In honor of International Women’s Day, here are 13 women of color to watch, who are leaving their mark on everything from politics to entertainment to health.

Angelica Salas

Angelica Salas is the executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, or CHIRLA. Since becoming the coalition’s director in 1999, Angelica has spearheaded several ambitious campaigns. Among her accomplishments, Angelica helped win in-state tuition for undocumented immigrant students and established day laborer job centers that have served as a model for the entire country. She led the effort to allow all California drivers to obtain licenses and is a leading spokesperson on federal immigration policy. Under Salas’s leadership, CHIRLA and its partners across the country have built the foundation for the recent upsurge in immigrant-rights activism. As part of a national coordinating committee, Angelica helped convene a coalition of organizations in Southern California that have successfully mobilized millions of immigrants to demand comprehensive immigration reform, including legalization with a path to citizenship, family reunification, and the protection of civil and labor rights. Salas received the “Woman of the Year” award from the California State Assembly in recognition of her 20 years of outstanding leadership of the organization.

Geeta Rao Gupta

As the deputy executive director for UNICEF and vice chair of the board for the GAVI Alliance— a public-private partnership focused on saving children’s lives and protecting people’s health by increasing access to immunization in poor countries —Geeta Rao Gupta is a leader on gender, women’s issues, and HIV/AIDS. She is frequently consulted on issues related to AIDS prevention and women’s vulnerability to HIV, and she is an advocate for women’s economic and social empowerment to fight disease, poverty, and hunger. Rao Gupta is the former president of the International Center for Research on Women and was a senior fellow at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation from 2010 to 2011, where she acted as the senior advisor to the Global Development Programme. Gupta has also led and participated in numerous global initiatives for women and children, including the U.N. Millennium Project’s Task Force on Education and Gender Equality and the U.N. Secretary-General’s Youth Employment Network. Rao Gupta is the recipient of numerous awards, including Harvard University’s 2006 Anne Roe Award and the 2007 Washington Business Journal’s “Women Who Mean Business” award.

Janet Mock

Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Janet Mock is a writer, a transgender rights advocate, and the former staff editor of People magazine’s website. She came out as transgender in 2011 in an article in Marie Claire, and she now creates transgender-specific programs and education for the LGBTQ youth center of the Hetrick-Martin Institute, which operates Harvey Milk High, a high school for LGBT teens in New York City. Although she is not gay, GBM News named Mock one of the “15 Most Powerful Gay Celebrities Of 2012.” The same year, she created a Twitter campaign to empower transgender women of color, called #GirlsLikeUs, and gave the Lavender Commencement keynote speech honoring LGBT students at the University of Southern California.She also served as co-chair, nominee, and presenter at the 2012 GLAAD Media Awards. She has submitted a video about her experiences as a transgender woman to the “It Gets Better” project and written about transgender issues for The Huffington Post and xojane. In November 2012 she received the Sylvia Rivera Activist Award.

Jessica González-Rojas

Jessica González-Rojas is the executive director at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, or NLIRH—the only national reproductive justice organization that specifically works to advance reproductive health and rights for Latinas. She has been a leader in progressive movements for more than 15 years, serves as a liaison between reproductive health, gender, immigration, LGBTQ-liberation, labor and Latino civil rights organizations, breaking down barriers between movements and building a strong Latina grassroots presence. González-Rojas is a strong voice for Latinas and a regular presence in national and local media outlets, such as El Diario/La Prensa, the nation’s oldest and largest Spanish-language newspaper in the United States, which honored her as one of 2009’s “Mujeres Destacadas” (Women of Honor).

Prior to her work with NLIRH, González-Rojas was elected to the New York State Democratic Committee for the 39th Assembly District from 2000 to 2006. She also served on the Board of Directors of New Immigrant Community Empowerment for 11 years. Watch for González-Rojas as she and her organization make headlines for progressive health policy for Latinas.

Joy-Ann Reid

Ubiquitous in the media scene, Joy-Ann Reid is the managing editor of The Grio and an on-air contributor on MSNBC. She is also a political columnist for The Miami Herald and editor of the political blog The Reid Report. Reid has appeared as a political commentator on national and local television and radio, including MSNBC, CNBC, Miami PBS affiliate WPBT, WTVJ/NBC 6, Britain’s Sky News, and Miami radio stations Hot 105 and 103.5 The Beat. Reid has worked in television and radio news since 1998, including for WTVJ and Fox station WSVN. In addition to The Herald, her columns have appeared on Salon, The Grio, CommonDreams.org, and the South Florida Sun Sentinel and the South Florida Times. From 2006 to 2007 she produced and co-hosted “Wake Up South Florida,” the morning show for Radio One’s then-Miami affiliate WTPS, alongside 30-year radio veteran James T. She and her husband are producing the documentary “The Fight Years” for WPBT in Miami, which chronicles the history of boxing in Miami.

Judith Browne Dianis

Judith Browne Dianis is co-director of the Advancement Project, an institute with more than a decade of experience in helping organize communities of color to dismantle policies that threaten democracy. Under Dianis’s leadership, the Advancement Project has fought tirelessly to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline and break down barriers to voting and successfully ended the overuse of suspensions and arrests in school districts across the country. A prominent civil rights litigator and racial justice advocate, Dianis was named one of the “Thirty Women to Watch” in 2000 by Essence magazine and has been a prominent media commentator on race and civil rights issues, appearing frequently on MSNBC and CNN.

Prior to joining the Advancement Project in 1999, Dianis served as the managing attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Dianis has also worked tirelessly to protect survivors of Hurricane Katrina and advocated for fair treatment of immigrant workers in New Orleans. With such a track record, Dianis is expected to be a strong advocate for people of color in the future.

Mee Moua

A fierce advocate working to empower the Asian American and Pacific Islander community, Mee Moua currently serves as the president and executive director of the Asian American Justice Center, leading the Center’s efforts to create an inclusive society and empower both Asian Americans and other underserved communities. The Asian American Justice Center has a network of 125 community-based organizations in 29 states and the District of Columbia, with a mission to “advance the human and civil rights of Asian Americans, and build and promote a fair and equitable society for all.”

The first Hmong woman elected to a state legislature, Moua served as a member of the Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party, representing District 67 in the Minnesota Senate and chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee. Moua also served as vice president of strategic impact initiatives for the Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum, a national health justice organization, where she was the executive administrator of the Washington, D.C., office and managed its divisions on policy analysis, political advocacy, and strategic communications.

Neera Tanden

An expert in health care and domestic policy, Neera Tanden is the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress and Counselor to the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Tanden currently has a regular column for The New Republic online and has appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” ABC’s “This Week,” PBS’s “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,” MSNBC, CNN, and Fox. She was recently named one of the “Most Influential Women in Washington” by National Journal and received the India Abroad Publisher’s Award for Excellence in 2011. Tanden has directed domestic policy for both the Obama and Clinton administrations, and she previously served as senior advisor for health reform at the Department of Health and Human Services. While there, she advised Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and worked on President Barack Obama’s health reform team in the White House. Tanden also served as associate director for domestic policy in the Clinton White House and senior policy advisor to the first lady.

Nita Chaudhary

Nita Chaudhary is one of the founders of Ultraviolet—a community of women and men fighting to expand women’s rights and combat sexism everywhere, from politics and government to media and pop culture. Prior to Ultraviolet, Nita Chaudhary was the national campaigns and organizing director at MoveOn.org Political Action. In that role, she oversaw and managed MoveOn’s national campaigns department, including the organization’s work on health care reform, the economy, and Social Security, as well as supervising MoveOn’s campaign directors. During her tenure at MoveOn, Nita oversaw the fundraising program for the 2008 presidential election, and led some of the organization’s largest campaigns, including MoveOn’s work to end the Iraq war, protect constitutional liberties, and address climate change. Prior to that, she was the Democratic National Committee’s first director of online organizing during the 2004 election cycle. She started her career at People for the American Way, a nonprofit dedicated to making the promise of America real for every American, where she held several positions, including media research analyst, web editor, and online organizer.

Sarita Gupta

Sarita Gupta is the executive director of Jobs with Justice and American Rights at Work, both of which advocate for just labor policy. Prior to being the executive director of Jobs with Justice, Gupta served for five years as the national field director, overseeing the national field program and leading strategic programs such as health care justice, organizing and collective bargaining rights campaigns, and immigrant workers’ rights. Her work with labor issues dates back to 1996, when Gupta was elected the national president of the United States Student Association, or USSA, the country’s oldest and largest grassroots legislative student organization. She served as a trainer for the Grass Roots Organizing Weekend program, a project of USSA and the Midwest Academy. In addition, Gupta serves as co-director of Caring Across Generations, a national coalition of 200 advocacy organizations working together for quality care and support and a dignified quality of life for all Americans. Gupta is expected to be a strong voice and strategic organizer for labor issues going forward.

Saru Jayaraman

Active in both official and communal capacities, Saru Jayaraman has emerged as an ardent activist for the rights of low-wage workers. She was profiled in The New York Times’s “Public Lives” section in 2005 and was named one of Crain’s “40 Under 40” in 2008. Jayaraman directs the Food Labor Research Center at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, which conducts research and education on issues related to labor and employment. She is also the co-founder and co-director of the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, or ROC-United, which organizes restaurant workers to win workplace-justice campaigns, conduct research and policy work, partner with responsible restaurants, and launch cooperatively-owned restaurants. ROC-United now has 10,000 members in 19 cities nationwide. Jayaraman continues to serve as a public speaker and presenter at various conferences, activist events, and congressional hearings. She is also the author of Behind the Kitchen Door.

Sherrilyn Ifill

In the same month that the first black U.S. president was sworn in for a second time, on the holiday set aside for remembrance of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Sherrilyn Ifill walked further along the path paved by former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, taking the reins of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or LDF. Throughout its history, the LDF has secured landmark court victories against school segregation and other forms of racial discrimination.

As a lawyer and civil rights advocate for more than 20 years, Ifill has spent her life’s work advocating on voting rights and political participation for communities of color, women, and low-income communities. Ifill is joining the LDF at a time when top pillars of the civil rights movement—affirmative action in higher education and key provisions of the Voting Rights Act—are being threatened. The Supreme Court is now determining whether these laws are still needed—only a few years after the court upheld their constitutionality. A fierce voice on civil rights issues, Ifill continues to be a driving force behind progress and change.

Shonda Rhimes

Best known as the creator, head writer, and executive producer of the medical drama television series “Grey’s Anatomy” and its spin-off “Private Practice,” Shonda Rhimes is an American screenwriter, director, and producer. Rhimes was an executive producer for the medical drama series “Off the Map,” and developed the ABC drama series “Scandal.” In May 2007 Rhimes was named one of Time Magazine’s 100 people who help shape the world, and she was nominated for an Emmy award on three occasions: in 2006 and 2007 for a dramatic series and in 2006 for writing a dramatic series for “Grey’s Anatomy.” Rhimes has received several NAACP Image awards for her work on Grey’s Anatomy and received the Women in Film Lucy Award in 2007, which recognized her for excellence and innovation in her creative works that have enhanced the perception of women through the medium of television. Rhimes also wrote the script for the 1999 HBO movie “Introducing Dorothy Dandridge,” which earned numerous awards for its star, Halle Berry.

These 13 progressive leaders were selected because they are dynamic examples of the impact that women of color have on America’s growing progressive movement. These women are trailblazers in their communities—fighting to create an America that works for all.

Sandra Shaker is an intern with Progress 2050 at the Center for American Progress.

SOURCE: AP

An October 24, 1966, photo of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Atlanta, Georgia.

It’s that time of year again, the third Monday of January, when we come together as a nation to commemorate the life and legacy of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with church services, elementary school skits, and civic club speeches—much of it seemingly rote tribute.

Every MLK Day we trot out the same old platitudes, mouth the same old sentiments, and repeat the same old stories. We go through the motions of honoring not so much the man but the myth he has become. We’ve recast King, making him fit into a reshaped American narrative—one that airbrushes an ugly and vicious not-so-distant past into a less than “enlightened” time in history.

