan approach of his party’s Congressional leadership.

• Lessons from Detroit: 10 Years Later, the Overhaul of the Domestic Auto Industry and Its Parallels with the Republicans' Problem, 3/30/09 - Detroit had an opportunity -- nearly 10 years ago to the date -- to change. To understand the globalizing world around it, to understand that consumers' priorities and values -- especially those of the rising Millennial Generation -- were changing drastically. While some may think it's a leap to compare an overhaul of Detroit with an overhaul of the discredited Republican Party, the similarities exist.

• Everybody's Wrong but Us, 4/09/09 - Washington Post conservative columnist Michael Gerson says that the "polarization" between Democrats and Republicans in their approval of President Barack Obama's performance is greater than for any other president in surveys stretching back to the early days of the Nixon Administration. While Gerson's statement of the facts may be correct, his interpretation is dead wrong.

• Obama's Millennial Moment: President to Sign National Service Bill Today, 4/21/09 - Obama's signature of national service legislation represents a major redemption of candidate Obama’s promise to offer his most loyal and largest constituency, Millennials, born between 1982 and 2003, a chance to serve their country at the community level and in return earn assistance with the cost of their college education.

• The Honeymoon Isn't Over Until the Public Sings, 4/29/09 - While noting that President Barack Obama has higher job approval scores than any president in the past three decades, some in Washington also wonder how long this honeymoon can last and how much Obama can get done before it ends. The answer to those two questions lays in placing both Obama's performance and the questions themselves in historical context.

• Specter Party Switch Inevitable? History Holds the Answer, 4/30/09 - While Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter's announcement that he was switching from the Republicans to the Democrats may have gratified the latter and upset the former, no one should have been surprised by it. Historically, party switching is common, indeed inevitable, at times of party realignment.

In a ceremony fraught with political and generational symbolism, President Barack Obama today will sign the aptly named “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE) Act (now the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act) at the SEED school, a DC public school that caters to underserved children. This ceremony caps his campaign promise to ask Americans to reinvigorate their country through community service. GIVE represents a major redemption of candidate Obama’s promise to offer his most loyal and largest constituency, Millennials, born between 1982 and 2003, a chance to serve their country at the community level and in return earn assistance with the cost of their college education.

Not everyone is ready to join hands and sing the praises of the concept, however. While GIVE enjoyed bipartisan sponsorship in both the Senate and the House, that didn’t prevent a majority of Republicans from voting against the bill on final passage. They complained that the bill was “too expensive” and would crowd out pure volunteer work with program participants receiving a modicum of financial support for their efforts from the federal government. In the House, 149 of 175 Republicans voted “no,” joined by 19 of their colleagues in the Senate, including the party's two top leaders. With all Democrats voting in favor of GIVE, the core of the Republican’s “Just say no” caucus demonstrated how out of touch with the Millennial Generation they are.

Of those Republicans expressing their opposition in the Senate, only one, John Ensign of Nevada, was from a state that Obama carried. Even though both Republican Senators from such bright red states as Utah, Georgia and Mississippi could see the potential value of increasing the number of volunteers and college students in the country’s civic life, both GOP Senators from South Carolina, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Idaho made it clear that there were no circumstances under which their hostility to government could be softened by the merits of a patriotic cause.

As Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina put it on his Web site, "We need to recognize that this bill does represent a lot of what's wrong with our federal government today.... civil society works, because it is everything that government is not. It's small, it's personal, it's responsible, it's accountable.” And Louisiana Senator David Vitter spuriously argued, “This new federal bureaucracy would, in effect, politicize charitable activity around the country." Echoing Governor Sarah Palin’s horribly off key comment at her party’s convention last August that “the world isn’t a community and it doesn’t need an organizer,” these Republicans demonstrated just how out of touch they are with Millennial thinking.

