Writing Homework Help

READ AND WATCH THE FOLLOWING. QUESTIONS POSTED AT THE BOTTOM. 3 CITATIONS

https://libro.eb20.net/Reader/rdr.aspx?b=209717387 chapter 8

http://apps.frontline.org/the-last-generation/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie9cACQnqew&t=6s

Copyright ⃝c 2012 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

0360-0572/12/0811-0119$20.00

Youth Political Participation: Bridging Activism and Electoral Politics

Dana R. Fisher

Department of Sociology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742; email: drfisher@umd.edu

Keywords

political engagement, social movements, Obama campaign, Organizing for America, Web 2.0

Abstract

What is the relationship between social movements and electoral poli- tics? Although the empirical reality of American politics has increasingly blurred the lines between activism and electoral politics, sociology has yet to explore these changes and provide theoretical and methodolog- ical tools to understand them. Focusing on the experience of young Americans, this review explores this relationship and outlines opportu- nities for future research. It is broken down into three sections. First, I review the main themes in the study of youth political participation in America. Second, using examples from the 2008 election, the article examines recent increases in youth participation. Third and finally, this article discusses the case of the Obama campaign, its transition into the Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America, and aspects of the 2012 election to highlight the complex relationship be- tween movements and electoral politics in America today. The paper concludes by highlighting opportunities for sociologists to bridge the connections between activism and electoral politics in new and mean- ingful ways.

119

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:119-137. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 71.114.103.117 on 08/09/12. For personal use only.

120 Fisher

INTRODUCTION: YOUTH AND POLITICS IN AMERICA

As the election year heats up, questions about the ways that American citizens participate in politics and civics reemerge as a topic of cen- tral concern to academics and politicians alike. Given the significant role that young people played in the campaign to elect Barack Obama the 44th president of the United States, the 2012 election cycle is poised to provide the next chapter in the story of a cohort of young people that numerous studies have found to be more selfish and less collectively minded than any previous generation (e.g., Eisner 2004, Twenge 2006, Bauerlein 2008, but see Zukin et al. 2006, Dalton 2008, Sander & Putnam 2010). In this review, I focus on the ways young people engage in politics in America—particularly through ac- tivism and electoral campaigns—calling out nu- merous opportunities for sociologists to bridge the connections between these relatively dis- connected themes and expand current research in important and meaningful ways.

By focusing on American youth, I aim to span the missed connection between electoral politics and social movements (McAdam & Tarrow 2010; see also Blee & Currier 2006). A handful of studies have explored aspects of the relationship between electoral politics and social movements (e.g., Andrews 1997, Burstein & Linton 2002, Earl & Schussman 2004, Meyer & Minkoff 2004; see also Amenta et al. 2010). In their work on the contemporary antiwar movement in the United States, for example, Heaney & Rojas (2007) focus on the role that political organizations play in this specific movement by mapping the connections of activists to the organizations that mobilized them. The authors find that individuals were mobilized to participate by various organiza- tions, from social movement organizations, to mainstream political organizations, to political parties and unions (Heaney & Rojas 2007). They conclude their study by stating that members of the movement, whom they call “movement-partisans,” successfully integrated “movement politics into a major party” (p. 454).

Although this study takes an important step toward bridging these conceptually distinct but empirically connected aspects of contemporary American politics, most research is consistent with the perspective summarized in Blee & Currier’s (2006) work on the 2004 election: “Social movement theory tends to regard elections either as black holes that absorb energy and attention away from noninstitu- tionalized political activities or as boosters that create opportunities for social movements by raising the overall level of political interest and activism” (p. 275; see also Heaney & Rojas 2007). In fact, most scholars agree with the recent claims by McAdam & Tarrow (2010), who state that “the relations between social movements and elections have seldom been specified in a systematic way that could set us on the road to predicting how movements affect elections and vice versa” (p. 529).

This review takes a step toward filling this gap by synthesizing the research on youth participation in activism and electoral cam- paigns. Specifically, I review the main themes in the study of youth political participation in America, which tends to focus on pathways to participation, the role of gender and race, and the ways that information and communications technologies are used by young people to participate in multiple aspects of the political process. My discussion spans the range of infor- mal and formal ways of participating in politics in America, from protesting, to campaigning, to voting. Then, using examples from the 2008 election, I discuss recent trends in youth political participation. The final section of this review discusses the 2008 Obama campaign and the upcoming 2012 election to highlight changes in contemporary politics in America as well as the myriad connections between activism and electoral politics, suggesting major opportunities for further research. The conclusion suggests that future research must focus on the lifecycle of the political process, tracing the full arc of contentious politics from protest in the streets to political maneuvers within the statehouse. Taking advantage of these opportunities, sociologists can bridge

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:119-137. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 71.114.103.117 on 08/09/12. For personal use only.

the gap between electoral campaigns and social movements in new and meaningful ways.

UNDERSTANDING GENERATIONAL SHIFTS IN YOUTH POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN AMERICA

Although this review focuses specifically on political participation in America, civic engagement in community activities and participation in politics are entangled in much of the scholarly work, which has received in- creasing attention in recent years. Of particular concern to researchers in the United States is the apparent withdrawal of citizens from political and social life in America. Contrary to earlier observations of the vibrant civic life of Americans (see particularly de Tocqueville 1966; see also Almond & Verba 1963, Wuthnow 1991, Ladd 1999, Schofer & Fourcade-Gourinchas 2001), much of this work finds that citizens have become discon- nected from one another and detached from the world around them (for a full discussion of social isolation in America, see McPherson et al. 2006). In the words of Putnam (2000, p. 402): “Americans today feel vaguely and uncomfortably disconnected” (see also Putnam 1995, Sander & Putnam 2010; but see Paxton 1999, Rotolo 1999, Fischer 2005). Similarly, in the introduction to the updated edition of their well-known work on individualism and commitment in American life, Bellah and associates (1996) find that public life in America is fading and that there is increasing pressure to disengage from civil society.

