The problems of today will not go away if we just sweep them under the rug and ignore them. They will only get worse. We cannot rely on those bound by special interests or protecting their turf to enact great changes and create a new order of justice and fairness. We need the unjaded youth, with their energy, optimism, and sense of purpose, to lead the world out of the mess it is in and toward the full potential of mankind.

On January 6, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave a famous speech describing what he called “the Four Freedoms”:

> Freedom of speech and expression

> Freedom to worship

> Freedom from want

> Freedom from fear

The Four Freedoms are still hugely important. But based on the progression of our society and technology, we need to accompany them with the Four Fundamental Rights:

> Right to health—an unspoiled environment, good nutrition, and affordable healthcare

> Right to a good education

> Right to clean, affordable energy

> Right to information, including computing power and unfettered Internet access

In the contemporary world, the Four Fundamental Rights are needed for people to have the opportunity to live life to the fullest and contribute to society to the best of their ability. Making them a reality for all should be part of the Millennial agenda.

Determined to find their own solutions to the major problems we face, and convinced that their unprecedented levels of education and technological prowess will enable them to do so, Generation We shares a social orientation that might best be described in terms of what they have left behind. Speaking in broad terms, Generation We is post-ideological, post-partisan, and post-political.

They are post-ideological because they are uninterested in learning about and defending the “conservative” or “liberal” approaches to the problems our country faces. Instead, they are pragmatic, open-minded, and innovation-oriented, eager to experiment with new solutions no matter where they may come from and no matter what political orientation they may be associated with.

They are post-partisan because, although they lean Democratic, they are disgusted with what they perceive as the narrowness, pettiness, and stagnation that often characterize both major parties. Though they are open to the possibility of a third party, the Millennials are far more interested in getting beyond party identification altogether and in focusing on cooperative efforts to make America and the world a better place.

They are post-political because they are fed up and bored with the interest-group conflicts, identity-based appeals, and power-seeking maneuvers they see as dominating the public arena. More tolerant and accepting than any previous generation, Generation We is ready to call a halt to “culture wars” that pit people of different religions, races, ethnicities, regions, cultures, values, and sexual orientations against one another for political gain. They believe that all of us—not only all Americans, but all humans around the planet—will ultimately share the same destiny, and therefore must find ways to work together for the common good. And they stand ready to lead the effort.

Last night President Obama addressed the nation with a plan for a buildup of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.  In his speech he said “our security is at stake” and used the speech to announce his intentions to add 30,000 troops to be deployed to Afghanistan.  This blog post is not so much to comment on President Obama’s decision but rather to offer insight into how young Americans feel about war and foreign policy.

Generation We strongly believes in a cooperative, multilateral approach to foreign policy and solving global problems. The Millennials already see themselves as part of an interconnected planet linked by the Internet and other technologies that are integral parts of their lives. Tolerant and accepting of different cultures, they consider isolationism contrary to their social and political mores. Further, deeply influenced by what they perceive as a failed U.S. response to the terror attacks of 9/11 and a disastrous war in Iraq, they are ready to jettison the unilateral approach to world affairs that has characterized the far right, the neoconservatives, and the Bush Administration.

Generation We seems more oriented toward a multilateral and cooperative foreign policy than their elders. Pew Values data show that 18- to 25-year-old Millennials in 2002–03 were split down the middle on whether military strength is the best way to ensure peace, while older adults endorsed this idea 61 to 35.

In 2004 Pew data, only 29 percent of 18- to 25-year-old Millennials believed that “using overwhelming force is the best way to defeat terrorism,” compared to 67 percent who thought “relying too much on military force leads to hatred and more terrorism.” By contrast, those 26 and over were much more closely split (49–41). In addition, 62 percent

of 18- to 25-year-olds believe the United States should take into account the interests of its allies even if it means making compromises with them, compared to 52 percent of their elders.