Meanwhile, President Obama’s signature initiative is drawing Millennials ever closer to his political agenda. Chris Golden and Nick Troiano, Millennial co-founders of myImpact.org plan on launching a social network designed to connect volunteers and their experiences to others with similar interests as soon as the legislation creates a market for such sharing and support. Two Millennials who served a term in the New Hampshire legislature as they began their college careers, Andrew Edwards and Jeff Fontas, are now anxious to play “a central role in getting a ‘Spirit of Service’ off the ground” as their next step in a career of civic involvement. These are just two examples of Millennials deep desire to serve.

Already the shift toward civic involvement by this new generation, in contrast to its Generation X predecessors, has doubled the proportion of 16-24 year olds serving in the nation’s existing volunteer corps. Ninety-four percent of Millennials believes community service is an effective way to solve problems at the local level and 85 percent thinks that is true for national problems as well. CIRCLE, an organization devoted to tracking the interests of Millennials in serving their country, points out that the second most important factor, other than having time, “in deciding whether or not to get involved in an activity is the impact that they [Millennials] think it will yield.” With the elevated profile such activities will enjoy under provisions of the GIVE Act, it is not too difficult to imagine Millennials taking up over 80,000 of the 250,000 volunteer slots that will be made available under GIVE’s provisions—greater than the number of all Americans currently serving their country’s communities.

At the signing ceremony, the President will be joined by many other equally committed sponsors of the concept of national service, including Senator Ted Kennedy in honor of whom the final legislation was named "The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act,” to celebrate the country’s embrace of this new ethos of service. While Millennials across the country join with them to celebrate this historic change in America’s behavior, Republicans will be left, once again, locked in the dogmas of their past, unable to imagine a country where government encourages private initiative and the nation is far better off for it.

NDN's two newest Fellows, Morley Winograd and Mike Hais, are on the road again to talk up the paperback release of their critically acclaimed 2008 book, Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube & the Future of American Politics.

The paperback has a fascinating afterword about the historic 2008 election in which Millennials voted 2:1 for Barack Obama.  

Questions from the 2008 presidential campaign addressed in the new edition include: 

Every 40 years, America experiences a major political makeover during which important new allegiances and behaviors are established by an up and coming large generation. In 2008, it was the first wave of the Millennial Generation, born between 1982 and 2003, which provided the bulk of Barack Obama’s margin and Democratic victories. What are the key attributes of this new generation and how will they impact American society and politics?

The financial system meltdown in September 2008 was characterized by the Wall Street Journal as “the day Wall Street died.” The events of that week also triggered the “millennial makeover” predicted in the first edition of Winograd and Hais' book. Such triggering events usher in a new era in American history marked by profoundly different beliefs on the part of the American public. How will these new realities shape the outlook for investments and the economy in the decades to come?

Web-based social networking technology revolutionized presidential campaigning and fundraising in 2008, displacing television and top down fundraising strategies that have dominated campaigns since the 1960s. What lessons for marketers and brand managers can be drawn from that experience and what will be the future role of traditional advertising and media companies be in the new Millennial World?

Morley and Mike have gotten some great media attention lately, including this op-ed in POLITICO and prominent mention in a special report on national service (Millennials are very civic-oriented) in yesterday's USA TODAY.

Morley and Mike are in Boston and Cambridge today, where they will talk with graduate students at the Kennedy School of Governemnt. Next, they are off to the YouTube and 2008 Election Cycle Conference at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. 

Then it's back to Boston for a full day at Tufts University (Simon's alma mater) and on to New York City, where NDN will be hosting a breakfast forum with Morley and Mike on April 23. If you'd like to come, check for details here.

If you haven't had a chance to pick up Millennial Makeover, you can buy it here. New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning book critic Michiko Kakutani picked it as one of her top 10 favorite books in 2008, so check it out.

Note: Morley Winograd and Mike Hais, NDN Fellows, are co-authors of the critically acclaimed Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, & the Future of American Politics. Winograd and Hais also have a long history with Detroit and Michigan. Winograd lived there for 50 years and was Chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party from 1973 to 1979. Winograd later served in Washington, DC, as Senior Policy Advisor to Vice President Gore, during which time he witnessed the events described in the essay below. Prior to joining Frank N. Magid Associates in 1983, Hais was a political pollster for Democrats in Michigan and an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Detroit.