These conclusions have been corroborated by scholars who work on multiple aspects of the political system—from voting behavior (e.g., Nie et al. 1979, Reiter 1979, Verba et al. 1995, Piven & Cloward 2000, Levine & Lopez 2002, Eisner 2004, but see McDonald & Popkin 2001), to social capital, political trust, volun- teering, and participation more broadly defined (e.g., Almond & Verba 1963; Putnam 1995, 2000; Eliasoph 1998; see also Smith 1994). The results are, by no means, universal. Several

scholars have come to conflicting conclusions (e.g., Boyte & Kari 1996; Skocpol 1996, 2003; Weir & Ganz 1997; Paxton 1999; Rotolo 1999; Skocpol & Fiorina 1999; Eckstein 2001; Sirianni & Friedland 2001; Wuthnow 2004), in many cases focusing on the ways that Americans do engage civically. Some of these studies have looked at how disconnected individuals become civically engaged as a means of self-fulfillment (Lichterman 1996; Wuthnow 1991, 1998). Wuthnow (1991, p. 23), for example, finds that “individualism does not necessarily contradict holding altruistic values and engaging in a wide variety of caring and community-service activities” (see also Wuthnow 1998).

This debate is even more pronounced in discussions about young Americans, who have been unflatteringly compared to what Brokaw (1998) has called the “Greatest Generation.” In contrast to the generation that came of age during World War II, which was found to be highly engaged in a duty-based citizenship (see particularly Putnam 2000, Dalton 2008), more recent generations of Americans have been found to be less politically and civically engaged. Specifically, they are less likely to participate in various traditional political and civic activities, such as attending public meet- ings, writing their political representatives, and working for political parties (e.g., Putnam 2000; see also Easterlin & Crimmins 1991, Skocpol 1996, Dalton 2008). In addition, up until the 2000 election, youth voter turnout was decreasing at a higher rate than among the rest of the American population (see, e.g., Dalton 2008, Wattenberg 2008). These trends are mir- rored in more confrontational forms of politics (Wattenberg 2008, ch. 8). For example, in their study of American social movement participation over time, Caren and colleagues (2011, p. 147) conclude that “individuals born between 1960 and 1980 are not attending protests as much as earlier cohorts. This suggests that attending a protest represents a form of citizen engagement [that is] highly bounded by birth cohort, educational at- tainment, and political beliefs.” The authors find only a “slight resurgence of protesting”

www.annualreviews.org • Bridging Activism and Electoral Politics 121

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:119-137. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 71.114.103.117 on 08/09/12. For personal use only.

122 Fisher

in young people who were born in the 1980s. In other words, younger Americans are engaging neither in traditional forms of political activity nor in more disruptive forms of activism; they are less involved than their predecessors.

Although these trends span the range of political activities, alternative forms of engagement that focus on consumer activism have become more popular. In particular, Americans have been expressing their political and social concerns through their purchasing practices. Zukin and associates (2006, p. 77) find this type of action to be more prevalent than any other type of political behavior. Moreover, they find this type of engagement to be consistently high across most genera- tions, including young Americans. Similarly, Caren and colleagues (2011, p. 147) find a “robust increase over time in petition signing,” which the authors suggest may be related to corporatized petition-signature efforts in parts of the United States. Thus, civic engagement in America has become much more focused on individualized, market-focused activities.

More recently, however, several studies have noted significant changes in the civic and political participation of Americans under 30 years of age. Scholars have given this gen- eration many names, including the “Post-9/11 Generation” (Sander & Putnam 2010), the “Millennials” (Connery 2008, Dalton 2008, Winograd & Hais 2008), and the “DotNets” (Zukin et al. 2006). Whatever moniker they use, scholars generally agree that this new generation has experienced “an unmistakable expansion of youth interest in politics and public affairs” (Sander & Putnam 2010, p. 11). In fact, young people in this generation have been found to volunteer much more than older Americans (Shea & Harris 2006; see also Zukin et al. 2006). Moreover, voter turnout for Americans under 30 has gone up significantly in recent years: “turnout increased 4% by 2000, and an additional 7% in 2004” (Dalton 2008, p. 192), and this trend continued in the 2008 election (Kirby & Kawashima-Ginsberg 2009, Sander & Putnam 2010).

Pathways to Participation

Given the recent changes in youth participa- tion, considerable attention has been paid to how youth engagement is related to long-term political involvement. There is an extensive his- tory of research on how young people become civically engaged and their pathways to par- ticipation (see particularly Babchuk & Booth 1969, Verba & Nie 1972, Knoke & Thomson 1977, Beck & Jennings 1982, Verba et al. 1995, Rotolo 1999, Plutzer 2002, McFarland & Thomas 2006). This research finds that young people who come from families with higher lev- els of socioeconomic status tend to talk about politics more regularly, vote more frequently, and be more generally engaged. Young peo- ple from less privileged backgrounds partici- pate less and are less engaged overall. Verba and associates (1995) perhaps best summarize the general role that socioeconomic status plays in political engagement: “for each kind of par- ticipation, affluence and activity go together” (p. 189).

