The Progressive Generation Gap

Markos Moulitsas (as in Kos) raised a good point at the end of last week, reporting on a three day conference of "various leaders of the budding Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy." After some pointed comments about the usual infantile leftism of people who can apparently still say "visualize world piece" without ironic air quotes, he notes:

But there was another weird dynamic at play -- this one generational. There were leaders, all of them older, of extremely prominent liberal interest groups. We're talking labor, environmental, economic justice, things like that. And some of them were genuinely awesome.

But there was a large contingent of them that were obsessed with one thing -- their pet issue. It was about them, them, them. Why wasn't their issue being addressed? Did they have to stay in some meeting if their issue wasn't being discussed? Etc.

Wow! Their self-centerdness and lack of interest in working together (unless it revolved around their issue) was breathtaking.

On the other hand, most of the younger activists at this retreat ran community-style groups. They weren't focused on any single issue, but on using the collective force of their communities to bear pressure on various issues.

I know some of the people who went to the same conference (actually, I got hold of the list and I know almost half of them), so I can put some faces on what Markos is talking about. It certainly doesn't surprise me.

In part, this is similar to the point I tried to make in my most recent take on "The Death of Environmentalism," in the American Prospect -- that the "policy literalism" of traditional advocacy just doesn't work anymore.

But Markos adds two dimensions to this. The first is that it's generational. He's certainly correct about that, and it makes perfect sense. I've recently noticed a similar dynamic, especially in the kind of smaller, more grass-rootsy and more truly left-wing groups such as the ones at this conference. Such groups tend to have an executive director. Usually a white guy, often somewhat over 50, who's put a lifetime into his cause. Never made a dime, the car he drives is still called a Datsun, he's entirely admirable. If he's in his mid- or late 50s, he started by registering voters in the South; if younger, he started in some Nader organization. He's probably a lawyer, started off thinking the courts could solve all problems but has since learned otherwise. He's been through the nuclear freeze movement, the Nicaragua obsession, the Reagan budget cuts, seen it all. He's entitled to be burnt-out, but isn't.

And then there's the rest of the staff. They typically range in age from 25-32, they're more racially diverse or biracial, extremely energetic, imaginative. Although more likely to have roots in identity politics, as Kos notes, they are more into community and organizing constituencies than promoting an issue, and they can be more collaborative, less turf-conscious. And, of course, they're experiences are totally different. They've never heard of David Stockman; if they've ever uttered the word "Nicaragua," it was with a short "i" and hard "c," just like it looks. Nader's just someone to vote for if you want to say fuck the system and elect Bush. If they go to law school, it will be so that they can be sure of making a living, not because they dream of being the next Thurgood Marshall. They have seen political success not so much in the liberal movements that the boomers are nostalgic for, but in the unity and motivate-the-base strategy of the current Republican party, and in the exciting communion of the Dean campaign.

It's easy to celebrate the younger generation, who do represent a long-overdue renewal of progressive energy and who sometimes do seem to get the current political situation better than the class of '68. But the political experience of this generation is much narrower, and for all the excitement of organizing communities, they don't yet have much to show for it. There's a lot to be learned from the people who now have a couple decades of activism and learning.

But one reason that these two groups often seem to be talking past each other is that there aren't very many people in between. There was almost no progressive activism on campus in the late Carter and Reagan years, which means that there are relatively few of us in our late-30s/early-40s in these organizations. That's a bridge generation that can be very useful. When you're 23, and your boss is 53, that's a big gap, literally a generation gap. That's dad. And generational differences such as the ones Markos noticed stand out starkly when there's no one who represents a little of both camps. Obviously, I'm exaggerating -- not only are there 40-year-olds with both attitudes, but there are 25 year olds and 55 year olds in both camps. But, generally, this perception corresponds to what I've seen in a great number of progressive organizations.

And then there's the issue Markos identifies of "organizing communities" as opposed to working an issue. This is another familiar distinction to me from the foundation world. The distinction between "organizing" and "policy" often seems much starker than it is. "Organizers" are devoted to street-level democracy, to helping people define problems for themselves and find their own solutions, and bringing voice to the political process. "Policy people" are devoted to understanding the issues, developing new approaches or critiquing conservative ones, and enlisting people to support those strategies. "Organizers" sometimes think "policy people" are arrogant, white, older, over-educated, trying to set people's agendas for them. Policy people think organizers are naive, sloppy, disconnected from real politcal power, and miss opportunities for change. Again, these are exaggerated stereotypes, but I've heard them from both sides. But it's yet another matter where people have different functions within a larger progressive system. Everyone's got their own strengths. And again, one needs bridges. Between organizers and policy people, the best bridge is the Center for Community Change. The most important task for the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, if there is one, is to find ways across the very real internal divides, which are divides of culture and attitude, not simple matters like different opinions about abortion, toward a common purpose.