Furthermore, in November 2004 Democracy Corps polling, 57 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds (Note: Only the 18- to 26-year-olds in this group qualify as Millennials.) believed that America’s security depends on building strong ties with other nations, compared to just 37 percent who believed that, “bottom line,” America’s security depends on its own military strength. This was the most pro-multilateralist sentiment of any age group.

Moreover, when the same question was asked of 18- to 29-yearolds in 2007 in the Greenberg Millennial Survey (GMS,) when all members of that age group were Millennials, sentiment was even stronger on the multilateral side. In that survey, 69 percent said that America’s security depends on building strong ties with other nations, compared to only 30 percent who thought that America’s security depends on its own military strength.

More than any other recent generation, Generation We rejects dogma and propaganda that pits one race or nation against another. Boundaries mean little to them, especially in comparison to their idealistic vision of a peaceful world. Having lived much of their lives in a nation at war, they yearn for a united planet in which the environment is being cleaned up and resources that might be squandered on arms and warfare are devoted instead to creating a prosperous, secure world. Generation We wants the same opportunity previous generations had to raise their families in peace, and given the opportunity they will vote, organize, and act in support of that objective.

They worry about global warming and believe strongly that we need to move away from dependence on fossil fuels and embrace the need for major investments in new energy technologies. In fact, one of the strongest elements of Millennials’ generational identity is making environmental protection a top priority—two-thirds said their generation is more likely than earlier generations to have this orientation.

Not only does Generation We embrace the cause of environmental protection and a new energy paradigm, they have a real sense of urgency about it. For example, in the Greenberg Millennials Study (GMS), 74 percent say, “We must make major investments now to innovate the next generation of nonfossil fuel based energy solutions,” compared to just 26 percent who say, “We should continue on our current path, gradually shifting the mix of sources used to meet our energy needs.” In addition, 94 percent agreed that “our country must take extreme measures now, before it is too late, to protect the environment and begin to reverse the damage we have done.” Seventy-four percent say this situation is either a “crisis that our country must address immediately” or a major problem.

In light of these views, it should come as no surprise that Generation We is highly supportive of ambitious ideas for changing our paradigm on energy and the environment. (Such ambitious ideas also closely track their penchant for innovation, collective social movements, and optimism.) For example, the following proposed solution received an average effectiveness rating of 7, where 10, the highest rating, represents extremely effective in dealing with that challenge and 0, the lowest rating, represents not at all effective in dealing with that challenge. Moreover, 71 percent gave it a rating of between 6 and 10 and about half (49 percent) rated it between 8 and 10 on the effectiveness scale.

Launch a concerted national effort, similar to the Apollo Program that put a man on the moon, with the goal of moving America beyond fossil fuels and inventing the next generation of energy, based on new technologies such as hydrogen or fusion.  This aggressive plan would require a huge national investment but would produce millions of new jobs, could dramatically reduce environmental damage, and free us from our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil.

Given the scale of the proposed solution, this is an impressive response to which national leaders must pay attention.

Evidence from other surveys is consistent with the GMS findings. According to the Pew Gen Next survey, Generation We overwhelmingly believes that the country should do “whatever it takes” to protect the environment, that stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost and that people should be willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment. They also, according to the Magid Associates 2006 survey of Millennials, were more likely than any other age group to favor environmental protection, even at the cost of economic growth.

Concern about global warming, as in the GMS, is also high. In the June 2007 Democracy Corps poll of Millennials, 61 percent thought that “global warming represents an immediate threat and we need to start taking action now,” rather than “global warming represents a long-term threat and we need to study the problem before taking drastic action.”

A quest to develop the next generation of energy sources also seemed to engage the focus group participants more personally than most of the other big challenges presented to them. In keeping with the Millennials’ view that innovation, entrepreneurship, collective action, and advanced technology are the  best ways to solve our biggest problems, they saw energy as an area within which they could really make a difference and where advancing American technology could potentially achieve something quite spectacular and alter the course of America’s future.