The Martin we celebrate today is more pabulum than protest, more anecdote than agitation. It’s as if we decided to fuse Martin Luther King with Rodney King, morphing the former’s radical message—“freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed”—into the latter’s accept-the-status-quo plea, “Can we all get along?”

It’s time that we free Martin. Unshackle him from a rose-colored past, a reconstructed history that never was. What the world needs today is Martin unchained.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a radical, in-your-face revolutionary who was all about troubling the waters. He was, as one biographer termed him, an “apostle of militant nonviolence.” Martin wasn’t afraid to inflict pain, no more than he shied away from enduring it. But the hurt he brought to America was of the emotional variety—the kind that comes from snatching back the covers on ugly truth and holding up for view a nation’s collective, institutionalized sin and forcing acknowledgement and honest self-reflection.

And let’s be clear: Many who celebrate him now would have condemned him then.

We’ve diminished King’s worldview—a man who, before he was snatched from us in the cruelest of ways, fully engaged what he called the “giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism.” Toward the end of his life, he embarked on his Poor People’s Campaign demanding economic justice and human rights for the poor of every color. And he was a leading antiwar activist who made a stand early against the Vietnam War—taking Congress to task for spending lavishly on war while ignoring the nation’s poor.

Likewise, we’ve elevated King to such a level that all we can do is marvel in awe. But we need to dismiss the notion that he was some sort of movie superhero, riding into southern towns and northern cities, guns blazing, taking up the cause of a bewildered and frightened citizenry. That’s the contemporary, Hollywood version. The reality was something quite different.

Black folks weren’t waiting for a hero to save them. They had long been fighting for freedom individually and collectively, striking thousands of sparks of resistance for more than 100 years. Sometimes the sparks caught flame; more often than not, however, the smoldering embers were cruelly stamped down. And then came a woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who refused to give up her bus seat. King was there. His soaring words and vision, combined with the determination of thousands of unheralded men, women, girls, and boys, formed a mighty bellows to coax that tiny spark into a blaze that burned away the past and lit the way to a better future.

I see Martin Luther King Jr. not so much as a drum major but as a fire tender—stoking the flames of outrage, demanding justice and fairness.

It’s time for us to unchain Martin and let his spirit of righteous resistance burn bright.

Carl Chancellor is the Senior Editor at the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress and the Center for Strategic and International Studies released a bipartisan statement of principles signed by members of a high-level working group to emphasize the role of the United States in supporting democratic reforms and inclusive societies abroad as a central pillar of our national security strategy. The statement recommends more partnerships with nongovernmental institutions and our international allies to further this aim.

Why Promoting Democracy is Smart and Right

A freer and more democratic world helps create a virtuous circle of improved security, stronger economic growth, and durable alliances—all of which better serve the long-term interests of the United States. Accountable, effective, and democratic governments make better and more reliable trading partners and provide the cornerstones of international stability. Given their modest scale and numerous benefits, America’s official investments in promoting democracy and governance abroad deserve to be sustained even as we deal with very real budget challenges in this current era of fiscal austerity.

Because of their benefits to and strong reflection of America’s longest-standing values, international democracy and governance programs have historically enjoyed bipartisan support. In the past decade, however, this support has undergone strain in the wake of the war in Iraq. Given the recent democratic openings in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia, however, we are again reminded of the value of people-driven programs to assist civil society and accountable governance. Assistance from the United States and others in the international community is an important tool in helping countries to achieve their own aspirations for more representative governance.

As Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen and others have noted, economic and political freedoms are mutually reinforcing, and broader democratic promotion can have a powerful effect in making overall development efforts more effective. A number of important studies further substantiate the central importance of political freedom and good governance in promoting long-term economic prosperity while advancing U.S. priorities.

A variety of countries are seeking to transition to democracy and are actively seeking America’s help to establish free media; attack corruption; manage public resources effectively; establish property rights; protect the rights of individuals, religious groups, and minorities; ensure the right to petition their elected officials; organize political campaigns; ensure free and fair elections; and establish think tanks. Other newer democracies are trying to deliver on the promise of democracy by governing justly and in ways that promote meaningful economic opportunities and growth. If they fail, the cause of democracy will be set back, and we will live in a darker world. Women, minority, and religious groups are seeking our help to ensure that their voices are heard. Finally, there are a number of countries that continue to repress their own citizens in ways that are almost unthinkable in the 21st century. We need to work with labor unions, church groups, civil society organizations, the private sector, dissident groups, and diasporas to ensure that positive change happens and that societies can create governments that are responsive, accountable, and respectful of human rights.

As we move forward under a second Obama administration, there is an opportunity to reincorporate democracy and governance into the development dialogue in a more central way, and we look forward to helping to do so. Promoting free and accountable governance is both morally and substantively imperative. We, the undersigned, fully support a responsible approach to America’s budget challenges that preserves our important and longstanding leadership in nurturing democracy around the globe. With continuing fiscal austerity all programs are at risk, but democracy and governance assistance should be protected in this process. These expenditures are not only good for the recipients, but they also support the American national interest as well.

Madeleine Albright (Co-Chair), Former Secretary of State

Vin Weber (Co-Chair), Former Congressman (R-MN); former Chair of National Endowment for Democracy

Morton Abramowitz, Former Ambassador to Turkey and Thailand

Brian Atwood, Former Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development

Tom Carothers, Vice President for Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Norm Coleman, Former Senator (R-MN)

Lorne Craner, President, International Republican Institute; former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow, the Hoover Institution

Paula Dobriansky, Former Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs

Martin Frost, Former Congressman (D-TX)

Bill Galston, Former Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Domestic Policy

Michael Gerson, Former Chief Speechwriter for President George W. Bush

Stephen Hadley, Former Assistant to President George W. Bush for National Security Affairs

Andrew Natsios, Former Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development

John Norris, Executive Director, Sustainable Security and Peacebuilding Initiative, Center for American Progress

John Podesta, Chair, Center for American Progress; former Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton

Daniel Runde, William A. Schreyer Chair in Global Analysis, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Steve Sestanovich, Former Senior Director for Policy Development, National Security Council

Anne-Marie Slaughter, Former Director of Policy Planning, U.S. Department of State

Jennifer Windsor, Former Executive Director of Freedom House; former Deputy Assistant Administrator and Director, Center for Democracy and Governance, U.S. Agency for International Development

Ken Wollack, President, National Democratic Institute

Statement of Principles: Democracy, Democratic Governance, and Transparent Institutions in the American Interest

As the events of the Arab Spring demonstrate, there is a growing sense of urgency among peoples around the world to participate in open and free societies. At the same time, the United States faces a critical juncture: Following the election, Congress narrowly avoided the fiscal cliff, pushing difficult budget decisions back by just a few short months. Regardless, our national support for democracy and governance assistance overseas must be protected. Given their modest scale and numerous benefits, America’s official investments in promoting democracy and governance abroad deserve to be sustained even as we deal with very real budget challenges in this current era of fiscal austerity.

Investments in democracy and governance through the U.S. government’s foreign assistance budget play a critical role in America’s security, shared global prosperity, and moral imperative, and they boast a long history of bipartisan support. Today’s “Three Ds” of U.S. international engagement should acknowledge this critical role and become “Four Ds”: defense, diplomacy, development, and democracy. Our foreign assistance budget should reflect these priorities. We, the undersigned, recognize the vitality of American investments in democracy and governance—to national security, to foreign relations, and to the global economy—and we seek to sustain and protect our investments in the democracy and governance sector.

In recent years democracy and governance funding became a subject of some controversy in certain circles on both sides of the political aisle. Some shied away from democracy promotion, associating the terminology with the controversy over the Iraq war. Others were tempted by isolationism, expressing broader weariness about maintaining America’s engagement in the world, and still others became nostalgic for unsustainable arrangements with autocratic regimes in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, the democracy and governance sector continues to enjoy bipartisan support, as it has for many years. President Ronald Reagan, who fostered the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy to ensure ongoing American support for democratic principles, believed that the United States was obligated to “take actions to assist the campaign for democracy,” and that these actions were vital to combat the spread of communism abroad. During his presidency, Jimmy Carter demonstrated a dedication to the promotion of human rights; he continues his personal support with the Carter Center’s mediation and election-observing programs. Promoting democracy abroad was one of the three central goals of President Bill Clinton’s National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement. And in the wake of 9/11, President George W. Bush saw the spread of democracy as a vital element in the war against terrorism. President Barack Obama gave concrete expression to his public commitment to democratic principles by supporting the democratic aspirations of citizens in Egypt and Libya, among other places.

We are at a critical juncture not only in the history of the United States, but in the history of human freedom, with pressing challenges that need to be addressed and opportunities that we should urgently seize. The recent democratic opening in Burma, the presence of both democratic progress and conflict in Africa, ongoing popular unrest in Iran, and the volatile and complex changes in the Middle East present the United States with challenges and opportunities to help shape a freer world—and a freer world directly benefits our own security, prosperity, and international standing. If we do not remain engaged and sustain our investments, however, we not only jeopardize the chances of those pushing for greater freedom in their countries, but we also risk forsaking the benefits to the United States that accompany increased freedom abroad. The returns in U.S. security alone are tremendous, especially considering the small scale of investments made to promote and maintain global stability.

The pace of technological change makes democracy support even more vital, in both closed societies and also emerging and nascent democracies. Autocrats have become more sophisticated in using new technologies to repress their citizens. Surveillance and monitoring of social media have been used to identify, map, and track democracy activists and to suppress domestic political reform. While technology has the potential to allow citizens broader access to information and to connect people around the globe, autocrats have increasingly used a host of sophisticated technologies to filter and censor information and online speech. The use of these tools has also been the subject of authoritarian learning, with Iran providing technology and assistance in Syria to stifle citizens who have risen up against the Assad regime. Those who seek to remain in power against the will of the people have become adept at tracking activists, jamming communications, and offering propaganda via social media.

On the positive side, technology has opened a world of possibility for improved citizen engagement in democratic politics by making it easier for citizens to monitor elections, access information about their governments, express their views, and organize politically. Initiatives such as the Open Government Partnership and the improved transparency that they foster can strengthen public integrity and government accountability, as well as improve service delivery and foster economic development. At the same time, technology provides new challenges to transitional democracies. While social media was widely used by democracy activists in the Middle East to organize protests against authoritarian regimes, in order for democracy to take root, popular demands for political participation must ultimately be channeled from the street to democratically elected representative institutions. These institutions must be able to effectively aggregate interests, engage in deliberative discourse, and find areas of compromise. Technology can empower citizens to have a voice in their government, and the institutions of representative democracy must find ways to utilize this technology and other means to channel and respond to citizens’ demands.

In many parts of the world, U.S. investments are pivotal in effecting improvements in democracy and governance. Although the resources that the United States allocates to these endeavors are quite limited, together with our strategic partners—other governments, intergovernmental organizations, and nongovernmental organizations—we ensure that our investments generate the maximum impact for each assistance dollar while at the same time maintaining some influence and control over the programs we fund. These partnerships also soften any impression that the United States is seeking to export its own system, rather than supporting the people’s own desire for a voice. Even alongside the vital investments of other bilateral and multilateral donors and critical philanthropic dollars, U.S. funding is often necessary to reach the minimum level of investment needed to succeed in politically complicated or risky situations. The U.S. government is often the only funder who has the will, the ability, and the stamina to cover the resource gap.

Democracy is a process, not an event. The United States needs to take a longer view of these investments. The advent of democracy changes people, but that change is not instantaneous. That societal transformation can take 10 years, 15 years, or even longer, and auditors, evaluators, and diplomats need to accept more realistic timelines in achieving these goals. The long-term challenge is to help fledgling democracies deliver better lives for their citizens, thereby building support for democratic governance that prevents alternatives from gaining ground.