With President Barack Obama's expected annoucement later this morning, the current debate over whether to save our domestic auto industry has revealed some starkly different views about the future of manufacturing in America among economists, elected officials and corporate executives. There are many disagreements about solutions to the Big Three’s current financial difficulties, but the more fundamental debate is whether the industry  should bend to the will of the government’s and taxpayers' priorities or serve only the needs of the companies’ customers and their shareholders. 

Detroit had an opportunity -- nearly 10 years ago to the date -- to change. To understand the globalizing world around it, to understand that consumers' priorities and values -- especially those of the rising Millennial Generation -- were changing drastically. While some may think it's a leap to compare an overhaul of Detroit with an overhaul of the discredited Republican Party, the similarities are there:  

But when the government becomes a major stockholder in private enterprises, the brand becomes political. And as General Motors learned to its regret, when a company’s brand is as damaged as badly as the Republican Party’s is now, the chances of it prevailing in any debate about the automotive industry’s future is greatly diminished. Very aware of the public tsunami of anger over AIG bonuses, Wall Street excesses and public perception of corruption and lack of accountability, President Obama is not in a forgiving mood. He has made clear the domestic automobile industry has to be seen as a contributor in ending America’s dependence on foreign oil and improving our environment to secure his support. Almost exactly ten years since the debate at the Detroit airport, as a price for its financial support, the federal government will in fact be telling at least General Motors which vehicles to produce for its customers.  Given that arrangement, both parties to this newest partnership need to find “win-win” solutions for the industry’s future that match the optimism and civic spirit of the Millennial generation who will have to pay for the results of their decisions.

The last time the industry seriously engaged in such a debate was during the Clinton Administration and the companies’ failure to effectively respond to Vice President Al Gore’s offer to partner with them in producing more environmentally sensitive products gives substance to President Obama’s charge last week that their current difficulties were caused by executive “mismanagement” in the past.

Attempts to nudge Detroit into producing more fuel-efficient vehicles have been going on since the 1973-4 Arab Oil embargo, which led Congress to establish Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFÉ) standards for cars and light trucks. The original fuel efficiency target was for cars to meet an average of 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 1985. On Earth Day, 1992, candidate Bill Clinton proposed to raise that standard even further to 45 mpg if he were elected President.

When Al Gore was asked to join the ticket, auto industry executives, terrified at the prospect that the man who had called for the abolition of the internal combustion engine might become Vice President, implored the leadership of the United Automobile Workers (UAW) to meet with the candidates and bring them to their senses. The lobbying effort worked.  Clinton agreed to delay the adoption of higher CAFÉ standards until it could be proven that such goals were attainable. 

This formulation opened the door for what came to be known as the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles or PNGV.  Reluctantly supported by the Big Three, PNGV provided approximately a quarter of a billion dollars in government research funds to demonstrate the feasibility of producing a midsize sedan that could get 80 mpg. Often called “the moon shot of the 90s,” each car company was to make a prototype of such a vehicle by the politically convenient year of 2000 and begin mass production by 2004.  

After a few years of technological research, the partnership settled on the combination of a hybrid gasoline and electric powered propulsion system as the most promising approach. But by 1997, the car companies began to resist expending their resources to develop even a prototype for such a vehicle. Vice President Gore, who had been in charge of the  PNGV program since its inception, decided to meet with the Big Three CEOs to make sure they did not forget their  past commitments. The answer from Detroit was emphatic: profits were coming from SUVs and heavy-duty trucks, not cars. Gore countered that argument by offering to trade the administration’s support for tougher regulations on the permissible amount of sulfur content in the diesel fuels that would power some of the new hybrid SUVs, if the car companies would join in expanding the scope of the PNGV plan to include SUVs, the very product they said the marketplace was asking for. Gore suggested each company produce a concept SUV by 2002 and three production prototypes by 2006, capable of getting 80 mpg. He also suggested they advance the mass production goal for cars to 2002 by deploying a 60 mpg five passenger sedan in 2002 rather than waiting for an 80 mpg version in 2004. 