The political attitudes of Generation We reveal a distinct pattern that is markedly different from that of their immediate predecessors, the Gen Xers—the most politically conservative cohort in American history. Thanks to their open-mindedness and their overwhelming embrace of the greater good, Generation We is developing strongly progressive views on a wide range of issues and is poised to lead the most dramatic leftward political shift in recent American history.

On the political stage, Generation We is already beginning to make their influence felt. The oldest Millennials were eligible to vote for the first time in 1996. In their first few elections, Generation We has voted more heavily Democratic than other recent generations. For example, in 2002 (otherwise a terrible year for Democrats), Millennials (then 18- to 24-years old) voted Democratic by 49 to 47 percent. In 2004, Millennials age 18 to 24 favored Democrat John Kerry for president by 56 to 43 percent. (Polling data for the entire Millennial cohort aren’t available.) If young people ruled America, Kerry would have been elected with a landslide victory of 372 electoral votes to 166 for Bush. In 2006, Millennial voters (then 18- to 29-years old) favored Democrats for Congress by a margin of 60 to 38 percent. They were the swing vote role that delivered the Democratic takeover of Congress during that year’s midterm elections.

The Democratic leanings of Generation We extend beyond voting choices into party identification. According to the most recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (released in April, 2008), Americans age 18 to 29 identify themselves as Democrats (or “lean” Democratic) over Republicans by a 58 to 33 percent margin.

This is the largest progressive shift since the New Deal—the movement launched in the 1930s by Franklin D. Roosevelt that earned him four terms in the White House, a rewriting of the social contract between Americans and their government, and nearly a half-century of political dominance for the Democratic Party, buoyed by the loyalties of voters whose sensibilities were shaped by the politics of the New Deal. Thus, the progressive shift of Generation We isn’t going to be an important trend for one or two years or even one or two elections. It’s likely to shape American politics for several decades to come.

You might wonder whether the Democratic preferences of Generation We simply reflect their youth. After all, it’s a common folk belief that young people are generally liberal and gradually become more conservative as they get older. But that’s not the case. When we compare today’s Generation We with their predecessors the Gen Xers, we see a huge crash in Republican support. Back in the 1990s, when the Gen Xers were the same age as Generation We is today, they identified with the Republicans at a 55 percent rate. Those same Gen Xers, now in their thirties, continue to be the most Republican generation today.

The fact is that party identification and other voting behaviors formed in a generation’s twenties tend to persist for a lifetime, as demonstrated by many political science studies. This is good news for the Democratic Party. On Election Day in 2006, the exit polls showed the Democrats with a 12-point lead in party identification among 18- to 29-year-old voters. Polls taken since then typically give the Democrats even larger leads in party identification among this age group, as well as substantial leads in generic presidential and congressional voting intentions for 2008.

Of course, party preference is one thing—political attitudes are another. Does the Millennial leaning toward the Democratic party merely represent a swing in “brand preference” from one vaguely defined collection of positions to another—or does it reflect a real shift in attitudes?

My research demonstrates that the latter is true. In fact, Generation We is far more wedded to progressive political andsocial views than to the Democratic party. On issue after issue, Generation We favors progressive positions, even as they resolutely reject familiar labels, party banners, and ideological straitjackets. For example, in the GMS, fully 70 percent of respondents agreed with this statement:

Democrats and Republicans alike are failing our country, putting partisanship ahead of our country’s needs and offering voters no real solutions to our country’s problems.

And more Millennials surveyed described themselves as independents (39 percent) than either Democrats (36 percent) or Republicans (24 percent).

The fact is that the progressive shift of Generation We is not about party politics. It’s about a belief in the future; about embracing possibility and hope (the themes that have driven Barack Obama’s popularity among the young); and about rejecting the divisive rhetoric, penchant for social control, and protection of entrenched interests that young Americans identify with the conservative movement.