In their work on how volunteerism changes as young people transition to adulthood, Oesterle and colleagues (2004) conclude that the explanations of volunteerism are life-stage specific. With regard to the “presumed disen- gagement of the contemporary younger gener- ation from the political process and civic life, as well as its greater individualism and material- ism” (Oesterle et al. 2004, p. 1124), the authors find what they call a continuity in volunteering: Those who volunteered in their youth were much more likely to continue volunteering in later life. Dalton (2008) considers the role that a continuity in volunteering might play for the young Americans who were involved in the 2008 election. In his own words, “2008 provides a baseline from which participation may expand as members of the millennial generation finish their studies, begin a career, purchase a home, and share the other life experiences that foster attention to government and politics” (Dalton 2008, p. 196). Given the findings of this research on youth civic engagement, the young people who participated in the 2008 election

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:119-137. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 71.114.103.117 on 08/09/12. For personal use only.

are more likely to participate at higher levels in all types of civic and political activities than were earlier generations throughout their lives.

Other research has focused on the role that civic groups—including voluntary associations and social movement organizations—play in long-term engagement. McFarland & Thomas (2006, p. 401), for example, find that involve- ment in groups “concerning community ser- vice, representation, speaking in public forums, and generating a community identity” has a stronger effect on future political participa- tion than involvement in other types of volun- tary associations. Similarly, when O’Donoghue & Strobel (2007, p. 465) look specifically at youth engagement in urban areas, they find that community-based youth organizations “repre- sent potentially powerful settings for activism among marginalized urban youth.”

Scholars coming from a social movements perspective provide one interpretation of why civic groups matter, noting that involvement with social movements, which tend to be coordinated by social movement organizations, exposes individuals to social networks of ac- tivists that facilitate longer-term engagement and retention. In his work on the young people who traveled to southern states to register black voters during Freedom Summer, McAdam (1989, p. 758) finds participants to be “tied to networks of organizational and personal rela- tionships that helped sustain their activism.” Similarly, in their study of American Vietnam war resisters in Canada, Hagan & Hansford- Bowles (2005, p. 246) conclude that “contin- uing contacts with those involved in formative activist experiences” were crucial to long-term participation.

Looking at the young people who worked as canvassers to raise money and support for left-leaning campaigns, Fisher & McInerney (2012, p. 504) come to somewhat different con- clusions. Specifically, they find that “canvassers who came to the organization with social ties were more likely to be engaged in other civic and political organizations a year later.” As the authors note, the differences between these findings are likely to be the result of the specifics

of the types of activism being studied (i.e., more or less high-risk activism) as well as of broader changes that have taken place in recent decades regarding activism in America. These changes are well summarized by Meyer & Tarrow (1998, p. 4) who write, “professionalization and institutionalization may be changing the major vehicle of contentious claims—the social movement—into an instrument within the realm of conventional politics.” Although these studies come to different conclusions regarding the types of participation that early activism yields, there is consensus across this research, which is consistent with the work that finds a continuity in volunteering. Political involve- ment in activism and the social connections that are made through such involvement lead to higher levels of political participation in the future (see also Schussman & Soule 2005).

Gender and Race

At the same time, numerous studies focus on understanding the role that gender and race play in differing levels of involvement (for an overview, see Verba et al. 1995, ch. 8). Look- ing first at gender, although females of all ages are less likely to engage in most institution- alized political and civic activities (see partic- ularly Verba et al. 1997, Burns et al. 2001, Booth-Tobin & Han 2010), women are more likely to vote (e.g., Cent. Am. Women Polit. 2005). In their report on the 2008 election, in fact, Kirby & Kawashima-Ginsberg (2009) find that young women were eight percentage points more likely to vote in the election than were their male counterparts.

Booth-Tobin & Han (2010) build on this finding to look specifically at how young women became involved in the 2008 election. Studying female members of the College Democrats of America in the Boston area, the authors conclude that the young women in their sample were “less likely than men to consider themselves ‘political,’ a factor that has previously led to lower participation among women” (Booth-Tobin & Han 2010, p. 125). The authors present an expanded view of

www.annualreviews.org • Bridging Activism and Electoral Politics 123

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:119-137. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 71.114.103.117 on 08/09/12. For personal use only.

124 Fisher

motivational factors to explain the high levels of engagement by the women in their sample, sug- gesting how it may lead to future participation. Through this analysis, the authors find that personal notions of social change and not tradi- tional political interest drew the young women in their sample to participate in campaign activ- ities. In another attempt to understand gender differences in political involvement, Gordon (2008) finds a gendered consequence to the ways teenagers navigate parental constraint. Based on her ethnographic study of high school students, Gordon concludes that girls’ political ideals do not translate into political action in the form of social movement participation because of conflicts with their parents.

Outside of these more general studies of po- litical participation, scholars have also looked at women’s activism around gender issues. Specifically focusing on the origins of the women’s liberation movement, Freeman (1973, p. 796) finds that the movement was initiated by women, all of whom were under 30 years old. Although research had concluded that prior to 1990 women participated in protests less than men, Schussman & Soule (2005, p. 1089) “find no significant effect of gender on propensity to protest” in their data on individual protest par- ticipation. The authors explain their findings by noting that it is indicative of a diminishing gender gap for protest participation as a form of political involvement.