Ford’s Peter Pestillo and his UAW ally, Steve Yokich, quickly replied, “no way.” Pestillo maintained, “We need much more time than that to make them cost competitive.”  Not all of the auto executives were blind to the challenge. General Motors’ Vice-Chairman, Harry Pearce had been the driving force behind GM’s ill-fated EV1 electric car experiment. And William Clay “Bill” Ford, Jr., great grandson of the company’s founder and Chairman of its Board of Directors envisioned building  a 21st century version of the Model T that would be environmentally friendly as well as inexpensive. Gore asked the companies to respond to his suggestions by September 1998, the fifth anniversary of PNGV.  

But it wasn’t until May of 1999, that the auto company CEOs joined the Vice President to settle the issue of SUVs and PNGV.  Gore began the meeting, held in a back room at the Detroit airport, by suggesting that developing these products could enhance the industry’s image as well as each company’s individual brands.  Ford's Pestillo asked for still more time to consider the idea: “While we love the progress we are making in PNGV as it’s currently constituted, it’s not yet clear to us that the technologies we have been working on apply to the design of an SUV.”  But Pearce used the platform (basic body design) issue raised by Ford to make Gore’s point. He sketched a future auto industry where the line between cars and trucks would not be as clear, describing what we know today as “crossovers”.  It might therefore be wrong, he suggested, for PNGV to be limited to just one platform. 

Gore took the opening and suggested the companies think about what such an announcement might mean to the industry’s image and their individual brands. “It’s not just the substance of the issue you need to consider. You also need to think about the symbolism of the decision. Putting SUVs into the PNGV project would change the public’s perception of where you are going in the future.”  When Pestillo attempted to return to his original arguments, he was overridden on the spot.  GM said, “If you will include lean burn technology (for diesel SUV’s) into the project that might work.” Gore responded, “Let’s work on this as a package.”

Recognizing the breakthrough they had just achieved, the participants began to think about what the future might look like if they formed a true partnership -- not too dissimilar from what is being contemplated now under the terms of the automotive industry loan. Gore said he would put his personal reputation behind such an agreement, which the press would think of as a “Nixon goes to China” event, garnering the auto industry a great deal of positive press. 

But when it came time for the true test of their commitment to this new partnership, the autos blinked. The Vice President suggested they sign off on a press release, conveniently drawn up before the meeting started, announcing the inclusion of SUVs in an expanded PNGV project. The CEOs argued for a less definitive announcement stating that they would address the issue of highly fuel efficient SUVs within the context of the PNGV partnership, but not commit to any specific goals for their production. This less-than-definitive agreement barely made it to page B4 of the Wall Street Journal the next day and was generally ignored by the public the participants were hoping to impress.

Unfortunately for America, General Motors then decided to go in almost the opposite direction. Rick Wagoner, who became General Motors' CEO in June 2000, chose to pursue an SUV-centered strategy that won big profits for a brief period. Since then, however, GM stock has plunged 95%, from $60 per share to just under $4 today. General Motors, which has lost $70 billion since 2005, has seen its market share cut in half.  Seven years after the fateful auto summit with Al Gore, when asked what decision he most regretted, Wagoner told Motor Trend magazine, “ending the EV1 electric car program and not putting the right resources into PNGV. It didn’t affect profitability but it did affect image.” [emphasis added].

His lack of commitment to the type of automobile industry that PNGV envisioned ultimately led to his downfall with the Obama Administration now demanding his resignation as part their plan to save GM.

The importance of a company’s public image or brand value has never been greater than in this new civic era, where the lines between democratic decision-making and private sector planning are becoming increasingly blurred. The organizing cry of Boomer feminists was “the personal is political.”