American investments in democracy and governance matter. A comprehensive 2006 study completed by broad collaboration between USAID and Professors Steven E. Finkel, Aníbal Pérez-Liñán, and Mitchell A. Seligson examined the effects of U.S. foreign assistance on democracy building from 1990 to 2003 and found that U.S. democracy and governance programs led to statistically significant improvements in democracy worldwide. Of course, the United States cannot bring about democracy and good governance by itself; we must work with multiple elements in societies seeking to bring about that change. The United States has a broad set of partners in the international community that bring many assets to the table to help in this great challenge, including civil society groups, religious leaders, and our traditional allies.

We define democracy as a government characterized by an inclusive and meaningful competition for political power, a high level of political participation among citizens, and political and civil freedom. We define good governance, equally important to the success of a society, as the mechanisms by which a country’s economic, political, and social authority is apportioned and exercised, and the institutions available to citizens to express their opinions, exercise their rights, and fulfill their obligations. Sometimes societies can improve the quality of their governance while remaining unfree, such as a number of countries in Asia. But these examples are rare, and improved governance in the absence of democracy will be short lived. In this interconnected world, the desire for human dignity, freedom, and political voice is universal. In the long run, the policy of the United States should be to support democratic governance and strengthen those institutions that support economic and political liberty. Policy reform, the strengthening of civil society, and partnerships with political parties, parliaments, labor, business groups, the media, and courts are unglamorous but critical investments. U.S. policy should prioritize reducing corruption and increasing transparency.

Two of the challenges in ensuring adequate support for these investments within the United States are that it takes a long time to bring about change and that the changes are technically complex and the outcomes less immediate than those of other investments, such as providing food aid or medicine for the treatment and prevention of disease. Nevertheless, studies have also found that democratic practices and institutions matter—and America has experience supporting the development of these practices and institutions around the world. Outside expertise, training, and funding are critical for creating, building, and shaping institutions in ways that are accountable to their publics, transparent, and deliver a variety of critical public goods. The United Nations Development Programme’s landmark 2002 Human Development Report rightfully concludes that democratic participation is a critical end of human development as well as a means of achieving it.

As Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen and others have noted, economic and political freedoms are mutually reinforcing, and broader democratic promotion can have a powerful effect in making overall development efforts more effective. Studies have shown that political and economic freedom can go hand in hand and that a freer world is often a more prosperous world. In The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace, Mort Halperin, Joseph Siegle, and Michael Weinstein examined 50 countries—both democratic and undemocratic—and found overwhelming evidence that democracy supports development and reduces the likelihood of violent conflict. In that vein, Steve Radelet’s 2010 book, Emerging Africa: How 17 Countries Are Leading the Way, looked at the track records of 17 high-performing sub-Saharan African countries and found that they are challenging the traditional understanding of African regional development by making significant, if oft-overlooked, progress. Among several key differences, most of these high-performing countries were democratic and enjoyed comparatively good governance.

One of the challenges for the United States and other countries is to promote cooperation between those who seek increased trade and support for private-sector-led growth and those who work in the related areas of democracy and governance. In many aid bureaucracies, these sectors are stovepiped even where they are inter-related. Economists, investors, civil society experts, and political scientists must work more closely together. Democracy-support organizations must look more deeply at political economy issues in program design. At the same time, socioeconomic development assistance must also be designed to advance democratic development. While there is an opportunity for greater collaboration between economic and democratic development assistance, it is important that democracy support be both mainstreamed and supported separately. Democracy assistance involves much more than mechanisms for public input on development projects; it also requires sustained and broad engagement to support the development of the rule of law, democratic institutions, and inclusive political participation.

One of the big opportunities and challenges over the next 10 years is going to be how developing countries manage the coming bonanza—and possible curse—of managing extractive wealth. Recently, initiatives such as the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative have helped countries tap into expertise and raised awareness on the potential and perils of this wealth. Some developing countries have managed their extractive wealth relatively well, including Chile, Botswana, and Timor Leste. Unfortunately, however, there are many examples of countries that have failed to manage these volatile resources, creating opportunities for corruption and profligacy. Societies which have more successfully managed this wealth will eventually be weaned off of foreign aid and have the chance to become middle- or even high-income societies.

Of particular importance are sustained investments to support political pluralism in the Arab World. Free elections are going to have a variety of outcomes, and whatever those outcomes are, governments need to support human rights and respect international agreements. If individual and collective rights are to be protected, international norms and agreements to be respected and held accountable, and pluralist institutions to be created, the international community must remain engaged and invest in the individuals and institutions that will form the backbone of emerging democratic societies. Helping parliamentarians become more responsive to citizen concerns, professionalizing civil society, building modern, moderate political parties, supporting independent media and think tanks, and improving the institutions that create the rules of the game for trade and investment are all critically important undertakings. Protection of ethnic and religious minorities is also important to U.S. policy, as support for tolerance and diversity will help ensure that the tenets of democracy are not broken by those seeking to impose their beliefs on others.

The United States is blessed with an ecosystem of partners in democracy assistance, starting with the National Endowment for Democracy and the so-called NED family of core institutions: the Solidarity Center; the Center for International Private Enterprise, or CIPE; the International Republican Institute, or IRI; and the National Democratic Institute, or NDI. Additionally, there is a broad network of specialty, nonprofit groups focused on electoral systems, independent media, and rule of law, all of which bring unique expertise to improving governance. Along with the NED and its core institutes, these organizations have established extensive global relationships that can contribute to their democratic development efforts. This ecosystem is a strategic partner for the United States.

The United States should also work closely with religious organizations, as they often have a history of seeking greater human liberty and have reach and credibility that the United States alone often does not have.

In addition, the United States has many friends and allies who will be able to draw upon their own experience of building democratic governance institutions and serve as effective partners.

A large number of Eastern European countries, including Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, and other countries such as Spain, South Africa, Turkey, and Indonesia all have unique assets to bring to expanding human freedom and, in partnership with American groups, are already sharing their experiences and knowledge with others.

Therefore, we, the undersigned, believe that:

• The United States should view democracy and governance as a central pillar of national security.
• The United States should sustain our official investments in democracy and governance funding even as we deal with very real budget challenges.
• In contributing to democracy and governance, the United States should increase its focus on opportunities for synergistic partnerships with nongovernmental organizations.
• The United States should continue to work closely with our friends and allies, many of which have become democracies in living memory, and leverage their unique assets and experiences.
• The United States’ investments in democracy and governance should reflect a strong understanding of democracy as a process, not an event, and support good governance of newly democratic societies.
• The United States should seek to promote inclusive societies that protect the rights of minorities—religious, ethnic, and otherwise.
• The United States should continue to support democratic reformers in autocratic regimes in Latin America, Eastern Europe, the broader Middle East, Africa, and Asia.
• The United States should maintain an adequate level of investment to support developing countries in effectively managing the upcoming natural resource boom.

SOURCE: AP/Brennan Linsley

College student Cortney Ratashak, 18, of Littleton, Colorado, talks over paperwork with an electoral official before voting in the general election, at a polling station serving the local student population on the campus of the University of Colorado, in Boulder, Colorado, Tuesday, November 6, 2012.

Endnotes and citations are available in the PDF version of this report.

The Millennial generation is the largest, most diverse, and most progressive generation in American history. Young Americans between the ages 12 and 29 comprise the Millennial generation and, as of this year, represent a full quarter of the voting-age American public; in total, 46 million Americans are considered Millennials. In 2012 they surpassed the 39-million-strong bloc of voters older than 65, and by the 2020 election, when all Millennials will have reached voting age, they will total 90 million eligible voters—or 40 percent of the electorate. In the 2012 elections the group’s national turnout of roughly 50 percent meant their 18-percent share of the electorate surpassed the 16-percent share of the electorate for those voters older than 65. This also demonstrates the significant work that remains to be done to ensure more than half of Millennials vote in the future.

Millennials have already begun and will continue to shape America’s increasingly diverse culture, with 44 percent identifying as people of color, according to a recent Campus Progress analysis. Additionally, 44 percent of young Americans consider themselves liberal or progressive, as opposed to 28 percent who identify as conservative or libertarian. Even those who identify as young Republicans demonstrate a more progressive outlook than older members of the same party. This progressivism is visible in a wide range of issues, from the broad debates surrounding the role of government and the economy to issues such as immigration, marriage equality, and women’s health and rights.

Libertarians in particular are well-positioned to win over young supporters on social issues and make a renewed argument regarding the role of government. Coverage of the 2012 elections has included numerous young conservatives expressing “relief” that they can “reset the [Republican] party’s values around race and sex.” Brad Dayspring, the director of the Young Guns Action Fund super PAC—which focuses on helping young Republican challengers win in Democratic-leaning areas—and former aide to Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), said recently that, “Broadly, we have to find a way to communicate on these issues in a way that doesn’t scare people.”

Clearly conservatives recognize that Millennials are increasingly assuming a larger role in choosing our leaders and determining the issues that dominate our political dialogue. Long-term policy debates will hinge on the perspectives and engagement of the Millennial generation as the group continues to make up a larger share of the potential voting electorate. As Millennials’ power within the electorate grows, conservative organizations will increasingly invest in young people in order to shape their ideology and build a stronger conservative base within the generation. With the 2012 elections now behind us and the influence of younger voters deciding outcomes from the presidency to ballot initiatives, conservatives are likely to expand youth investment and adopt new strategies in an attempt to win over young voters.

Conservatives are not new to this effort. This is clear in the number of conservative groups aimed at young adults, such as the Young America’s Foundation and Collegiate Network, and the resources with which these groups are provided, including financial support. Conservatives have invested heavily in long-term leadership development organizations that provide trainings, internships, and fellowships to conservatives starting in college and continuing through post-graduate life.

As evidenced in the recent 2012 elections, the progressive movement already boasts a huge advantage with Millennial voters, with 60 percent of young voters supporting President Barack Obama compared to Republican candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s 37 percent. Young voters also made the difference in deciding numerous progressive ballot initiatives such as Proposition 30 in California, which raised taxes on the wealthy to fund public higher education. But the battle over ideology will only grow more intense as the youth electorate expands. Allowing conservatives to outspend, outpace, and outmaneuver when it comes to young adults could lead to irreversible, costly, and easily preventable losses for progressives in the future.

This report is based on the examination of public tax records and outlines the assets, spending, and personnel differences between conservative and progressive youth organizations. We pulled Public 990 tax forms for the past four years for conservative and progressive organizations and used them to determine all the financial information in this report. Only organizations exclusively focused on youth were examined. Additionally, estimates on staffing, internships, and fellowships were based upon information that organizations posted publicly on their websites, unless otherwise noted. The research focused primarily on organizations that were nonpartisan and geared toward young people, and the categorization of conservative or progressive was based upon internal analysis. Our analysis provides a fresh analysis based on the examination of this new data, which shows significant financial and staffing advantages for conservative youth organizations.

Anne Johnson is the Director of Campus Progress, the youth division of the Center for American Progress. Tobin Van Ostern is the Deputy Director of Campus Progress.

mp4

Download the transcript (docx)

SOURCE: AP/M. Spencer Green

The Obama coalition of the 2012 election provided a clear mandate for governing that focuses on improving the economy, protecting key social programs, expanding opportunity, and addressing rising inequality and unfairness in American life.

Endnotes and citations are available in the PDF version of this report.

Since Robert F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign in 1968 and George McGovern’s run in 1972, progressives have sought to create a multiracial, multiethnic, cross-class coalition—made up of African Americans, Latinos, women, young people, professionals, and economically populist blue-collar whites—supporting an activist government agenda to expand economic opportunities and personal freedoms for all people. With the re-election of President Barack Obama in 2012, this progressive coalition has clearly emerged, albeit in an early and tenuous stage.

In 2012 President Obama won re-election with 50.9 percent of the popular vote and 332 Electoral College votes. He is the first Democratic president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to win two terms with more than 50 percent of the total popular vote. Unlike Democratic victories of the past, however, President Obama was also able to achieve victory with a historically low percentage of the white vote. According to the national exit poll, President Obama achieved victory by carrying 93 percent of African American voters, 71 percent of Latino voters, 73 percent of Asian American voters, and only 39 percent of white voters—slightly less than former Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis’ share of the white vote in 1988.