Race is also related to levels of civic engage- ment. Overall, minority youth are less likely to engage in a number of civic activities, which is a fact scholars believe has contributed to the “demise of Black civil society” in America (Sullivan 1996; see also Hart & Atkins 2002, Sherrod 2003, Zukin et al. 2006). Holding socioeconomic status and other demographic characteristics constant, however, black Americans actually have higher levels of political participation (see Verba & Nie 1972, Milbrath & Goel 1977, Ellison & London 1992, Brown & Brown 2003). In their study of the relationship between church-based social capital and political activism among black Americans, for example, Brown & Brown

(2003) find that there is a strong relationship between socioeconomic status and politicized church networks. In the authors’ words, “middle class blacks disproportionately hear political messages in church and serve as church activists” (p. 617). Perhaps the most well-known example of black youth activism can be seen in the Civil Rights Movement, where “nearly all the leaders of this historic movement were young people under the age of 30” (Cohen 2006, p. 1; for more details, see McAdam 1982, Morris 1984). Since then, black youth have played an active role in numerous waves of collective action, including the Black Power and anti-apartheid movements.

More recently, scholars have noted a “dearth of black youth political organizations,” which may limit black political participation (Ginwright 2006). Building on this research, Ginwright (2007) explores the roles of me- diating civic groups that may help motivate young people to participate. Looking broadly at the civic engagement of black youth, he finds that community-based organizations in “Black communities provide Black youth with critical social capital . . . that foster[s] political con- sciousness and prepare[s] Black youth to ad- dress issues in their communities” (Ginwright 2007, p. 404). In other words, these findings suggest that civic groups play a role in mobi- lizing youth of all races and backgrounds to participate. Even with the perceived lack of organization within black communities, how- ever, black voter turnout increased significantly in the 2008 election, with 65.3% of black Americans voting in the election (Lopez & Taylor 2009) and Obama receiving 95% of the black vote (Dalton 2008). Moreover, black youth had the highest turnout rate of young people in this election: about 58% of them voted in the election (Kirby & Kawashima- Ginsberg2009).

Given the differential levels of civic partic- ipation among young people by gender, race, and type of participation, many scholars have called for an increase in civic education. Boyte (1993, p. 764), for example, argues that this type of learning “enhances professionalism

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:119-137. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 71.114.103.117 on 08/09/12. For personal use only.

understood as civic craft, while it also al- lows students to claim and develop a larger, interactive civic identity on the public stage” (see also Zukin et al. 2006, ch. 5). Presenting findings from data collected in 2002, Andolina and colleagues (2003, p. 275) conclude that “habits formed at home, lessons learned at school, and opportunities offered by outside groups all positively influence the civic en- gagement of youth” (see also Shea & Harris 2006 for their study of peer-to-peer programs). In his piece in the Annual Review of Political Science, Galston (2001) compares traditional classroom-based civic education to service learning, which combines community-based learning with classroom experience. He finds that the traditional model has the potential to raise political knowledge, which is seen as providing the necessary background for informed citizens (Galston 2001; see also Dewey 1927, Ravitch & Viteritti 2001). All told, scholars tend to agree that the earlier young people get politically involved, the more likely they are to stay active. Education, like home experience and exposure to civic groups, contributes to youth political participation and the long-term involvement of this generation.

Political Participation and Web 2.0

One of the ways that young people are seen as taking a lead in political participation is through their use of new information and com- munications technologies. As early adopters of these technologies, young Americans are considered to be “the beneficiaries of advances totechnology”(Garcia-Castan ̃onetal.2011, p. 115). Numerous studies have explored the effects of the so-called “technology Tsunami” on politics and society more generally (e.g., Winograd & Hais 2008, ch. 8). These tech- nologies include wireless handheld devices, the Internet, and social media such as Twitter and Facebook, all of which are known as Web 2.0 (for a full discussion, see Chadwick 2009). The collective technologies of Web 2.0 connect people in new and innovative ways (e.g., Franzen 2000, Boase et al. 2006, Wang

& Wellman 2010). Although much of this research is not focused particularly on young people, most scholars tend to agree with Kann and colleagues (2007, p. 1), who find that Web 2.0 “has the potential to enhance [young Americans’] engagement in public life.”

With regard to political engagement, atten- tion has focused specifically on the relationship between Web 2.0 and political participation, mobilization, and political campaigns broadly (e.g., Heaney et al. 2010, McAdam & Tarrow 2010; for a review, see Anduiza et al. 2009). Talking about the strengths and vulnerabilities of networked politics, many scholars have focused on how this technology enables and promotes different forms of engagement (e.g., Bennett 2003, Shah et al. 2005, Garrett 2006, Nah et al. 2006). Although previous discus- sions have explored how computer-mediated communication affects face-to-face contact, a general consensus has emerged that, rather than replacing personal contact, these technologies supplement it. One of the general conclusions of this research is that these changes make political action “easier, faster and more univer- sal” (Van Aelst & Walgrave 2002, p. 466). As a result, numerous studies have discussed the ways that activism and more institutionalized forms of political engagement—including voting—have increased through the use of these technologies. In a field experiment on the role of text messaging in mobilizing registered voters to turn out on election day, for example, Dale & Strauss (2009) find that text message reminders raised the turnout rate by three per- centage points. Similarly, as is discussed in more detailinthenextsectionofthisreview,bothof the presidential candidates in the 2008 election invested significant resources to develop Web sites that could harness these technologies to target volunteers and supporters.