The paragraph from above bears repeating: 

But when the government becomes a major stockholder in private enterprises, the brand becomes political. And as General Motors learned to its regret, when a company’s brand is as damaged as badly as the Republican Party’s is now, the chances of it prevailing in any debate about the automotive industry’s future is greatly diminished. Very aware of the public tsunami of anger over AIG bonuses, Wall Street excesses and public perception of corruption and lack of accountability, President Obama is not in a forgiving mood. He has made clear the domestic automobile industry has to be seen as a contributor in ending America’s dependence on foreign oil and improving our environment to secure his support. Almost exactly ten years since the debate at the Detroit airport, as a price for its financial support, the federal government will in fact be telling at least General Motors which vehicles to produce for its customers.  Given that arrangement, both parties to this newest partnership need to find “win-win” solutions for the industry’s future that match the optimism and civic spirit of the Millennial generation who will have to pay for the results of their decisions.

Bipartisanship. Other than "stimulus" or "bailout," perhaps no word has been written or spoken more often by politicians and pundits alike in Washington since the inauguration of Barack Obama. Commentators have generally characterized President Obama's attempts to engage Republicans as almost completely unsuccessful, while Republicans have derided his efforts as charming but ineffective, especially in light of the more partisan approach of his party’s Congressional leadership. Liberals such as Thomas Frank dismissed bipartisanship as a "silly Beltway obsession," calling it "the most cynical stance possible."

For his part, the President told columnist E.J. Dionne that the almost complete rejection of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by congressional Republicans reflected a combination of genuine "core differences between Democrats and Republicans" and an opportunistic attempt to "enforce conformity" and "reinvigorate their base." Obama then outlined the limits of his good will in a phrase sure to be repeated as the debate continues: "You know, I'm an eternal optimist. That doesn't mean I'm a sap."

While some of this is just typical Washington politics, there is more to the argument over bipartisanship than mere gamesmanship. American politics has moved to a new era, one in which basic public attitudes toward government and the norms by which political activity is conducted and judged have been altered sharply and profoundly. Spurred as always by the emergence of a large and dynamic new generation, this makeover or realignment has changed almost everything about American politics, including the very meaning and practice of "bipartisanship."

The most striking evidence of just how much things have changed was the extraordinary exchange between the President, congressional leaders from both houses and parties, and leaders from the private sector, both business and labor, at the White House Summit on "Fiscal Sustainability." The entire event was deliberately choreographed by President Obama to be demonstrably bipartisan and televised for the public to see. The dialogue between the President and Members of Congress suggested some principles of an approach to governing that can best be described as "positive partisanship." It is the way in which bipartisanship will be exercised in the new civic era that began with the election and inauguration of Barack Obama. The President himself summarized how this new approach should work, responding to U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who asked him to take the lead in telling Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats to be inclusive in their approach to developing legislation: "I do agree that the majority has an obligation to try and be as inclusive as they can, but the minority has to be constructive in return. The minority has to come up with their own ideas and not just want to blow things up." Exactly.

In the 40-year long "idealist" era that just ended, bipartisanship reflected the circumstances of a nation dominated by the unflinchingly ideological and profoundly fractured Baby Boomer Generation. Within the electorate, and especially among Boomers, there were approximately an equal number of Republicans and Democrats and, at times, more independents than either. Voters were almost always sharply divided along the demographic lines of gender and ethnicity. In 14 of the 20 Congresses during the era, different parties controlled the presidency and at least one house of Congress, something favored by the American public in attitude surveys throughout the period. As a result, major alterations in public policy were rare and institutional gridlock was the rule rather than the exception.

Historically, in previous idealist eras, "bipartisanship" meant seeking the lowest common denominator to bridge the differences between ideological extremes. During most of the idealist era between the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 and Abraham Lincoln in 1860, attempts to find a literal mathematical midpoint between the slave states and free states were the rule. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 divided the territory acquired in the Louisiana Purchase into free states north of latitude 36° 30' and slave states south of that line. Later, new states entered the Union in pairs, one slave and one free state at a time. A Whig politician, Henry Clay, gained the nickname "the Great Compromiser" for his efforts to achieve those middle ground solutions.