Why was this possible? First, the shifting demographic composition of the electorate—rising percentages of people of color, unmarried and working women, the Millennial generation and more secular voters, and educated whites living in more urbanized states—has clearly favored Democrats and increased the relative strength of the party in national elections. Similarly, white working-class support for Democrats has been higher in key battleground states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin than in other states, while white college-educated support for Democrats has been strong in emerging battlegrounds such as Colorado and Virginia. In contrast, the Republican Party’s coalition of older, whiter, more rural, and evangelical voters is shrinking and becoming more geographically concentrated and less important to the overall political landscape of the country.

Second, this transition toward a new progressive coalition was possible because of the ideological shift of the American electorate. Voters are moving away from the Reagan-Bush era of trickle-down economics and social conservatism and toward the more pragmatic approach of the Clinton-Obama vision that includes strong governmental support for the middle class, public investments in education and infrastructure, a fairer tax system that requires the wealthy to pay their fair share, and more inclusive social policies.

The Obama coalition of the 2012 election provided a clear mandate for governing that focuses on improving the economy, protecting key social programs, expanding opportunity, and addressing rising inequality and unfairness in American life. Post-election polling by Democracy Corps shows that President Obama enjoyed a 51 percent to 42 percent margin over Republican presidential nominee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on the question of who would be best at “restoring the middle class.” Similarly, voters express far more interest in a post-election deficit plan that invests in jobs and growth, raises taxes on the wealthy, and protects the middle class and social programs than one that shelters the wealthy, cuts economic and social programs, and increases defense spending.

The 40-year transition of progressive politics—from Robert Kennedy to President Obama—has not been without difficulties, setbacks, and outright failures. Progressives witnessed the rise of a resurgent conservative movement that successfully shifted political discourse and public policy away from New Deal and Great Society liberalism to supply-side principles, social conservatism, and aggressive militarism. At the national level, the Democratic Party lost many traditionally Democratic states, particularly in the South, and a large percentage of the country’s white working class drifted toward the reactionary conservatism of the Republican Party under former President Ronald Reagan and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The harsh reaction to the centrist Democratic presidencies of both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton—and President Obama’s first term—signaled the challenges progressives continue to face from their conservative opponents.

Despite these challenges, President Obama and his progressive allies have successfully stitched together a new coalition in American politics, not by gravitating toward the right or downplaying the party’s diversity in favor of white voters. Rather, they did it by uniting disparate constituencies—including an important segment of the white working class—behind a populist, progressive vision of middle-class economics and social advancement for all people regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Should President Obama and progressives deliver on their agenda for the nation and improve the economic standing of middle- and working-class families, the potential for solidifying and expanding this progressive coalition well beyond the Obama years will only increase.

The primary strategic question for supporters of progressive values and policies is whether this coalition can be sustained going forward and, if so, how it can be harnessed to achieve progressive policy victories. This paper examines the demographic and geographic changes undergirding the rise of the new progressive coalition and explores some potential ideas for keeping this coalition together in support of progressive policies that will benefit all.

Ruy Teixeira is a Senior Fellow at both The Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress. John Halpin is a Senior Fellow at the Center.

Bill Ivey, author of Handmaking America, and Joe Romm, author of Language Intelligence and founder of the widely renowned blog Climate Progress, discussed the power of words in political rhetoric and historic leadership at a recent Progressivism on Tap event on October 24 at Busboys and Poets in Washington, D.C. Both books grapple with the idea that words matter in political rhetoric, and—in the words of one of the moderators, CAP Senior Fellow John Halpin—the “perceived failure of a coherent progressive vision.”

The evening began with a look at how both the right and the left have used values language to articulate their vision for government. Both Ivey and Romm agreed that for the last 30 years, the right has been successful in shaping a coherent vision for limited government, while the left has lost its ability to neatly cast a vision for progressives. The authors identified several causes driving this development: a history of diversity within progressivism; a tendency to provide facts-based arguments over a values-based narrative; and—according to Ivey—a discomfort with using moral assertions to promote policy.

Romm forcefully connected the shortcomings of this approach to the issue of climate change and climate scientists and activists’ continued struggles to bring this issue to the forefront of policy discussions.

“It’s rare to know at the beginning of the century what our greatest challenge will be,” said Romm, adding that the leadership on casting a vision for addressing climate change “is just not happening right now.”

This led to questions from Halpin and fellow moderator, CAP Senior Fellow Ruy Teixeira, over whether language has any real impact on policy beyond the margins. Both Ivey and Romm argued that it does, with Romm bringing up President Barack Obama’s handling of the financial crisis as an example of a missed opportunity to cast a powerful narrative of past and future.

“He never told the story of what happened,” said Romm. “He casts a vision, but is very reluctant to call out the bad guys.” He added that great leaders do not rise simply due to force of history—rather, throughout history, those who communicate the best have risen to the top. Similarly, the best-communicated ideas may or may not win the short-term policy battles, said Romm, but they are the ones that have sticking power long into the future.

And the power of language is particularly relevant today. “We will never return to the [economic] go-goism of the early ‘00’s,” said Ivey. “But are we just going to despair? Or are we going to have conversations about energy, about education, about how to change?”

Ivey closed the evening by naming three central building blocks to shaping coherent progressive values: work, family, and community. In Ivey’s view, strengthening social fabric starts with recognizing that to be strong, Americans must work together toward peace and prosperity. As progressives, he said, “we have this idea that we owe it to each other.”

Catherine Woodiwiss is Special Assistant to Progressive Studies and the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress.

SOURCE: AP/Ross D. Franklin

President Barack Obama's 2012 election marks the culmination of a decades-long project to build an electorally viable and ideologically coherent progressive coalition in national politics.

With President Barack Obama’s decisive victory in the 2012 election, he becomes the first Democrat since Franklin Delano Roosevelt—and the only president since Ronald Reagan—to win two consecutive elections with more than 50 percent of the popular vote. Although the election was closely contested, President Obama successfully solidified his historic progressive coalition from 2008 and held on to all of the states he won that year with the exception of conservative-leaning Indiana and North Carolina (as of posting, the results in Florida were still too close to call). And after the electoral disaster of that Democrats suffered in 2010 at the congressional level, the party expanded its majority in the Senate with significant wins in Massachusetts, Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, and even Indiana.

Why did this happen? A potent mix of demographics, a steadily improving economy, a clear rejection of the GOP’s extreme conservatism, and an embrace of pragmatic progressive policies on social and economic issues propelled the president and his party to victory. The president’s central message that “everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everybody plays by the same rules” was more convincing to Americans dealing with rising inequality and diminished economic opportunities than the conservative alternative of supply-side tax cuts, deregulation, and limited government. His policy choices—from the stimulus bill and auto and financial sector bailouts to the health care law and support for expanded rights for women, Latinos, and gay and lesbian families—clearly paid off politically as the nation decided to give the president more time to lay a new foundation for our economy, society and government.

With his clear Electoral College and national popular vote majorities, President Obama has arguably created a genuine realignment at the national level that could continue to shape American politics for years to come. Obama’s strong progressive majority—built on a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, cross-class coalition in support of an activist government that promotes freedom, opportunity, and security for all—is real and growing and it reflects the face and beliefs of the United States in the early part of the 21st Century. The GOP must face the stark reality that its voter base is declining and its ideology is too rigid to represent the changing face of today’s country.

The remainder of this memo will provide a concise overview of the demographic breakdown of the election based on exit poll and election data available today. Updates will be made as more data are finalized.

What happened in 2012?

Basic election results

President Obama achieved re-election with at least 303 electoral votes. Moreover, he seems likely to carry Florida as well, where he has a slight lead with few votes remaining to be counted, the majority of which are from Democratic-leaning areas. That would bring him to 332 electorate votes, only 33 below his 2008 election victory total.

Obama also carried the popular vote. As we write, he is leading the nationwide vote count by around 2,800,000 votes, a 2.4 percentage point margin (50.4-48). Just as they did in 2008, These margins are likely to grow as the vote is fully counted from the West Coast. The president’s final popular vote margin should be closer to 3 points.

The Democrats had a very strong showing in Senate races. They entered the night with 23 seats to defend, compared to just 10 for the Republicans, an imbalance that led many observers to believe that Republicans could recapture control of the Senate. But that did not happen as Democrats instead expanded their 5- seat majority to 55 (including two independents who will caucus with the Democrats).

Republicans did manage to hold onto their control of the House of Representatives, by about a 237-197 majority, plus or minus four seats. And they retained their domination of the nation’s governorships, adding a 30th seat, the governor’s mansion in North Carolina.

Despite these setbacks, it was clearly an excellent night for the Democrats overall. Below we discuss what underlies this impressive performance, starting with who voted in this election—the composition of the electorate—followed by how different groups voted in the election and concluding with the significance of this election for our future.

Who voted?

The voters who showed up in 2012 were far different from those who showed up in 2010, when the Republicans made historic gains in the House of Representatives. Voters in 2012 were much less white, much younger, and less conservative. In these respects, 2012’s electorate marked the return of the Obama coalition of 2008 and, more broadly, an electorate that looks like the America of today, not yesterday.

Race. Voters in 2012 were 72 percent white and 28 percent people of color. The minority figure is an increase of 2 percentage points from the 2008 level of 26 percent, and 5 points from the 2010 level of 23 percent. The increase since 2008, which we predicted in our “Path to 270” paper, is consistent with historical trends and observed increases in the minority share of eligible voters over the last four years. Prior to the election, however, many prominent national surveys were drawing likely voter samples that projected the minority share of voters to remain static or even decline relative to 2008. Gallup estimated minority voters around 22 percent, Washington Post/ABC around 23 percent, and the Pew Research Center around 24 percent. Virtually no pollsters had the minority share reaching the actual 28 percent. This suggests an ongoing problem for the industry in keeping up with a rapidly changing America.

The share of African American voters remained at its 13 percent level from 2008, despite the predictions of many observers that black voter enthusiasm would flag and these voters would not turn out in the same huge numbers for the president. And Hispanics, in line with their growing share of the electorate, increased their share of voters to 10 percent, up from 8.5 percent in 2008, despite similar skepticism about their level of voter enthusiasm. The “sleeping giant” has evidently woken up, aided of course by massive voter registration and GOTV efforts.

Age. Young voters also defied skepticism about their likely levels of voter turnout. They comprised 19 percent of voters this year, up from 18 percent in Obama’s historic campaign of 2008, and way up from 12 percent in 2010. Most of the turnout increase relative to 2008 appeared to be concentrated among the youngest members (18-24 year olds) of the Millennial generation, who increased their share of voters from 10 percent to 11 percent. On the other end of the age distribution, seniors’ turnout was the same as in 2008: 16 percent of voters.

Ideology. Liberals were 25 percent of voters in 2012, up from 22 percent in 2008. Since 1992 the percent of liberals among presidential voters has varied in a narrow band between 20 percent and 22 percent, so the figure for this year is quite unusual. Conservatives, at 35 percent, were up one point from the 2008 level, but down a massive 7 points since 2010.

How did they vote?

The return of the Obama coalition—indeed, its expansion in terms of numbers—explains a good deal of what happened in 2012. But the other part of the story is how various groups within the Obama coalition actually voted in 2012. If Obama had not been able to hold most of his support within these groups, he would not have prevailed, despite the growth in size of these groups.

Race. President Obama lost the white vote in 2012 by a wider margin than he did in 2008—20 points (59 percent-39 percent), compared to 12 points (55 percent-43 percent), respectively. This is very similar to the performance of Michael Dukakis against George H.W. Bush in 1988. But while the first President Bush was able to build a comfortable 7-point victory from such a large advantage among white voters, Gov. Mitt Romney lost this year’s election with basically the same advantage. That is a mark of how much the country has changed in the intervening 24 years, as the minority population has surged.

