Courtney Martin's web piece on today's generation of young liberals is one of the most honest and clear things I've read in a long time. Some paragraphs crystallize so clearly things I've thought a thousand times (the bit about the emptiness of modern protest in particular). I just wanted to add a few thoughts as someone who has had so many similar conversations and at times been pretty damn overwhelmed himself: It's not surprising that a more informed and in many ways more empowered generation has more trouble doing anything. The well-known paradox of choice is essentially that, when you give people more choices--be it flavors of jam or possible careers--they actually have more trouble making a decision and, in some cases, are less likely to make a choice at all. Give people a choice of twenty different ways to change the world, each with it's own sacrifices, possible disappointments, and the inevitable uncertainty over just how much good you'll be doing and it's no wonder some of them get so confused and flummoxed that they don't do much of anything. This, incidentally, is one reason Teach For America is uniquely effective at recruiting young people despite its deeply controversial approach to education reform. As I've discovered, its recruiting methods are far more aggressive than even most private sector companies. It thereby makes itself a very clear option for college graduates whereas other options that should be equally attractive (and are much more in need of fresh help) are much less easy to get into. Another reason we at least seem less active is that we're way more skeptical about our ability to effect change in the world than previous generations. This is good and bad. On the one hand, I'd argue we're in better touch with reality than say the students of the '60s (not that it was their fault necessarily). On the other, it takes a certain amount of overconfidence to have the courage to make real change. On the whole, I'd rather be skeptical and right than confident and wrong, but there are costs either way. In addition, I'm not quite sure we're more depressed about the world than earlier generations. We are, certainly, more aware of the problems, but on the the other hand we've also seen huge progress on a great number of things. Your mileage will vary. Regardless, I think choice is again a problem with a greater variety of problems as with a variety of solutions. Should I try and get involved in international development where western help is of uncertain value but the problems are obvious or should I stay in the US where I have a better idea of what to do, but there isn't as much absolute need? It's those kind of questions that are really overwhelming. Finally, I'm not as sure as Friedman and maybe Courtney that we really are doing less. Sure there are fewer marches and our work is less colorful (quieter as Friedman would have it)-- but more people work in nonprofits as a percentage of the population, there are more options for students who do want to make change, and, I'd argue, we're more likely to be effective when we do make change because we do have a better idea of what's going on in the world. Our activism may not be as fun and it may not be as obvious, but it might just be as successful. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be so skeptical about us just yet. --Sam Boyd