In the idealist era that has just ended, political leaders, especially Democrats, were often forced to return to the bipartisan model of that earlier era. Bill Clinton, certainly the more successful of the two Democrats elected to the presidency between 1968 and 2004, often pursued an approach of "triangulation" between the ideological liberals of his own party and the conservatives of the opposition Republicans. "Centrist" Democratic groups (the very term obviously implying middle ground positioning) sought a "Third Way" between the ideological and partisan ends of the political spectrum. Party liberals often excoriated Clinton and the "centrist" Democrats for their ideological impurity. But the efforts to seek midpoint bipartisan policies made sense in a politically divided idealist era, especially one in which the opposition party held the presidency most of the time and divided government was the norm.

But in 2008, America moved to a new political era and everything changed, including the meaning of bipartisanship, as the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression pushed the country into another civic era. In this environment, the American public, which had preferred divided government during the previous idealist era, now endorses unified government. A CNN survey conducted immediately after the 2008 general election indicated that a clear majority (59%) favored the idea of the Democrats controlling both elective branches of the federal government. Only 38 percent said that one-party rule was a bad idea. The public used a clearly civic era rationale to explain its changed attitude, telling Wall Street Journal pollsters that when the same party controls both the presidency and Congress, "it will end gridlock in Washington and things will get done." A recent CBS/New York Times survey confirmed the desire for decisive action across the institutional lines of a newly unified government. A clear majority (56%) wants President Obama to pursue the policies he promised in the campaign rather than working in a bipartisan way with Republicans (39%). By contrast, an even larger majority (79%) wants congressional Republicans to work in a bipartisan way with the President rather than sticking to Republican policies.

Faced with the need to deal with the deep national crisis that triggered the birth of the civic era, the majority of Americans no longer have the time or tolerance for the partisan and ideological rancor that fractured the political process and produced gridlock in the previous idealist era. If nothing else, the public expects calm, courteous, and polite discussion that focuses more on possible solutions and less on defining differences and distinctions. That tone was exemplified by the President as he conducted the Q&A with the Summit participants -- listening carefully to what they had to say, agreeing or disagreeing with some comments but always in a civil, and in some cases self-deprecating, way that made it impossible for the participants to engage in their usual hot-button rhetoric.

Beyond demanding a new tone in political discourse, the public is also expressing its desire for decisive action with the majority party, currently the Democrats, having primary responsibility for governing. At the Summit, the President underlined some of the philosophical differences between the parties when discussing the question of individual tax rates or levels of overall revenue. But he made clear by his control of the session what he had told some Republicans earlier: "We won." He acknowledged both that the electorate had asked Democrats to take the lead in developing and implementing policies to deal with the major issues facing the nation and that he wanted the Republicans to play a role in finding the answers so long as they participated in a "constructive" fashion.

This offer to engage puts the GOP in a quandary. It can choose to retain its ideological purity and hope to avoid blame if Democratic decisions turn out to be ineffective or harmful, but in doing so it is denying itself any role policymaking during Obama’s presidency. Furthermore, such posturing is already creating an image in the public’s mind of Republicans being too political and obstructionist.

Alternatively, the GOP can resurrect the "Ev and Charlie Show" from the days of Lyndon Johnson when those two Republican congressional leaders participated in the policymaking process as a junior partner. If the Republicans choose this approach, they may leave themselves open to charges, similar to those leveled by Newt Gingrich at Republican congressional leaders when he first arrived in Congress, that they are a pale "me too" reflection of the Democrats, without any guiding principles of their own. But the approach does produce results. In the 1960s, Everett Dirksen and Charles Halleck collaborated with LBJ to provide the crucial votes on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The decisive support of Republican Senators Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter for the recently enacted economic recovery act may be an unofficial and limited reflection of this approach early in the new civic era.

Overall, however, the GOP seems inclined to avoid collaborating with Democrats in order to stay true to its idealist era ideology. While that may well promote party unity and discipline, from the perspective of enhancing the Republican brand, it seems to be a major error.

In  a recent Daily Kos survey, clear majorities had favorable opinions of the President (67%) and the Democratic Party (53%). Favorable attitudes toward congressional Democrats (44%), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (39%), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (34%) were not nearly as high. But, the favorable ratings received by the Democrats were substantially above those given to the Republican Party (27%), congressional Republicans (17%), John Boehner (13%), and Mitch McConnell (19%). Moreover, since the first of the year, favorable ratings of the Democratic leaders and the Democratic Party have remained stable or even increased, while those of the Republicans have declined.