Overall, Obama received 80 percent support from people of color in 2012, just as he did in 2008. His support among African-Americans was almost as overwhelming this year (93 percent-6 percent) as it was in 2008 (95 percent-4 percent). And his support among Hispanics (71 percent-27 percent) improved substantially over its 2008 level (67 percent-31 percent). Furthermore, it is possible his support among Latinos was even higher, since exit polls tend to undersample Latinos who are Spanish dominant, poorer, and live in less assimilated communities. A Latino Decisions election eve poll, which corrects for these sampling problems, found Latino support for Obama at 75 percent nationally and also found his Latino support substantially higher in various swing states, like in Colorado, where the Latino Decisions poll found 87 percent supporting the president, compared to 75 percent listed in the corresponding state exit poll.

In addition, Obama achieved historic levels of support among Asian-Americans,carrying them 73-26, compared to 62-35 in 2008.

Age. Young people aged 18-29 years old supported Democrats by a 23-point margin in the 2012 election, 60 percent to 37 percent. This is strong support, by far Obama’s best performance among any age group, just as was the case in 2008, when Obama performed even more strongly among these voters (66 percent-32 percent). It is also worth noting that Obama did about as well among 18–24 year olds (60 percent-36 percent) as he did among 25–29 year olds (60 percent-38 percent), indicating that younger members of the Millennial generation, who are just entering the electorate, have the same political leanings as their older counterparts.

Gender. Obama carried women by 55 percent to 44 percent, while losing men by 52-45. This is a larger gender gap than in 2008 when Obama carried women by only slightly more (56 percent-43 percent) while doing quite a bit better among men (actually carrying them, 49 percent-48). Obama did particularly well among single women, carrying them by 67 percent-31 percent, not far off his 70 percent-29 percent margin in 2008.

Ideology. Obama received less support in 2012 from all ideology groups, though the drop-offs were not particularly sharp in any group. He received 86 percent support from liberals (89 percent in 2008), 56 percent from moderates (60 percent in 2008), and 17 percent from conservatives (20 percent in 2008).

The 2012 election in historical context

The 2012 election marks the culmination of a decades-long project to build an electorally viable and ideologically coherent progressive coalition in national politics. Progressives have envisioned such a coalition emerging since the presidential campaigns of Robert Kennedy in 1968 and George McGovern in 1972. Although still unfolding, the undeniable demographic shifts in the United States, coupled with the Obama elections of both 2008 and 2012, prove this process a success and demonstrate the coalition’s long-term sustainability. Unlike the current GOP electoral coalition—which is primarily older, white, and ideologically unbending—the Obama coalition clearly represents the emerging face of the United States and offers room for people across racial, ethnic, class, and ideological lines to find a home and a set of policies that advance their core values and beliefs about the country.

How did this come together? For years, President Obama and progressives worked to organize communities of color, young people, women, professionals, and white working-class voters behind a vision that is inclusive and embraces a positive role for government in advancing human freedom, individual opportunity, and national prosperity. The successful progressive philosophical vision, now validated in two historic elections, is grounded on the notion that both private enterprise and government are essential for opportunity and growth; that our economy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy few; that economic and social inequalities should be reduced; and that America must work cooperatively with others to solve global problems.

President Obama and progressives put this basic vision in place through a series of critical policy choices made by during the president’s first term. These choices helped put the country back on track for economic and social success, extended health coverage to all Americans, expanded civil rights, protected the nation from external threats while ending one war and winding down another, and repaired our standing in the global community. This progressive vision was tested—and ultimately validated—in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and in the face of unyielding opposition from conservatives.

Much more remains to be done in terms of economic recovery and strengthening of the middle class by progressives. And conservatives will likely try to shift ground somewhat to accommodate the new demographic and economic reality. But with the results of the 2012 election, it is clear that the age of Reagan and extreme conservatism has given way to the age of Obama and pragmatic progressivism.

Given the deep divisions in the country and the ongoing skepticism of government, the long-term prospects of this progressive coalition and vision will ultimately depend upon the delivery of greater economic opportunity and security for a majority of American families. Should President Obama and progressives successfully preside over the creation of a stronger American economy and society, the likelihood for more sustainable majorities will only grow with each future presidential cycle.

Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin are Senior Fellows at the Center for American Progress.

SOURCE: AP/ =John Raoux

Aubrey Marks, left, helps a University of Central Florida student to register to vote in Orlando, Florida.

The Millennial generation is the largest (95 million compared to 78 million Baby Boomers), most diverse, and most progressive in American history.

In 2008 many in this generation of 12- to 29-year-olds played a key role in deciding who would be the next president through support at the polls and mobilizing other voters to build support. This year, with 46 million potential voters, not only are Millennials now a full quarter of the voting-age American public, but they also surpass the 39-million-strong bloc of voters older than age 65.

While the Millennials may have gotten older over the past four years, they haven’t lost their passion for all the issues that brought them to the polls in 2008—and could again play a significant role this year.

As this generation continues to play a larger role in determining who is elected to lead our country and the issues on which our leaders focus, journalists and pundits are dedicating more column inches and air time to this group of Americans—but who they are and what motivates them can get lost in the noise.

For all the effort by the media to paint this generation with a single—and often unflattering—brush, one of the features that defines the generation more than anything else is how incredibly diverse it is—and how that informs so many of the decisions it makes and the issues it fights for. 2020 will be the first presidential election in which all Millennials will be of voting age. They will total about 90 million eligible voters, will comprise nearly 40 percent of the electorate, and nearly half (44 percent) will be people of color.

This paper will discuss the makeup of the Millennial generation, the issues it cares about, the challenges it faces, and the role it will play in leading the country in the decades ahead.

Millennial demographics

In addition to being the largest generation in American history, the Millennial generation is also the most racially and ethnically diverse. As more minorities enter the electorate, policymakers will be challenged to deliver progressive and inclusive policies to satisfy the needs of all their constituents—some of whom have felt the brunt of marginalization in the past.

In terms of race and ethnicity, the share of Millennials who are people of color is greater than any previous generation. A 2010 Pew report found that minorities made up nearly 40 percent of Millennials—a similar share to Generation Xers (ages 30 to 47)—but a higher percentage when compared to the 27 percent of people of color Baby Boomers (ages 48 to 66) and 20 percent of people of color Silents (ages 67 to 87). In 2012, 43 percent of voting-age Millennials are people of color (including 19 percent Hispanic, 14 percent black, and 5 percent Asian), while 60 percent are white. Further, by 2020—the first presidential election where all Millennials will have reached voting age—44 percent of voting-age Millennials will be people of color.

Perhaps one of the most significant projections about the demographics of the electorate, the Millennial generation, and the direction of our country in the decades ahead is that by 2050 those ages 65 and older are expected to have just reached the 40-percent-minority threshold that Millennials have already reached. Seniors have historically had higher voter-turnout rates than any other age group and accordingly have consistently been a group of voters with which candidates prioritize engaging (as seen by the time spent discussing Medicare). With Millennials now outnumbering seniors, however, the younger generation now has the potential to play a larger role at the polls.

According to research from the Center for Information and Research On Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University, Millennial voters are diverse in many more ways than race—a growing number of young people of color are identifying as gay* and transgender, and the majority of Millennials support expanding rights and equality for the gay and transgender community. Additionally, though more Millennials are unaffiliated with a religious tradition compared to previous generations, most still consider themselves religious and are finding new ways to define what that means for them as they embrace more progressive positions than previous generations.

Another key aspect of this age group is its social interaction, which plays a central role in the way it participates in politics. Millennials spend more time online than any other age group, and this colors their activism and the way that candidates and advocacy organizations engage them in discussion and debate. A full 75 percent of Millennials have created a profile on social networking sites, while only 50 percent of Generation Xers, 30 percent of Baby Boomers, and 6 percent of Silents have done the same. This is why both advertisers and political campaigns are increasingly turning to social media to reach Millennials.

Education

Higher education is becoming crucial for competing in today’s job market, and a growing number of Millennials understand the lifelong benefits of a college degree.More of them are earning college degrees, and nearly 80 percent still believe they can achieve the American Dream—but many of them know that it’s only possible through hard work and education.

While the cost of attaining a college degree has increased substantially over the past three decades, Millennials remain the most educated generation in the country’s history. Pew recently reported that more than half (54 percent) of Millennials—when they were ages 18 to 28—had attained at least some college education. Each previous generation had lower levels of higher education, with 49 percent of Gen Xers, 36 percent of Boomers, 24 percent of the Silent generation obtaining at least some college education when they were those ages. Additionally, Millennials are also more likely to have completed high school and—similar to the generation before them—are continuing the trend of women outpacing men in graduating from or attending college.

But just as important as race, sexual orientation, education level, and social interaction are the beliefs and attitudes that Millenials hold about the major issues our country faces and the best ways to address them. We details these positions held by many Millennials below.

Attitudes and values

Social issues

The majority of Millennial voters hold progressive views on social issues. From supporting hard-working undocumented immigrants to touting equality for young gay and transgender Americans, this generation embraces a brand of politics that is inclusive and supportive—one that unifies and believes America is better when people work together.

Of the 21 core values and beliefs that a majority of young Americans said they support, only four were classified as conservative, according to research conducted by the Center for American Progress. Some of the key findings about Millennials’ values and beliefs include:

• 64 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds say they support the DREAM Act, a bill to provide a pathway to legal status for eligible young people who were brought here as children and who complete high school and some college or military service
• 84 percent agree that “We should do everything we can to make sure that people who want to use prescription birth control have affordable access to it and that cost is not an obstacle”
• 62 percent of young people favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to get married

With the media so often portraying religion and progressivism as opposites, it’s important to note that for Millennials, this couldn’t be further from the truth. While fewer young Americans view their faith as the single path to salvation than do older generations, Millennials are more open to multiple ways of interpreting their religion. Three-quarters of young people said there’s more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their faith, according to aPew survey, compared with 67 percent of affiliated adults (ages 30 and older). For those who are young and religiously affiliated, for example, almost twice as many (65 percent) say that society should accept the gay and transgender community, compared to those in the Baby Boomer generation and older (35 percent).

These numbers reaffirm the widely held belief that young people are more progressive than older generations, especially when compared to the larger population. How much impact this has on public policy and the future of the country depends entirely upon how politically active and engaged Millennials are and how much political candidates and elected leaders engage with and respond to Millennials.

The core values shared by Millennials undoubtedly impacts the way they view government, particularly on issues such as abortion, contraceptives, same-sex marriage, and immigration—often considered wedge or “hot” button issues. But these progressive values don’t mean a strict allegiance to one party. Though Millennials have more confidence in the government’s ability to solve both social and economic issues, it also wants to see a more efficient and effective government that helps bring the solutions our country needs.

Economy and support for government

When compared to older generations, Millennials place more faith in the government to deal with the issues it cares about most, including the economy, higher-education reform, and income inequality. Research by the Center for American Progress, in a report titled “The Generation Gap on Government,” shows that Millennials are the generation most likely to reverse the trend of distrust in government—they actually want a strong government to handle the economy. More than 60 percent of Millennials, compared to just 46 percent of older voters, believe “we need a strong government to handle today’s complex economic problems.” Fifty percent of Millennials say government should do more to solve problems, while only one-third of non-Millennials share that view. And 44 percent of Millennials voice confidence in the federal government’s ability to solve problems—14 percent more than do older generations.

While it’s true that government can’t solve every problem, Millennials believe the government would be most effective at intervening in economic issues such as closing the wealth gap, bolstering the workforce, investing in education, and addressing soaring college costs:

• 80 percent agree that “government investments in education, infrastructure, and science are necessary to ensure America’s long-term economic growth,” compared to 6 percent who disagree
• 73 percent of college-age Millennials ages 18 to 24 agree that “the economic system in this country unfairly favors the wealthy”
• 72 percent favor “increasing the tax rate on Americans earning more than $1 million a year”
• 69 percent agree that “the government should do more to reduce the gap between rich and poor”
• 75 percent of Millennials are more likely to call for increased government involvement in improving public schools, compared to 54 percent on non-Millennials.
• 73 percent of Millennials are more supportive of governmental involvement in making college more affordable, in contrast to 56 percent of other segments of the population

A major part of why Millennials are more in favor of government than their older counterparts can be attributed to the shift in demographics—particularly a jump in young Hispanics, who typically favor government intervention. Since the current administration announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy—which will delay the deportation of DREAM Act-eligible youth and permit them to work legally in the United States—many mixed-status families have first-hand experience with the positive impact the government can have on a community. Elected officials, however, shouldn’t take Millennials’ progovernment stance for granted. Instead they should see Millennials’ view of government—as having a place in broadening people’s access to opportunity—as a chance to not only engage and mobilize but also to demonstrate that when young people make an investment in democracy, they get returns.