Similar to the research that focuses on more institutional politics, an emerging literature looks specifically at the role the Internet is playing in collective action and how it might be changing social movements in the process (see particularly Bennett 2003, Bennett et al. 2008; for a review of this literature, see Earl

www.annualreviews.org • Bridging Activism and Electoral Politics 125

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:119-137. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 71.114.103.117 on 08/09/12. For personal use only.

126 Fisher

et al. 2010). One general finding of this re- search is that information and communications technologies facilitate protest (e.g., Van Aelst & Walgrave 2002, Be ́doyan et al. 2004, Fisher et al. 2005). When looking at the February 15, 2005, protests in American cities that were part of the internationally coordinated day of ac- tion against the US invasion of Iraq, for ex- ample, Bennett and colleagues (2008) find that the most politically embedded protest partici- pants were also the most reliant on digital me- dia. They conclude that “the hallmark of protest in the digital age appears to be rapid and dense networking behavior that can (though surely does not always) cross issue and organizational boundaries with a minimum of formal coali- tion brokerage and collective identity framing” (Bennett et al. 2008, p. 286).

Fisher & Boekkooi (2010) look more specif- ically at the differences between those peo- ple who are mobilized through the Internet and those mobilized through friends, family, coworkers, and organizations in their social networks. The authors find that activists who were mobilized to participate in a day of action against global climate change through the In- ternet were much more likely to attend protest events alone than those who were mobilized through their personal connections to friends, colleagues, family members, or organizations. These findings raise important questions about the relationship between online and face-to- face communication and how they may be re- lated to different types of personal connections and political participation.

Although little is currently known about how mobilizing through the Internet to par- ticipate in a social movement is related to subsequent face-to-face engagement, Garcia- Castan ̃on and associates (2011) have taken an important first step in answering this ques- tion in the context of electoral campaigns. In their research on the 2008 election, they ex- plore the connection between online engage- ment and offline political participation, con- cluding that “engaging politics online leads to increases in political participation offline” as de- fined by an index of seven self-reported political

behaviors(Garcia-Castan ̃onetal.2011,p.115). Moreover, in this study the relationship holds across young voters from diverse backgrounds.

Given these findings and the limited cost of online outreach, many groups—including voluntary organizations, political parties, and social movement actors—have taken advantage of these technologies to mobilize support for political campaigns of all sorts. The communication technologies of Web 2.0 pro- vide relatively inexpensive ways to distribute political announcements and information to anyone with an email, Twitter, or Facebook account or access to the World Wide Web (for a full discussion, see Fisher 1998, Heaney et al. 2010). In the next section, I turn specifically to the case of the 2008 election, which employed the tools of Web 2.0 in unprecedented ways.

YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN THE 2008 ELECTION

As has been previously noted, the 2008 elec- tion was a watershed for youth political par- ticipation in America. Although overall voter turnout in the 2008 election was the same rate as in the 2004 election—at 64%—there were sig- nificant differences by age. In particular, youth turnout in the 2008 election was ranked as one of the highest ever reported. “Voting rates rose more than three times faster for Americans un- der age 29 than they did for Americans over 30” (Sander & Putnam 2010, pp. 11–12; for a full discussion, see Kirby & Kawashima-Ginsberg 2009). Although youth turnout was still lower than the voting rates for Americans over 30, the increase in young Americans’ political participation in the campaign is noteworthy, particularly given that voting rates in most democratic electorates tend to rise until mid- dle age (Putnam 2000, Dalton 2008).

Beyond voting, involvement in other aspects of the 2008 election also increased. Campaign volunteering increased for all citizens, but the change was highest among young Americans. In fact, campaign volunteering for Americans un- der 30 increased almost 20% between the 2000 and 2008 elections (Sander & Putnam 2010).

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:119-137. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 71.114.103.117 on 08/09/12. For personal use only.

Young people organized house meetings, participated in phone banks, and went door to door in support of their candidate of choice. Even though they participated in both cam- paigns, young Americans became much more involved in the Obama campaign: Two-thirds of the young people who voted in the 2008 election voted for Barack Obama (Dalton 2008, p. 193).

Although numerous studies have noted the ways that electoral politics engage young peo- ple generally, as well as within the 2008 election specifically, few studies explore youth partici- pation in conservative politics (but see Connery 2008; Gimpel et al. 2003; Fisher 2006, ch. 5). In fact, scholars have noted an overall lack of research on conservative political campaigns (but see Wilcox 2000, Munson 2008). This trend is consistent with claims by Gross and colleagues in the 2011 Annual Review of Sociol- ogy: “[S]ociology has been largely absent from this intellectual endeavor” (Gross et al. 2011, p. 326). Acknowledging these limitations, this section discusses the 2008 election, comparing the campaigns of the two presidential candi- dates. However, this section is comparatively brief. The following section of the review fo- cuses specifically on the presidential campaign to elect Barack Obama and how that campaign connected with issue-based politics in America.

Comparing the Two Campaigns

During the 2008 presidential campaign, both parties aimed to mobilize volunteer armies of supporters to get their candidate elected. It is impossible to compare these two campaigns without focusing on the Internet, which played an unprecedented role. In the words of Heaney and colleagues (2010, p. 165), “the 2008 election helped do for the Internet what the 1960 election did for television: legitimize its role and demonstrate its potential”; it was “a central feature of the presidential election” (Garcia-Castan ̃on et al. 2011, p. 133). Con- sistent with the work of Bennett & Xenos (2005), which finds political groups and parties increasingly reaching out to young people through Web 2.0, both campaigns

ran meetup-style components of their Web sites for volunteers to take action: McCain Nation (http://www.mccainnation.com) and MyBarackObama.com (http://my. barackobama.com), which was termed MyBO by supporters. This election was the first time that such e-tools were made available through a national campaign to mobilize and engage people at the local level.