Members of Generation We see their friends coming home from war with permanent injuries; they find themselves unable to afford healthcare, to save for retirement, or to fill up their tanks with gas. They blame the right for these problems, and they see the obstinacy and narrow-mindedness of conservatives as being antithetical to their own optimism and spirit of innovation. So they reject the failed solutions of the right, even as they refuse to commit themselves wholeheartedly to any political party.

On Saturday November 7, 2009, just before midnight, the House of Representatives passed HR 3962, the Affordable Health Care For America Act on a bipartisan vote of 220-215.

Congress has attempted to “fix” heath care for the last thirty years. The last big generation of political activists, the Baby Boomers of the 1960s, got some things right and some things wrong. One of the things they got right was when they took to the streets in support of their most important goals—claiming civil rights for all Americans (especially African Americans) and ending the war in Vietnam.

Some of the giant demonstrations the Boomers mounted—with support, of course, from people of every generation—were crucial turning points in the evolution of popular opinion. Images of peaceful marchers in the South having fire hoses turned on them and police dogs sicced on them revealed to millions of Americans the brutality of the segregation regime and the need to support the aspirations of Black citizens for freedom. The unforgettable words of Martin Luther King, Jr., when he addressed 300,000 demonstrators during the 1963 March on Washington in his “I Have a Dream” speech have inspired generations of people around the world. The antiwar marches of the 1960s and 1970s, in which moms and dads, college students and homemakers, ministers and nuns, veterans and pacifists, and working men and women of every age participated, gradually convinced the people of America that the cause of peace was a universal one, not just the province of a few “pinkos” or “hippies.”

Of course, marching in the streets isn’t important for its own sake, although there is a value in simply getting people together to recognize and appreciate how large their numbers are and how great their potential power can be. Demonstrations must be smartly planned and creatively executed so as to maximize their publicity value, media appeal, and impact on public opinion. Millions of people around the world participated in protest marches against the impending Iraq War in February 2003, but those marches failed to even slow the rush to war, perhaps in part because the news media dismissed them as “Just business as usual”—the same kinds of marches they’d seen hundreds of times before.

My point is that one of the important challenges for the enormous creativity of Generation We will be to develop new forms of peaceful protest designed to be effective in today’s world of 24-hour saturated news coverage via cable TV and Internet. It won’t take a lot—just two or three people with a bit of media genius who can design events (even “publicity stunts”) that will attract as much interest\ and attention as, say, the latest escapades of Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton, and then the mobilization of caring Millennials in support of those events.

Children of the electronic media age, Generation We should use their media wisdom to spread the word about the causes they believe in. And—importantly—they need to remember the lesson taught by Gandhi and King: that an absolute commitment to nonviolence is a prerequisite for any movement that hopes to generate public support for a cause.

We do not condone violence of any nature in this movement. Peace begets peace, and violence creates hatred. We must move past that world of divisiveness to a new world of kindness and togetherness. But never forget—that doesn’t mean passivity in the face of evil. The willingness to take a public stand for what is right is the other essential legacy of Gandhi and King.

Paradoxically, members of Generation We are not quick to claim for themselves the mantle of being particularly active or politically engaged, even though they are, in fact, among the most involved young people in history. In our focus groups, many Millennials criticized their own generation as being “apathetic” or “materialistic.”

There are a number of possible explanations for this paradox.

One is that the Millennials are measuring their and their generation’s activism—actually high relative to earlier generations of young people—against the seriousness of the planetary problems they face and finding it wanting. They are worried that their generation has not yet launched the kind of social and political movement they see as necessary to address the major issues of our time. This attitude is a reflection of their strong sense of responsibility—and also a measure of their readiness to step forward when conditions are right and a clear agenda emerges for Millennials to rally around.