Engagement and activism

The ability of a generation to change the country and the policies it enacts is rooted in its political engagement and activism. As previously noted, one of the defining characteristics of Millennials is their diversity, with nearly one in two being people of color. It is because of this diversity that this generation will likely be the one to take up the torch of fighting for greater equality—for themselves and for other communities that have been historically marginalized and unable to pursue the opportunities that make the American Dream possible. Millennials will take up these fights using new forms of activism and organizing tools, with more and more of everyday life moves online, as we detail below.
Additionally, as seen above, Millennials are especially progressive on social issues and are particularly engaged and vocal on these issues. A recent study of first-year college students by the University of California, Los Angeles, found that:

• 71.3 percent said they supported gay and lesbian couples’ right to get married. That’s a stark contrast with a poll from last fall of the general public that only showed 46 percent support for marriage equality.
• 57 percent of students do not believe undocumented immigrants should be denied access to public education. Compared to a 2010 Gallup poll that showed support for the DREAM Act among voters older than age 34 as just more than half of those polled and still firmly divided along partisan lines, this result show increasing recognition and support for undocumented peers.
• 60.7 percent of freshmen think abortion should be kept legal. This is an even clearer example of the difference between young people and general public, which has grown less supportive of a woman’s right to choose in recent years.

More than just highlighting the electoral potential of this demographic, the 2008 election showed how engaged young people are with their communities on issues that impact them. Nearly one in five Millennials are highly engaged in “service, community-change, and political activities,” according to a study by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. The study, which looks at Millennials’ political and civic participation in 2008 and 2010, also found that 17.9 percent of Millennials were actively focused on the election and candidates, and were discussing politics frequently and voting on Election Day.

While Millennials are taking active roles in organizing and advocacy on a number of issues, there remains much untapped potential among these young Americans. But the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement study found that when you directly engage young people and ask them to participate, they do. In each new election cycle, more politicians are recognizing and acting on this fact. With 46 million young people ages 18 to 29 years old eligible to vote (compared to the 39 million seniors who are eligible to vote), it comes as no surprise that more politicians are pivoting toward this undermobilized demographic.

Aside from sheer volume—18- to 29-year-olds now make up 24 percent of the voting eligible population—much of the past four decades of presidential cycles has shown a tepid rise in youth turnout. From 1972 to 2000 the youth turnout rate declined by 16 percentage points, but the 2004 election marked the beginning of a comeback for youth participation, with turnout soaring by 11 percentage points. The trajectory has been ticking upward ever since.

• 40 percent of young people ages 18 to 29 turned out in 2000, compared to 65 percent of those 30 and older
• 49 percent of young people, compared to 68 percent of those 30 and older, turned out in 2004
• 51 percent of young people turned out in 2008, marking the third-highest youth turnout rate since the voting age was lowered to 18

While youth turnout has nudged up, turnout among older voters has relatively flatlined.

Each of the past three presidential election cycles, more young people are casting votes, with 15 million casting their ballots in the 2000 general election and 20 million in the 2004 presidential election, a surge of more than 5 million. But it was the 2008 presidential election that really marked the turning point in youth participation: Out of 41 million eligible voters, 22.4 million showed up at the polls. While this was an increase of 2 million votes cast compared to 2004 and more than 6.5 million from 2000, the real impact was even larger, with so many—some too young to vote—playing an active role in get-out-the-vote efforts across the country. Additionally, each election cycle, Millennials have also made up more of the electorate: Approximately 14 percent of votes cast 2000 were by young people, and that number continued to climb in 2004 (16 percent) and 2008 (17 percent).

Even during midterm election season, when expectations are lowest for overall turnout, the trend for youth voter turnout actually remained relatively stable in the past three cycles, according to data from the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement:

• 22 percent of young people turned out in 2002
• 25 percent of young people voted 2006
• 24 percent of Millennials (ages 18 to 29) turned out in 2010

One interesting figure that highlights the diversity of Millennials—specifically in the context of political participation—is that in 2010, as in 2008, young African Americans led the way in youth voter turnout. During the 2010 midterm elections, when turnout is typically far lower, young African Americans voted at a rate of 27.5 percent, compared to 24.9 percent of young whites, 17.7 percent of, and 17.6 of young Latinos. Turnout among white youth actually declined more than that of any other race or ethnicity between 2006 and 2010.

For all the pundits who would write off this generation and the role it will play in elections and the political process, Millennials are engaged in varied and sometime nontraditional ways. In fact, as many as three-quarters of young people cling on to various rungs of political engagement:

• 21 percent of young people voted and were broadly engaged in the political process
• 18 percent focused narrowly on political activism and voting
• 14 percent registered to vote in 2010 but weren’t mobilized to hit the polls and led to other ladders of engagement
• 13 percent intensely followed and commented on politics online but missed opportunities to vote or take direct action

The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement study found, however, that the remaining 23 percent of Millennials were not engaged at all, which presents a clear example of untapped potential for elected officials. This diversified approach to civic action demonstrates that young people are engaged but are in many ways undermobilized and just starting to appreciate their influence in political participation; many have simply been politically marginalized due to lack of education or privilege. The majority of young people who were alienated from politics only held a high school diploma, and notable majorities were people of color.

Diversity, consistent turnout, and growing voter eligibility mean Millennials are the best chance to make progress on the issues that will keep our country moving forward. But an investment in mobilizing the potential of this powerful voting bloc is key. The Millennial generation can be a powerful contender for the electorate if politicians seize opportunities to reaffirm young people’s belief in bigger and better government; work to close gaps in income, racial, and education disparities; and consistently engage in mobilizing around issues that matter most to young people. But politicians won’t succeed at driving young people to the polls if they fail to recognize one crucial element when it comes to civic engagement: Millennials do things differently.

For all the pessimistic predictions and dismissing of Millennials’ impact in this election, nearly 70 percent say it is extremely or very likely they will personally vote—up from about 60 percent in July. What’s more, 72.6 percent of young people believe they have the power to change things in this country. There should be no mistake: Millennials will play a critical role in deciding the outcome on November 6.

Conclusion

Plenty has been said and written in the weeks leading up to the election about whether Millennials will turn out to vote and which candidate they’ll be supporting. But little of that coverage takes a deeper look at what is motivating this generation and the many ways beyond voting that the generation is making a difference in its communities. Millennials face real challenges and understand that the future is uncertain, but as the most diverse and best-educated generation the country has ever seen, they are driven, confident, and ready to work for better policies and a more progressive society.

Anne Johnson is the Director of Campus Progress at the Center for American Progress.

*In this column, we use gay as an umbrella term for those who identify as gay, lesbian, and bisexual.

SOURCE: AP/Javier Galeano

Cuban activist Oswaldo Payá speaks during an interview with the Associated Press in Havana, Cuba, Monday, August 7, 2006. He passed away Sunday, July 22, 2012.

Oswaldo Payá, a great human rights activist and a champion of freedom and liberty for the Cuban people, died yesterday in a fatal car crash.

Although Payá’s name was not well known in the United States, he spent decades under constant threat in Cuba, trying to transform his native country through nonviolent action. The 60-year-old medical equipment engineer was inspired at a young age by his Roman Catholic faith and the events of the Prague Spring of 1968 to overcome his government’s intimidation tactics and build the Varela Project—his nation’s first widespread domestic opposition movement. As the driving force behind the Varela Project, a grassroots petition drive that worked within constitutional channels and collected more than 25,000 signatures in favor of expanding basic freedoms, Payá exemplified a thoughtful, inclusive, and home-grown approach to challenging the Cuban state.

Payá, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, not only inspired thousands of his fellow citizens but also earned the praise of the international community. In 2002 the European Union honored his “decisive contribution to the fight” with its most esteemed human rights award, the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. That same year the National Democratic Institute recognized “his courageous and steadfast commitment to fundamental human rights” with its W. Averell Harriman Democracy Award.

I met Payá and his wife at their Havana home in 2005. The house was under constant surveillance, both electronically and by ever-present security personnel in the street outside. My colleagues and I spoke to the Payás in whispers while music blared through the house in what was probably a futile attempt to stop the conversation from being overheard by the Cuban government.

Although undeterred by the personal intimidation, Payá was pained by the costs to his children who, at the behest of their government, were shunned by friends and denied university access. Nevertheless, Payá was determined to see change come to Cuba though peaceful, nonviolent action. Despite the oppression, he never lost his faith or his hope.

We mourn Payá’s death, but his legacy lives on in Cuba, around the world, and at the Center for American Progress.

John Podesta is Chair and Counselor of the Center for American Progress.

SOURCE: Parti Socialiste

CAP mourns the passing of longtime colleague and friend Olivier Ferrand.

It was with great regret and sorrow that we learned today of the sudden and untimely death of Olivier Ferrand, newly elected member of the French parliament, founder and president of the progressive think tank Terra Nova, and longtime friend and colleague to many of us at the Center for American Progress.

For over a decade, Olivier was at the heart of the renewal of the French Socialist Party and the global progressive movement. A committed advocate of the French people, and a convinced and instinctive internationalist, early in his career he served as a European advisor to French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, and then to President of the European Commission Romano Prodi. Later, as the founder of A Gauche en Europe and more recently Terra Nova, Olivier created French institutions at the cutting edge of the European and global policy debate.

When we at the Center for American Progress created our Global Progress initiative, a program that nurtures and fosters dialogue between young progressive leaders across the globe, we naturally turned to Olivier for help and counsel.

In four short years, Olivier drove a new wave of transatlantic progressive dialogue from Paris. He led study groups from the Socialist Party to analyze the lessons of the U.S. primary process and was instrumental in the adoption of the process for the first time ever by the French Socialist Party last October.

Inspired by the election of Barack Obama in 2008, he also spearheaded the application and adaptation of social media and modern online communication and organizing techniques within the French progressive movement. Both made an invaluable contribution to Francois Hollande’s and the Socialist Party’s victories this summer.

Most recently, and most deservedly, after years of tough political battles, he defeated both the center-right and National Front candidates in the legislative elections in mid-June to become the Socialist member of parliament for Bouches Du Rhone. He was due to take up his seat when parliament reconvened on Tuesday, and much was expected from him.

Today, French President François Hollande saluted Olivier for his work in the Socialist party, as well as his leadership over Terra Nova.

“He was a talent that our country could pride itself on, and whose future held enormous promise. His voice will be missed at the National Assembly,” Hollande said in a statement from the Elysée Palace.

Oliver was indeed a remarkable talent; one that not just France but progressives everywhere could pride themselves on. He will be sorely missed.

In each station of her life—from Maine where she was raised, to New York where she was a path-breaking woman in the financial world and met Herb Sandler, to many years in California where they built and ran a highly regarded business and raised a beautiful family together—Marion Sandler lived the American dream.

She gave back her resources and devoted her talents through extraordinary philanthropy. She not only helped launch the Center for American Progress, but gave us our name and trained us to pay attention to excellence, credibility, and building for the long-term.

Marion also had a well-earned reputation for being tough. Talking to her about a new idea or program often felt like defending a doctoral dissertation, but she could also be incredibly warm, kind, and thoughtful. I never left a conversation with Marion without some of her wisdom and charm rubbing off on me. She was a remarkable woman, mother, partner, and friend.

Marion left this world, as she had wanted, having done all she could to expand opportunities for ordinary Americans, particularly the left out and the left behind, so they could lift up their own lives and receive a better break from the way business and government served them.

We will miss her. We embrace Herb Sandler and their children, Susan and Jim and their families, as they experience this great loss.

For additional information about Marion Sandler’s legacy please visit www.marionsandler.com.

John Podesta is Chair and Counselor of the Center for American Progress.