Although both campaigns aimed to enhance participation through their electronic outreach, the differences between the specific compo- nents of the sites had an effect on their func- tionality and usability (for a full discussion, see Fisher 2009). In particular, the Obama site was more user-friendly and transparent for users seeking to become involved. For example, if people had an interest in participating in an Obama-related event, they could pull up all events taking place within five miles of their location, get information about the organizer, and register to participate in the event. Then, they received an automatic email confirmation that they had signed up, and soon thereafter the organizer got in touch personally. Getting involved in a McCain-related event was less straightforward: Participants could only pull up events within a wider radius, and when they tried to RSVP for a particular event, the request was sent out into the ether of cyberspace. Only rarely did organizers respond to requests from supporters to participate in events. There is no question that the differences between these sites had an effect on who became involved in each campaign and how they participated.

Because the campaigns relied so heavily on outreach through their Web sites, these differ- ences likely played a role in the turnout of par- ticipants at campaign events. In other words, the variations in Web site functionality rein- forced perceived differences between the two candidates and their campaigns. In a compari- son of participants in debate-watching events in New York City during the 2008 election, which were predominantly organized through the campaign Web sites, Fisher (2009) finds sig- nificant differences between the two campaigns. Obama supporters were much more diverse:

www.annualreviews.org • Bridging Activism and Electoral Politics 127

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:119-137. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 71.114.103.117 on 08/09/12. For personal use only.

128 Fisher

More than half were women (59%), 44% of them self-identified as nonwhites, and 17% of them self-identified as Latino. Participants at the McCain events, in contrast, were predom- inately white males. Although participants at the McCain events were already quite civically engaged and most had participated in previous elections, the Obama campaign mobilized new people to get involved in their campaign events. The average age of participants at the Obama events was 32, versus the average age of 37 for participants at the McCain events (the differ- ence between the two samples was statistically significant, p < 0.000). Overall, the differences between the McCain and Obama supporters at these events in New York City suggest that the Obama campaign’s strategy of mobilizing peo- ple through their individual connections that capitalized on their personal stories, combined with a campaign Web site that included com- ponents to channel people into events, was suc- cessful in getting less civically engaged and younger people involved in the campaign.

The Obama Campaign: Harnessing Youth and the Netroots

Turning specifically to the Obama cam- paign, there has been more research to date. Significant attention has been paid to the numbers of people mobilized to participate in the campaign as volunteers, workers, and supporters. The campaign “trained some 3000 full time organizers, most of them in their 20’s; it organized thousands of local leadership teams . . . ; and it engaged some 1.5 million people in coordinated volunteer activity” (Ganz 2009, p. 1). It employed an organizing strategy that cultivated the use of information communication technologies in innovative ways. As Melber (2010, p. 4) puts it, this elec- toral campaign was “the most wired supporter network in American history.” The campaign to elect Barack Obama as president of the United States has been described by many, including a panel at the American Sociological Association meeting in 2009, as a movement to elect Barack Obama (e.g., Ganz 2009).

As has been previously noted, young people played a significant role in the Obama cam- paign: They were active participants in the work of the campaign, they were strong supporters of the candidate, and they voted predominantly for him. In fact, Dalton (2008, p. 181) has called the Obama campaign “the story of youth and politics in 2008” (see also Dionne 2011).

The campaign employed numerous tactics to mobilize young people, including instituting a summer fellowship program that trained 3,600 young people to work for the campaign. Youth interest in the campaign extended well beyond this select group of young people: When the call for applications went out for the program, more than 10,000 people applied for a position (Dalton 2008). Ganz (2009, p. 5) describes the many ways young people became involved in the campaign: “Their energy was funneled into summer internships, organizing fellowships and similar efforts at developing leadership from this youthful fount.” With this level of engagement, the ways the campaign engaged young people likely also motivated more young Americans to get involved. In the words of Sander & Putnam (2010, p. 13), “The Obama campaign, with its heavy use of young volunteers and workers, not only counted on an upwelling of youth civic engagement but contributed to it as well.”

To restate, the Obama campaign took full advantage of the technologies of Web 2.0. Some scholars have remarked that “without the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been elected President of the United States” (Hindman 2008; see also Ganz 2009). In many ways, the Obama campaign’s use of information and communications technologies to win the election was the direct descendant of Howard Dean’s failed bid for the Democratic presi- dential nomination in 2004 (for details, see Hindman 2008). Most importantly, the tech- nology that fueled the mybarackobama.com Web site (MyBO) was created by Blue State Digital, a company founded by three for- mer Dean supporters to “hone the soft- ware for Democratic and progressive organi- zations” (Talbot 2009). The company Web site

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:119-137. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 71.114.103.117 on 08/09/12. For personal use only.

describes its mission as doing “online fundrais- ing, advocacy, social networking, and con- stituency development programs for nonprofit organizations, political candidates and causes, and corporations.”1 The Obama campaign also incorporated cutting-edge social networking technology into the campaign and into MyBO itself. To that end, the campaign hired Chris Hughes, a cofounder of Facebook, to run their online organizing and Web outreach (McGirt 2009, Schonfeld 2009).