In 2008, the American people chose the Democratic Party to take the lead in confronting and resolving the grave problems facing the nation. They are expecting a decisive, civic-oriented response from President Obama. The Republican Party is left with the options of either joining the struggle or being left behind. Ultimately, both parties behavior will be shaped and judged by a new definition of what it means to exercise positive partisanship in a new era.

Quotes from random famous people who believe in volunteering and community service: 

We make a living by what we do, but we make a life by what we give -- Winston Churchill

The miracle is this - the more we share, the more we have -- Dr. Spock (Star Trek doctor, not baby doctor, aka Leonard Nimoy)

No matter how big and powerful government gets, and the many services it provides, it can never take the place of volunteers -- Ronald Reagan 

Everyone can be great because anyone can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't even have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve... You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love... -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

This week was a great one for national service, one of the cornerstones of the young Administration of President Barack Obama and a top priority for the First Lady. The U.S. House of Representatives yesterday -- by a rare, massively bipartisan vote -- passed the GIVE Act (Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education) sponsored by U.S. Rep. George Miller. There were a few dissenters who opposed the legislation, arguing that the bill would hurt groups like the Boy Scouts because the volunteers under the legislation would be paid. The horror: boosting the economy, helping kids pay for college and helping others. 

Don't worry: a Senate Committee this week reviewed a similar bill in that chamber sponsored by U.S. Sens. Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. The bill has a much simpler name -- the Serve America Act -- and is expected to pass easily early next week.

According to the New York Times:

The House voted Wednesday to approve the largest expansion of government-sponsored service programs since President John F. Kennedy first called for the creation of a national community service corps in 1963.

The legislation, which passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 321 to 105, would more than triple the number of service positions by expanding Americorps and creating volunteer programs focused on education, health care, clean energy and veterans. The total number of positions would grow to 250,000 from 75,000 now in AmeriCorps.

Earlier this month, I wrote about the plan to introduce the bill and the story of how Michelle Obama made it all happen. On Tuesday of this week, the FLOTUS was at a rally on the National Mall to celebrate the 30th anniversary of YouthBuild, a public serviice organization.

National service is near and dear to us here at NDN. Morley Winograd and Mike Hais, NDN's two newest Fellows and authors of the critically acclaimed Milllennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube & the Future of American Politics, have done extensive research on the values and outlooks of Millennials, the largest U.S. generation ever.

Unlike the preceding idealist generations, the Baby Boomers and Gen Xers, Millennials are a civic generation. As Morley and Mike wrote in December 2008 in "Reinforcing Obama's Millennial Army:"

According to Harvard University’s Institute of Politics, almost 60 percent of Millennials are “personally interested in engaging in some form of public service to help the country.” The ethos of service among Millennials is strongly supported regardless of gender or party affiliation. While many of those surveyed see public service as working for government, or even running for office, there is no reason to channel the generation’s enthusiasm solely into these more politically oriented activities. Instead, the incoming Obama Administration should create an entity to help Millennials find ways to rebuild all of America’s civic institutions.

It's no coincidence that Millennials voted for Obama by a more than 2:1 margin. Now it's payback time and Obama's making good.

Morley and Mike are actually in DC today to celebrate the launch of the new, updated paperback version of their critically acclaimed book. During the forum we held here at NDN, they were asked about Millinnials and national service.

As Morley and Mike have said and written before:

Millennials are of an archetype labeled "civic" by the seminal generational theorists William Strauss and Neil Howe. Like all other civic generations throughout American history, Millennials are defined by their strong desire to advance the welfare of the entire group and, by extension, all of society. The willingness of Millennials to help make things better was reflected in their enthusiastic reaction to Obama’s call during the campaign for a program aimed at young people that would help them pay for college in exchange for two years of public service, either in the military or one of the federal civilian service organizations. While the financial concerns of a generation heavily burdened by educational debt may have partially accounted for the loud applause this idea always generated, there is far more to it than self-interest.