Negative media coverage of youth probably also plays a role. It is intriguing to note that although Millennials in the June 2007 Democracy Corps survey were overwhelmingly convinced (87 percent) that the word “materialistic” well-described people their own age, only 35 percent felt that term well-described themselves. Generation We as a group strongly condemns materialism even as they believe (or fear) it is rampant among their peers.

The fact is Generation We is ready to work for large-scale change and to support the kind of collective movement they consider necessary for such change to occur. Perhaps only such a movement—one that empowers individuals to become, in Gandhi’s words, “the change they wish to see in the world”—can overcome the barriers Millennials see as holding them and their generation back.

We’d argue that a movement aimed at engaging and mobilizing Generation We must build on the distinctive aspects of the Millennial personality: a view that overcoming tradition and innovating to create a better future is both necessary and a central strength of their generation; a wish to embody in their lives and actions the kind of change they are seeking to make; an unabashed willingness to use their economic power as consumers; a deep embeddedness in social networks; a clear-eyed assessment of the difficulties of change, which leads them to seek not just action but plans for successful action; and of course, an appreciation of the potential of the new technologies that have done so much to shape this generation.

In short, Generation We is becoming more active and increasingly ready to support a collective social movement that embraces both government and entrepreneurship focused on the greater good. Based on their numbers and their sense of urgency, once such a movement emerges it is certain to be large, powerful, and lasting.

First, whereas American Millennials are children of both the outsized Baby Boom generation and significant immigration from Latin America and Asia (which accounts, in large part, for their vast numbers), global Millennials are the offspring of a world in which fertility rates have generally been on the decline, especially in the develop in world. Nonetheless, the number of young people around the world who are currently under the age of 30 is still huge, more than half of the world’s population. In 2005, the median age of the world’s population was 28 and falling. Current estimates suggest that the number of people in the world in their twenties (which does not include the youngest Millennials, now 19 and 20 years old) is over 1.1 billion, or nearly 17 percent of the total population.

Second, in cultural and social terms, it seems likely that most non-U.S. Millennials are several years “younger” than their American counterparts. As generational scholars Neil Howe and William Strauss explain in their study Millennials Rising, this fits the differing historical circumstances they and their parents experienced in the post–World War II period. The affluence, security, and freedom that characterized life in the United States during the 1950s (and which shaped the world of the Baby Boomers) came later to Europe and Asia. Therefore, young people outside the United States are still catching up to Americans in terms of their social and cultural characteristics.

But they’re catching up fast. Thanks to the Internet and other global communications technologies, youth culture is rapidly becoming a planetary rather than national or regional culture. As Howe and Strauss put it (at a time when Generation We was still mostly in its early teens), “Millennials are today forging a mind-set borrowed from bits and pieces of their countries of origin. The amalgam is part Ricky Martin, part Harry Potter, part Lego, part Kwanzaa, and part Pokémon.”

The crucial point is Generation We around the world is an incredible force, and one that sees itself as a single, closely linked generation with much more in common than dividing them. They all watch TV together, go online together, and swap ideas and information continually. As a result, they will make crucial social and political decisions within a framework that is multicultural and planetary rather than nationalistic, making their combined global power even greater.

There’s no doubt we live in an era of accelerating crises-political, economic, environmental, biological, social, and spiritual. But there is a positive vision for the future we can offer the world, showing what our planet can be like once we confront and seize control of these crises and use them to reverse the destructive course we’ve been on. It’s a vision that incorporates the best traditions of Western civilization even as it embraces the need for dramatic change and revitalization in the face of unprecedented challenges.

Sociologist Paul Ray, whose work we cited earlier in our discussion of the “cultural creatives,” has written insightfully about the kind of new vision that is essential to inspire the change we seek. In one essay, Ray describes “the Wisdom needed for our time” in terms of opposed dualities. According to Ray, the Wisdom our world needs includes:

The wise elder’s long-term perspectives and reasoning: what is good for all the children? Not short-term, immature, selfish, greedy, power-mad perspectives and reasoning.