As a result of all the outreach through Web 2.0, the Obama campaign harnessed the Inter- net like no other political candidate: The cam- paign brought in $500 million through online donations from more than 3 million people, it collected the email addresses of 13 million supporters, it sent text messages to more than 1 million people, and Barack Obama himself had more than 3.4 million Facebook “friends” by the time of the general election in November 2008 (Talbot 2009; see also Vargas 2008). At the same time, campaign volunteers who signed up with MyBO were given access to an amaz- ing number of e-tools that they could use to help do work for the campaign. In addition, the campaign designed its Web site to pro- vide avenues to channel volunteers recruited online into numerous face-to-face activities that were going on around the country, includ- ing canvassing, fundraising activities, and other campaign events.

Like the Bush campaign of 2004, which used the Internet to mobilize supporters on college campuses to compete with other schools (see, e.g., Fisher 2006, ch. 5), MyBO users were awarded points for taking actions that in- cluded calling voters, canvassing communities, fundraising, and hosting events. Supporters were ranked based on the points they earned (for a full discussion of this system, see Koo 2008). By the time of the general election, the campaign reported that 13 million people were actively working on the campaign through the MyBO site.

1 http://www.bluestatedigital.com/pages/about, accessed July 15, 2009.

There is no question that the Obama campaign’s successful use of the Internet to mobilize supporters in its ground war changed American politics forever. It is extremely unlikely that future political candidates will be able to win elections without employing the full array of information technologies available in Web 2.0. As information technologies and the ways people use these technologies continue to develop and change, campaigns and social movements must keep up to date. It is worth noting that, at the time of the Dean campaign in 2004, Facebook connected only Harvard students to one another.2 By the 2008 presiden- tial election, however, this social networking site had millions of members around the world. Such electronic tools that have the capacity to “flatten the world” (Friedman 2005) are par- ticularly important for national campaigns that aim to mobilize a large group of people who likely do not know one another and do not live in geographical proximity. As can be seen by the amount of money spent by the Obama cam- paign to incorporate technology in multiple aspects of its ground war, this level of techno- logical engagement is extremely expensive and requires a savvy team of organizers and pro- grammers to implement. Moreover, because youth are the early adopters of emerging in- formation communication technologies, there is no question that the Obama campaign bene- fited from the fact that the candidate drew sub- stantial support from young people who were already familiar with the technologies that the campaign had invested in to mobilize support- ers. This interaction between youth support and communication technology played a piv- otal role in the success of the Obama campaign.

From Movement to Presidency and Back Again

With the transition from the Obama campaign to the Obama presidency, the people who ran

2 For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Facebook (accessed May 6, 2012).

www.annualreviews.org • Bridging Activism and Electoral Politics 129

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:119-137. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 71.114.103.117 on 08/09/12. For personal use only.

130 Fisher

the campaign took an unprecedented step in electoral politics in America. A few days after the inauguration of the new president, the Obama for America campaign was transformed into Organizing for America, a new component of the Democratic National Committee. The transition included converting the campaign Web site into a Web site for this new organi- zation. Melber (2010) describes Organizing for America as a “permanent field campaign in a digital age,” which aimed to contact, organize, and mobilize voters about issues between elec- tions. The goal of this new organization was to engage in political activism to assist in the passage of the president’s legislative goals. The organization ran campaigns that mobilized grassroots support for the president’s stimulus package, as well as his proposal to reform the healthcare system. This transition from pres- idential campaign to political organization not only moved organizers who had worked on the campaign to elect the president into jobs with this new component of the Democratic Party, but it also aimed to transition supporters of the movement to elect Barack Obama president to be active members of this new organization. Because of the transition process, however, sup- porters were not asked to become members of Organizing for America. Rather, because they had provided personal information through the MyBO Web site, their personal information was automatically moved over to the new or- ganization when the Web site was changed. As members of Organizing for America, Obama supporters were expected to provide grassroots support for the president’s legislative agenda through issue-based political campaigns. With this new organization, the line between ac- tivism and political campaigns in contemporary America was significantly blurred.

At the start of the 2012 campaign, Or- ganizing for America transformed back into the organization to reelect President Barack Obama: The organization’s leadership left to run the campaign, the Web site transitioned into the site for the president’s reelection, and the list of supporters (which was drawn from the personal information of supporters who

originally signed up through Barack Obama’s campaign Web site in 2008) was also moved over as a resource for the president’s reelection campaign. This example provides clear evi- dence that the connection between movements and electoral politics has changed significantly in recent years. In fact, the case of the Obama campaign suggests that the technologies of Web 2.0 are changing the relationship between electoral and issue-based politics in Amer- ica in substantial ways. Specifically, because the transformation from Barack Obama for America 2008 into Organizing for Amer- ica, which then was transformed into Barack Obama for America 2012, involved merely changing the Web site, the organization did not have to ask members for their permission to share their personal information with a dif- ferent campaign/organization. This method of keeping a membership list alive will likely be embraced by political organizations working on of all types of issues across the full range of the political spectrum. This specific case also suggests that there may be a new type of cycle emerging, one that seamlessly transitions indi- viduals from movements, to electoral politics, and back to movements.