SOURCE: AP/Tony Dejak

A woman votes at at the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections on January 31, 2012, in Cleveland. Conservative legislators are introducing and passing legislation that creates new barriers for those registering to vote, shortens the early voting period, imposes new requirements for already-registered voters, and rigs the Electoral College in select states.

Download this issue brief (pdf)

Read the brief in your web browser (Scribd)

The right to vote is under attack all across our country. Conservative legislators are introducing and passing legislation that creates new barriers for those registering to vote, shortens the early voting period, imposes new requirements for already-registered voters, and rigs the Electoral College in select states. Conservatives fabricate reasons to enact these laws—voter fraud is exceedingly rare—in their efforts to disenfranchise as many potential voters among certain groups, such as college students, low-income voters, and minorities, as possible. Rather than modernizing our democracy to ensure that all citizens have access to the ballot box, these laws hinder voting rights in a manner not seen since the era of Jim Crow laws enacted in the South to disenfranchise blacks after Reconstruction in the late 1800s.

Talk about turning back the clock! At its best, America has utilized the federal legislative process to augment voting rights. Constitutional amendments such as the 12th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, and 26th have steadily improved the system by which our elections take place while expanding the pool of Americans eligible to participate. Yet in 2011, more than 30 state legislatures considered legislation to make it harder for citizens to vote, with over a dozen of those states succeeding in passing these bills. Anti-voting legislation appears to be continuing unabated so far in 2012.

Unfortunately, the rapid spread of these proposals in states as different as Florida and Wisconsin is not occurring by accident. Instead, many of these laws are being drafted and spread through corporate-backed entities such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, as uncovered in a previous Center for American Progress investigative report. Detailed in that report, ALEC charges corporations such as Koch Industries Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and The Coca-Cola Co. a fee and gives them access to members of state legislatures. Under ALEC’s auspices, legislators, corporate representatives, and ALEC officials work together to draft model legislation. As ALEC spokesperson Michael Bowman told NPR, this system is especially effective because “you have legislators who will ask questions much more freely at our meetings because they are not under the eyes of the press, the eyes of the voters.”

The investigative report included for the first time a leaked copy of ALEC’s model Voter ID legislation, which was approved by the ALEC board of directors in late 2009. This model legislation prohibited certain forms of identification, such as student IDs, and has been cited as the legislative model from groups ranging from Tea Party organizations to legislators proposing the actual legislation such as Wisconsin’s Voter ID proposal from Republican state Rep. Stone and Republican state Sen. Joe Leibham.

Registering the poor “to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals.”

-Conservative columnist Matthew Vadum

Similar legislation had been proposed during the early 2000s in states such as Missouri, but the legislation frequently failed to be passed. Seeking new avenues, the George W. Bush administration prioritized the conviction of voter fraud to the point where two U.S. attorneys were allegedly fired in 2004 for failing to pursue electoral fraud cases at the level required by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. In fact, three years after first prioritizing election fraud in 2002, Ashcroft’s efforts had produced only 95 defendants charged with election-fraud, compared to 80,424 criminal cases concluded in a given year.

These efforts were dismal in terms of effectiveness and convictions, but news reports from 2007 pointed out that simply “pursuing an investigation can be just as effective as a conviction in providing that ammunition and creating an impression with the public that some sort of electoral reform is necessary.”

With this groundwork laid, ALEC today is spearheading these efforts anew. These new antivoting laws are being challenged legally by a variety of nonpartisan organizations ranging from Rock the Vote to the League of Women Voters to the Public Interest Research Group. Additionally, the Department of Justice is reviewing some of the new state laws for possible violations of the Voting Rights Act, which freezes changes in election practices or procedures in nine southern states due to their history of voter suppression in the past.

This issue brief focuses on both the current status of various antivoter measures throughout our country as well as the legal challenges they face. Readers will learn how conservatives want to return to past practices of voter suppression to preserve their political power, and looks at several instances where progressives are fighting back successfully.

Registration restrictions

Let’s begin with voter registration restrictions. In a handful of states, legislators aren’t just making it more difficult to vote; they’re making it more difficult for citizens even to register in the first place. Lawmakers in half a dozen states made a variety of changes to the registration process in 2011. These include limiting when citizens can register, restricting who is permitted to help them, and implementing tougher bureaucratic requirements to register.

Nowhere has the war on registration been more controversial than the state of Maine. Since 1973, Mainers have been permitted to register to vote at the ballot box. For nearly 40 years, the system worked smoothly—separate lines for registering and voting are used to prevent congestion—and just two instances of voter fraud were found in the entire span.

Nevertheless, when an unusually conservative group of lawmakers took over both statehouse chambers and the governorship in 2010, one of their primary orders of business was to repeal the state’s law permitting citizens to register on Election Day. Fortunately, in the ensuing weeks citizens of the state rallied to collect tens of thousands of signatures and force a vote on the matter. In November 2011, 61 percent of Mainers rebuked the legislature and voted to restore Election Day registration in their state.

“I don’t want everybody to vote.”

-Heritage Foundation co-founder Paul Weyrich

Alas, voting rights proponents in other states have not been as successful. In Florida and Texas, for example, lawmakers succeeded in placing onerous new restrictions on nonprofit organizations that help register new voters. Voter registration drives by groups such as the League of Women Voters have been a staple of our democracy for years, helping thousands of citizens to register, regardless of their political affiliation.

In the Sunshine State, however, those may now be a thing of the past. Last July, the League of Women Voters announced it would no longer operate in Florida because of new antivoter legislation—including complicated new filing requirements and a mandate to submit completed registration forms within 48 hours of completion or face a hefty fine—made it nearly impossible for them to continue their work.

The Lone Star State also placed unnecessary new requirements on groups and individuals interested in helping register others. Texas lawmakers in May passed legislation requiring that people who help register voters, known as volunteer deputy registrars, must also be eligible Texas voters themselves. The new law has a number of unintended consequences. For instance, legal permanent residents who are in the process of obtaining their citizenship would be barred from learning the political process by helping register others. Many such immigrants are currently employed as deputy registrars; this new law would likely result in their firing.

What’s more, disabled Texans who are considered full guardians of the state and ineligible to vote would be shut out as well. One disabled gentleman had carried voter registration forms in his wheelchair for years, eager to register others for a democratic process he himself could not participate in. Under the new law, it would be illegal for him to continue registering new voters. As of February 2012, Texas’s new law remains not in effect while the Justice Department determines whether it complies with the Voting Rights Act.

Kansas, Alabama, and Tennessee took a slightly different route, augmenting the required documentation necessary to register to vote. Each passed laws requiring residents to prove their citizenship before registering, either by presenting a birth certificate or passport. Less than a third of Americans currently own a passport, and citizens who don’t have access to their birth certificate would be forced to pay for one in order to vote—an almost certain violation of the 24th Amendment’s ban on poll taxes. The problem is not small; at least 7 percent of Americans don’t have easy access to a birth certificate or similar citizenship document.

Arizona and Georgia also passed similar legislation prior to 2011. The Justice Department is currently reviewing Georgia and Alabama’s changes for compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and Arizona’s law is being challenged in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Residency restrictions

Another avenue where conservatives are proposing to limit voting rights is tightening the residency requirements. The intended effect of these measures is to make it difficult, if not impossible, for out-of-state college students to vote where they attend school.

In Maine, young voters are being targeted even more brazenly. In September 2011 Maine’s secretary of state sent a threatening letter to hundreds of college students who were legally registered to vote in the state, implying that many of them were in violation of election law and suggesting they correct this by unregistering in Maine. The list of college students targeted for this letter came directly from the Maine Republican Party Chairman, underscoring just how partisan the voter suppression effort in Maine has become. New Hampshire is now considering stricter residency requirements for Granite State voters as well.

All of this is especially surprising given the Supreme Court’s decision in Symm v. United States, where it upheld a lower court decision establishing that states cannot place obstacles unique to college students between those students and their right to vote.

Limiting early voting

Following widespread voting problems in the 2000 election that had nothing to do with voter fraud—from extraordinarily long lines to hanging chads—many states moved to ease the burden on clerks and citizens by allowing people to vote prior to Election Day. Ohio and Florida were the epicenter of these problems, and both states moved to prevent similar problems in the future by allowing early voting.

Among conservatives, then-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was a major proponent of such reforms, calling them a “wonderful” way to “provide access to the polls.” As a result, over half of Sunshine State voters cast their ballot before Election Day in 2008.

Yet three years later, lawmakers in the state moved to limit the availability of early voting. In Florida voters had previously been permitted two weeks of early voting prior to the election; lawmakers rolled that back to eight days. Ohio lawmakers went even further, reducing the state’s early voting period from 35 days to just 11. Ari Berman also notes in Rolling Stone that “both states banned voting on the Sunday before the election—a day when black churches historically mobilize their constituents.”

Other states have successfully rolled back their early voting periods as well. Georgia reduced early voting from 45 to 21 days, Wisconsin shortened their period by 16 days, West Virginia by five days, and Tennessee by two.

In one bright spot, voting rights proponents in the Buckeye State are fighting back against the new changes. Hundreds of thousands of Ohioans signed a petition to hold a referendum on the voting changes, suspending the law until voters decide its fate in November 2012.

Voter ID laws

The chief sponsor of Georgia’s voter ID legislation, Rep. Sue Burmeister (R-Augusta), told the Justice Department the bill would keep more African Americans from voting, which was fine with her since “if there are fewer black voters because of this bill, it will only be because there is less opportunity for fraud.”

The most common type of voter-related legislation in 2011 was the mandate that individuals must show certain kinds of government-issued photo ID at the polls before being allowed to vote. To date, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin have all passed such laws, and similar measures have been proposed by 24 more.

But with more than 1 in 10 voters (over 21 million Americans) currently lacking these photo IDs, it’s clear that such laws could have a disastrous effect. Voter ID laws have the potential to exclude millions of Americans, especially seniors, students, minorities, and people in rural areas. One example is Osceola, Wisconsin: A small town in the northwestern part of the state with a population of under 3,000 people. The town is 30 minutes away from the nearest DMV offices and both are rarely open.

Defenders of these laws claim they are necessary to prevent voter fraud. In reality they are a solution in search of a problem. There’s virtually no such fraud in American elections— and it’s not even remotely close to being the epidemic that some elected officials have made it out to be. In the 2004 election, for example, about 3 million votes were cast in Wisconsin—only seven were declared invalid—all of which were cast by felons who had finished their sentences and didn’t realize they were still barred from voting. As a result, Wisconsin’s overall fraud rate came in at a whopping 0.00023 percent.

The only kind of voter fraud that is supposed to be prevented by these laws is one voter impersonating another. Not only would impersonating other voters one-by-one be an absurd strategy for stealing an entire election, but the already-existing penalties—five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—are doing an effective job at preventing such fraud.

Yet, while these laws would prevent few if any actual cases of voter fraud, they could disenfranchise millions of ID-less voters. And they are clearly illegal under longstanding voting rights law. The Voting Rights Act not only forbids laws that are passed specifically to target minority voters but also strikes down state laws that have a greater impact on minority voters than on others. Because Voter ID laws disproportionately disenfranchise minorities, they clearly fit within the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition.

Gaming the Electoral College

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett recently proposed changing the way his state allocates electoral votes in a presidential election. Should his proposal become law, it could alter the outcome in 2012 and significantly increase the possibility that a candidate who loses the popular vote in his state still receives more electoral votes overall.

Although the Constitution permits each state legislature to decide how the winner of its electoral votes will be selected during a presidential election, all but two of the states follow the same process—whoever wins the state as a whole receives all of that state’s electoral votes. The two remaining states, Maine and Nebraska, allocate one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, plus two additional votes to the overall winner of the state. Because these are both very small states, however, their unusual process is unlikely to alter the outcome of presidential elections.

The same cannot be said of Pennsylvania. As the nation’s sixth most populous state, Pennsylvania commands 20 electoral votes in the 2012 election. Gov. Corbett’s proposal would allocate these votes according to the Maine/Nebraska system, potentially swinging the election in the process.