Linking future-oriented perspectives and concerns to our deep collective past, and drawing from its themes for legitimacy. Not just focused on our shallow past and present to the exclusion of our evolution into the future.

Showing maximally inclusive concerns across all kinds of people and all species, for humans and nature alike. Not narrowly focused on particular tribes, traditions, or humanity only, and not exclusion, or ignorance, of nature.

Linking spiritual realization and concerns to practical action to the needs of “the planet and the people and species on it.” Not otherworldly, abstruse, or lacking relationship to people’s real concerns in their “life worlds,” and in their ecologies.

Placing crucial emphasis on the growth and transformation of both persons and the culture, both organizations and life worlds, both spirit and civilization, both local and planetary. Not static ideals, not moral absolutes lacking reference to human growth/transformation; and not focused just on individual change, lacking reference to cultural change issues.

Concerns of the elders of humanity for the well-being of all the children of the world, now and in the longer term futher adolescent consciousness typical of humanity today.

Ray’s vision of a planetary “wisdom civilization” is one we think today’s Millennials are ready to respond to and work toward. It’s just one version of the kind of overarching vision we need to inspire and empower young people and those who would support them-a vision that embraces and transcends individual agenda items and embodies long-term goals far greater than any checklist of particular political or economic projects, no matter how ambitious.

It’s also a vision that embraces the need for personal sacrifice-not in a mood of joyless self-denial or rejection of pleasure, but out of a desire to transcend the petty and the purely personal in favor of bigger, broader social goals.

Many commentators have decried the narrow and selfish perspective of the Bush administration, and more broadly, the conservative power structure currently ruling the United States. Noted particularly is its failure to call for any personal contribution to the supposedly epochal “war on terror” other than urging Americans to “borrow money and go shopping”; its insistence on massive tax cuts even as overseas wars are draining the treasury and incurring enormous future debts; and its willful blindness to the need for long-term thinking about the energy and environmental crises in favor of short-term fixes such as drilling for oil in the Alaskan wilderness.

Generation We rejects this kind of petty, self-centered thinking and are ready to embrace the need for dramatic personal and social efforts in support of worthwhile goals. In the GMS, 78 percent of the Millennials we surveyed agreed with the statement, I am willing to personally make significant sacrifices in my own life to address the major environmental, economic, and security challenges facing our country, and fully 91 percent agreed that In our country, each generation has a responsibility to wisely use the country’s resources and power so that they can provide the next generation a secure, sustainable country that is stronger than the one they inherited.

Clearly the sense of responsibility and personal mission is already in place. All that’s lacking is the vision, the will, and the leadership.

Generation We is acutely aware of the gradually spreading availability of higher education, both within the United States and around the world, and they view this as a trend with potentially enormous beneficial impact. It’s something they see at work in their own lives. In fact, many participants in our focus groups spoke with pride about how they’ve enjoyed greater educational opportunities than their parents or grandparents could have dreamed of, and how this has opened doors in terms of lifestyle and career that otherwise would have remained forever shut.

In a broader sense, Generation We is benefiting from an emerging sense of unity among the world’s peoples as cultures around the planet become shared and linked. It’s something they can see, hear, and feel happening all around them. They see “world music” as their music. Problems of poverty, disease, and hunger in Africa and Asia are their problems. Opportunities for women in traditional societies to finally control their own destinies and for children to receive the nutrition, healthcare, and schooling they need to live full lives are their concerns.

This movement toward planetary integration can have either a negative or a positive impact. If it is controlled by plunderers, financial speculators, arms makers, megamedia, or energy companies for their own benefit, its overall impact will be negative, resulting in a world where individuality and indigenous cultures are homogenized or replaced by corporate-controlled replicas and where the wealth of local economies is channeled for purely private gain. But if the peoples of the world, especially the youth, insist that it be used for the benefit of all, its impact will be incredibly positive.