As the 2012 election approaches, two social movements have received significant atten- tion: the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. Although the Tea Party movement employed social movement tactics to mobilize support for electoral change during the mid-term election of 2010 and is expected to continue to span activism and electoral politics in the 2012 campaign, it has little connection to young people and is said to predominantly repre- sent “older, white middle-class Americans” (Tarrow 2011). Occupy Wall Street, in con- trast, was started by disenfranchised young people who have employed many aspects of Web 2.0 to mobilize supporters. Although it is impossible to predict whether this movement will transition into a “constituent movement” or will “flare up rapidly and fade away just as quickly” (Tarrow 2011), national progressive groups have invested time and money in this movement. With their support, a coalition

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:119-137. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 71.114.103.117 on 08/09/12. For personal use only.

of national labor and environmental groups are hoping to capitalize on the momentum of the Occupy Wall Street movement to channel their energy into “legislation and electoral results in 2012” (Scherer 2011). Even though the future of the Occupy Wall Street movement is unclear, this social movement (along with the Tea Party movement) provides additional support for the notion that activism and electoral politics have become intertwined in contemporary American politics.

CONCLUSION

In this article, I have reviewed the ways that young people participate in the American political system through activism and electoral politics. Specifically, I have focused on the main themes in the research on youth political participation in the United States, looking at pathways to participation, the role of race and gender, and the ways that information and communications technologies are being used by young people to engage in politics. By exploring youth participation in the 2008 election and the specific case of the Obama campaign and its transition to Organizing for America and back into a political campaign, we see a clear illustration of how the lines between activism and electoral politics have blurred in recent years. These changes provide numerous opportunities for sociological research that bet- ter explains the empirical reality of politics in America today. In particular, this review points to three clear opportunities for sociological research to enhance our understanding.

First, there is an obvious need for more balanced research on the breadth of political activities taking place. As has been previously noted, much of the scholarly research is biased toward left-leaning campaigns and issues. Un- derstanding fully how activism and electoral politics converge and diverge in contemporary America requires the study of cases that rep- resent the full range of the political spectrum. Although right-leaning political candidates and campaigns, such as the Tea Party movement, have received extensive media and popular

attention in recent years, scholarly research has lagged significantly. To restate the observation of Gross and associates (2011, p. 326), “sociol- ogy has been largely absent from this intellec- tual endeavor.” Without assessing the diversity of political activity taking place in America, the role that young people (and others) play in these processes will not be fully understood.

Second, in addition to expanding the subject of sociological research, theoretical developments are needed to explain better the reality of politics and activism in America today. Specifically, as I have noted within this review, much of the research has been limited by disciplinary boundaries, which tend to con- ceptualize electoral campaigns, activism, and issue-based politics separately. This weakness is heightened by the disciplinary boundaries imposed by the distinction between the fields of political science and sociology. Even with these arbitrary boundaries, research has begun to bridge these subjects. Although scholars have noted that there has been an institutionalization of activism and protest in America (e.g., Fisher 2006, Meyer 2007, Caren et al. 2011), research is needed to span the gap between social move- ments and political campaigns—specifically to understand the relationship between the activism in the streets and the politics in the statehouse. By tracing the full arc of con- tentious politics from direct action and protest in the streets to political maneuvers within the halls of government, we will gain a much clearer view of political participation and the political process more broadly. Such theories would be particularly useful for understanding a political candidate running his campaign like a social movement, as well as a political organization morphing into an electoral campaign. These subjects are important when looking at young Americans who are the nation’s future leaders and who tend to play a leadership role in certain types of activism and electoral campaigns, such as the ones discussed in this review.

Third, beyond the limitations of the cases being studied and theories currently available to explain political participation in America today, there are significant data limitations that

www.annualreviews.org • Bridging Activism and Electoral Politics 131

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2012.38:119-137. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by 71.114.103.117 on 08/09/12. For personal use only.

must be overcome. To date, researchers have yet to analyze data on the 2008 election, the way Web 2.0 was used in the election, or the transi- tion from the Obama campaign to Organizing for America, as well as its subsequent transition back to an electoral campaign. Despite interest in studying these processes, political parties and the organizations that run the campaigns have been extremely elusive. Even though the president pushed to make the US government more transparent to the general population by launching the Transparency.gov Web site (now called USAspending.gov; go to http://www. usaspending.gov), which provides detailed information about federal spending, the pres- ident’s 2008 campaign and the Democratic National Committee’s Organizing for America program were less than transparent about their data. In fact, the small number of researchers who gained access to some of the 2008 cam- paign data report being required “to sign numerous confidentiality agreements” that

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

precluded them from publishing any of their results.3 As a result, data about how people engaged in the 2008 elections and how it may have contributed to their levels of political par- ticipation beyond the campaign are not known. Because research on these topics can only be as good as the data we have available to analyze, sociologists must invest time in gaining access to data on these types of political processes.

In sum, this review provides an outline of how research should be reconceptualized to start in the streets and end in the statehouse— including electoral campaigns as well as general political campaigns. By expanding the range of campaigns studied, focusing on theoretical development that fits the empirical reality of politics in America today, and working to gain access to data on these processes, we will learn significantly more about youth political participation in America. Moreover, we will understand much more about politics and political life more generally.

QUESTIONS TO ANSWER

1. Based on the readings and materials mentioned above and “The Last Generation,” what would it be the best course for Marshall Islands people to follow? Mitigation, adaptation or retreat, a combination of them? Why? If mitigation is part of the strategy, who should mitigate? Are some of the adaptation and resilieance strategies discussed in the videos and readings, an alternative of the Marshall Islands? Explain
2. State a question on readings and materials for your classmates