That is, in essence, her response to Thomas Friedman's recent Op-Ed in the New York Times. Friedman calls the twenty-somethings Generation Q...too quiet, too online, for its own good, and for the country's own good.
What about the climate? What about the deficit? What about social security? Instead of focusing our attention on studying abroad, Friedman says the younger generation needs 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.
Rather than counter-blaming Friedman and his "intellectual literati" for not presenting shaking their heads at us like a bunch of disappointed schoolmarms for not imitating his heyday, here is a better question: How do we sift through all this paralyzing information that has left our generation "overeducated and underutilized".
Let's turn to something I know something about to illustrate the point: seafood. Many in my generation are more concerned with what they consume than any prior generation (mostly because consumption is greater than ever before). In consulting the Monterey Bay Seafood Watch wallet card you'll find tuna listed 12 different times (i.e., species, method of fishing, country) between the three columns of best choices, good alternatives, and avoid. But most tuna consumers are not aware that there are nine tuna species and often do not know the meaning of "troll-caught." Though these complexities reflect the reality of the global seafood market, they also overwhelm the average tuna shopper. And of course there are the mixed and re-mixed messages I wrote about in this piece on Chilean sea bass.
With so much information, what matters? How can we keep things simple? To the extent that we live in a democracy, this is a simple, important message: VOTE. (For seafood, there are simple messages available, too.)
Since 1972, overall voter turnout among Americans has declined about 2 percentage points while turnout among Americans 25 years and older has declined about 4 percentage points and the youth vote 18-to-24-year-olds has declined 13 percentage points. Given his subsequent Op-Ed Save the Planet, Vote Smart, Generation Q will have to turn out in high proportion in 2008 or risk Friedman redefining them as Generation L (Lazy). But would Martin blame Generation L's low voter turnout on too much information, too?
- Log in to post comments
I'm afraid it may be time to talk about GenerationS P, as in plateau, as in Courtney Martin's point is at least 15 years old at this point.
I remember in 1992 talking with a group of undergrads who recalled their high school years as being simply an over-stimulated, over-loaded cramfest in which they tried to fulfill their parents expectations for them to accomplish an infinite number of activities in hopes of getting into a good college.
In short, it was 1992 and the prevailing feeling among THAT generation, 15 years before Ms. Martin, was that they were too over-whelmed to care much. Its time to accept that the youth experiences of the 1960's (a time when brains were under-stimulated and seeking knowledge rather than feeling bombarded by it) are long, long gone. The world has changed, what are you gonna do about it (other than write pithy editorials)?
"To the extent that we live in a democracy, this is a simple, important message: VOTE."
Voting only lets us signal our preferences in the most diffuse and inaccessible of ways, at least in a political system like Canada's. When I vote for a particular candidate for MP, I could be motivated by any of a huge number of considerations. For instance:
1) I chose this local candidate because the local candidate of a party I prefer was unacceptable.
2) I chose this candidate because I support the most elements of their partys policy.
3) I chose this candidate because their party is my favourite among those with a chance of winning.
4) I chose this candidate because all other party platforms contain something unacceptable
...
Faced with the layering of such considerations, it is impossible for a candidate, party, or government to know what a vote means, when it comes to something as specific as a climate or fishery policy.
Voting is a mechanism for letting us throw out the corrupt and the discredited. In order to actually help shape policy as engaged citizens, we need to do a lot more.
My experience is quite different from Milan's. I have found that elected officials have a very good sense of what motivates their voters. And if they don't they either expend more energy and money to figure it out or the get fired.
I agree voting is a powerful mechanism to throw out the corrupt and the discredited. However, engaging in the political process ia an equally powerful mechanism to elect leaders who will champion needed public policy change. Yet, engaging in the process can (and should be) much more than simply voting.
I agree with Randy. Yet we don't have to be disheartened. Each generation has found their unique way to impact our society and political process. Often for the better. I heard about a recent (and excellent) article in The Harvard Business Review that analysed this premise. Anyone familiar with it?
There is probably too much information out there. I also contend there is a whole lot information that we truly are better off not knowing, like which celebrity person just bought what "green" outfit. It's all about priority. If you truly are interested in or care about a subject, you WILL try to learn a whole lot about it.
Friedman is clearly in his "electing politicians is the only thing that matters" phase. As I recall he also had a "we must go to Iraq" phase in 2003. While some of what he says makes perfect sense, I still choose to listen with a grain of salt.
I'm afraid it may be time to talk about GenerationS P, as in plateau, as in Courtney Martin's point is at least 15 years old at this point.
I remember in 1992 talking with a group of undergrads who recalled their high school years as being simply an over-stimulated, over-loaded cramfest in which they tried to fulfill their parents expectations for them to accomplish an infinite number of activities in hopes of getting into a good college.
Voting only lets us signal our preferences in the most diffuse and inaccessible of ways, at least in a political system like Canada's. When I vote for a particular candidate for MP, I could be motivated by any of a huge number of considerations.
Faced with the layering of such considerations, it is impossible for a candidate, party, or government to know what a vote means, when it comes to something as specific as a climate or fishery policy.
Ms. Martin, was that they were too over-whelmed to care much. Its time to accept that the youth experiences of the 1960's (a time when brains were under-stimulated and seeking knowledge rather than feeling bombarded by it) are long, long gone.
Each generation has found their unique way to impact our society and political