President Obama won Pennsylvania by more than 10 percentage points in 2008, but if Pennsylvania had allocated votes in the same way as Maine and Nebraska then he would have only earned only more electoral vote from the state than his opponent Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). In 2012 President Obama could win the state as a whole and still lose twelve of the state’s twenty electoral votes due to Pennsylvania’s heavily gerrymandered districts. This is more than enough to change the result of next year’s election. Consider that after the Supreme Court awarded Florida’s electoral votes to George W. Bush after the 2000 presidential election. Bush received only five more electoral votes in 2000 than his opponent Al Gore, who won the majority of the national popular vote.

Gov. Corbett’s plan risks absurd results where the overall winner of a state’s popular vote becomes the loser of its electoral vote. Worse, it undermines the legitimacy of any president who takes office solely due to Pennsylvania conservatives gaming the Electoral College. Although the Pennsylvania plan is probably constitutional, it is no less an attack on our democratic system of government. The winner of the 2012 presidential election should be the person chosen by the American people, not by arbitrary differences between various states’ election laws.

For the moment, Gov. Corbett’s proposal appears to be dead due to infighting between the proposal’s supporters and some of Pennsylvania’s members of Congress in Washington who fear it could cause more campaign resources to be directed toward their districts. There is nothing preventing its supporters from reviving it—potentially even on the eve of the election—should the 2012 election appear close enough to be swung by manipulating the Electoral College.

Moreover, at least one Wisconsin lawmaker has jumped upon this proposal, creating the risk that it could spread to other states. If similar swing states, such as Florida or Michigan, took up this plan, it could fundamentally transform the next election into a contest to see who can best game the system.

Voter suppression in personal terms

In a representative democracy, it is important to point to individuals who would be prevented from exercising their right to vote due to these efforts at targeted voter suppression. Here are some real-life examples of the consequences of these voter suppression laws.

Ricky Tyrone Lewis

Ricky is a 58 year-old Marine Corps veteran. Despite the fact that he was able to offer Wisconsin voting officials proof of his honorable discharge from the Marines, Milwaukee County has been unable to find the record of his birth that he needs in order to obtain a voter ID card.

Ruthelle Frank

Ruthelle is an 84 year-old former elected official who voted in every election for the last 63 years, yet she will be unable to obtain a voter ID unless she pays a fee to obtain a birth certificate from the Wisconsin government—despite the fact that the Constitution explicitly forbids any voter from being charged a fee in order to vote. Worse, because the attending physician at her birth misspelled her name on her original birth certificate, she may need to pay hundreds of dollars in court fees to petition the state judiciary to correct her certificate before she can obtain a voter ID.

Paul Carroll

Paul is an 86-year-old World War II veteran who has lived in the same Ohio town for four decades. Yet when he attempted to vote in the recent Ohio primary, he was told his photo ID from the Department of Veterans Affairs was not good enough because it did not include his address.

Dorothy Cooper

Dorothy is a 96-year-old African-American woman who says she has voted in every election but one since she became eligible to vote. Yet when she attempted to obtain a voter ID she was turned away because she did not have a copy of her marriage license. In a subsequent interview Dorothy said that she didn’t even have problems voting in Tennessee “during Jim Crow days —only now under Voter ID.

Thelma Mitchell

Thelma is a 93-year-old woman who cleaned the Tennessee Capitol for 30 years. She never received a birth certificate, however, because she was delivered by a midwife in Alabama in 1918 and there was no record of her birth. When she attempted to obtain a voter ID, she was turned away for lack of a birth certificate by a clerk who suggested she could be an illegal immigrant.

Virginia Lasater

Virginia is a 91-year-old woman who has been active in political campaigns for 70 years Because of her advanced age, however, she is no longer able to stand for extended periods of time. When she attempted to obtain a voter ID, she was confronted with lines that stretched for several hours and no place to sit while she waited—forcing her to abandon her effort to obtain an ID due to her physical constraints.

“Election Day registration leads to “the kids coming out of the schools and basically doing what I did when I was a kid, which is voting as a liberal. That’s what kids do — they don’t have life experience, and they just vote their feelings.”

-New Hampshire House Speaker William O’Brien

Darwin Spinks

Darwin is an 86 year-old World War II veteran. He was told to pay a fee before he could obtain a voter ID in Tennessee, despite the fact that charging someone to vote is unconstitutional.

Rita Platt

Rita is a Wisconsin resident who was turned away from her attempt to obtain a voter ID because she required either a birth certificate or a passport to obtain one—both of which can only be obtained if the voter pays a fee. Worse, in Wisconsin, voters must fill out a misleading form that suggests that they cannot obtain the birth certificate they need to obtain a photo ID unless they already have a photo ID.

Jessica Cohen

Jessica is a Texas resident who lost her license and other identification papers in a burglary. She now must also pay an unconstitutional fee in order to obtain the birth certificate she needs to obtain a new voter ID. Because Cohen lives in Texas, she will likely be able to vote in 2012 because the Department of Justice blocked Texas’s law under the Voting Rights Act—although there is a high risk that the Supreme Court’s conservatives will declare the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.

These nine voters are representative of the millions of voters who could be deprived of their right to vote after exercising that right for, in some cases, decades. Their problems will become more commonplace as additional states continue to pass suppressive laws.

Conclusion

When speaking about this subject at the Campus Progress National Conference in 2011, President Bill Clinton asked the young audience why these laws making it harder to vote were all being proposed in such a high rate and passed across the country. The answer, he said, was that “They are trying to make the 2012 electorate look more like the 2010 electorate than the 2008 electorate.”

Conservatives are scared because each cycle more young and minority voters are entering voting age and their collective impact is growing accordingly. In 2008 about 48 million Millennial generation voters—those born between 1978 and 2000—were old enough to vote. By 2012, that number will be 64 million, or 29 percent of all eligible voters. According to analysis by the Center for American Progress, by 2020, when all Millennial voters are of voting age, about 90 million of them will be eligible to vote and will comprise around 40 percent of all eligible American voters. This parallels changes in minority voters—from 1988 to 2008 the percent of minority voters increased to 26 percent from 15 percent.

These young and minority voters are strongly progressive. They strongly support progressive staples such as investing in renewable energy and maintaining Social Security. This has translated into elections as well. In 2008 both young voters and Hispanic voters delivered two-thirds of their votes to President Obama.

Taken together, the growing influence of staunchly progressive voters has conservatives scared to the point of extreme measures. Backed by large corporate donors, they are looking for any proposal or law that will help negate this change in voting demographics. While this is their motivation, the right to vote is an American right that should be protected by those of all political persuasions.

Right now, the protection of anti-voter suppression measures put in place during the 1960s is preventing the enactment of the law in key states. And in other states the laws will become ballot measures where their outcome can be decided by the voters. In many states these laws have already been passed and must be aggressively challenged through legal and electoral measures to put our system of democratic elections back on the right track.

Download this issue brief (pdf)

Read the brief in your web browser (Scribd)

Scott Keyes is a Researcher for the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Ian Milhiser is a Policy Analyst and Blogger on legal issues at the Center for American Progress and the CAP Action Fund. Tobin Van Ostern is Communications Manager for the Center’s Campus Progress project. Abraham White is a Communications Associate with Campus Progress.

"Die See If We Care" beat out heavily favored, top-seeded "Drive ‘Em Out," Alabama’s anti-immigrant law, in the final.

Thanks to everyone who voted on Facebook, and stay tuned on Facebook and Twitter for future events.

From a bill penalizing women for using contraception to a call by a Republican lawmaker to reinstate public hangings, it is clear that when it comes to conservative craziness, the madness, unlike college basketball, doesn’t occur only in March.

With a nod to the NCAA’s March Madness college hoops tournament, which pits the nation’s best college basketball teams against each other in a one-and-done elimination tourney, we at CAP are sponsoring our own NCAA (the Nation’s Conservatives’ Abominable Agenda) March Madness contest. With an assist from ThinkProgress, the blog of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, our tournament is matching up the most outlandish, zany, and often downright scary conservative-sponsored laws and policies.

We want your help in winnowing our Sour 16, to the Craziest Eight, and to the Fanatical Four until we crown our national champion—the most outlandish action taken by conservatives this political season.

First a few rules. We are seeding our contestants in four separate regions:

• Region 1—Unwelcome Here, where the anti-immigration agenda reigns supreme
• Region 2—To Hell with the Founding Fathers, where constitutional protections are ignored
• Region 3—Get Back in the Kitchen, where the rights of women are trashed
• Region 4—Rush Limbaugh Hot Air, where pure craziness holds sway

To vote, head to our Facebook page and look on our wall for the current matchups. New rounds will start at noon on the days scheduled below, and voting will run until 10 a.m. the next day. Once the results are in, we’ll update the chart here and on Facebook—and get ready for next round!

Voting schedule:

March 23: Sour 16 Regions 1 and 2

March 26: Sour 16 Regions 3 and 4

March 27: Craziest Eight Regions 1 and 2

March 28: Craziest Eight Regions 3 and 4

March 29: Fanatical Four Regions 1 and 2

March 30: Fanatical Four Regions 3 and 4

April 2: The Championship “Game”

We’ll announce our “champion” on April 3, so let’s get ready to grrrrrumble!

Log on to Facebook today and help us decide the most menacing conservative act of the past year!

Legal Progress’s panel on the Constitution, “We the People,” examined the idea that the core values enshrined in the U.S. Constitution are the same values that have made America exceptional since its founding. These values—expanding liberty, opportunity, and equality for all Americans in the constant pursuit of creating a more perfect union—have guided America’s social and economic progress over the last 224 years. Indeed, the Constitution is what made it possible for the American idea to develop and thrive. In order to understand what American exceptionalism means in the 21st century, it is necessary to appreciate how the Constitution and its framers intended for these progressive values to permeate American life and to make possible the freedom we cherish ourselves and seek for others around the world.

The following panelists are featured in this video:

• Akhil Amar, professor of law and political science, Yale University
• Rick Beeman, professor of history, University of Pennsylvania
• Jeff Shesol, historian and author, Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court
• Neera Tanden, President, Center for American Progress

For more on Legal Progress, please see its project page.

SOURCE: Center for American Progress

Faiz Shakir, Editor-in-Chief of Think Progress and creator of an online forum tracking developments in the "99 Percent Movement," and Ali Savino, active member of Occupy DC's media and facilitation working groups, discuss the Occupy movement.

Read about more events in the Progressivism on Tap series.

Faiz Shakir, Editor-in-Chief of Think Progress and creator of an online forum tracking developments in the "99 Percent Movement," and Ali Savino, active member of Occupy DC’s media and facilitation working groups, shed some light on the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests on November 3 at Busboys and Poets in Washington, D.C. Though they spoke from different vantage points, both panelists stressed the moral dimensions of the Occupy protests around the country.

Shakir reflected on the stunning momentum of what started as a small protest against Wall Street in New York in September. Naming the summer debate over the national debt and Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposal to privatize Medicare as “galvanizing” forces on an increasingly struggling and unemployed population, Shakir said the result was an emotional outburst that became a moral outcry across the country.

Savino then traced the internal developments of the Occupy protests, from the first New York general assembly of 3,000 protesters (a “logistical nightmare”) to the decentralized, consensus-based processes each city’s camp now employs.

“Every occupation is different,” said Savino, though the Occupy sites all struggle with the same concerns–from supporting the overnight protesters to planning for the winter to achieving collective action while remaining nimble and responsive to local developments.

Both Shakir and Savino acknowledged that while the tactics of Occupy Wall Street have been enormously successful, to date a clear strategy has yet to emerge.

What the 99 Percent Is Fighting

<object width="544" height="306" id="_occupymovementvideo_box" data="http://www.americanprogress.org/images/rd2/flash/flowplayer.commercial-3.0.5.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="movie" value="http://www.americanprogress.org/images/rd2/flash/flowplayer.commercial-3.0.5.swf" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="flashvars" value=’config={"key":"#@b6aaccc400904bab969","clip":{"autoPlay":true,"autoBuffering":true,"url":"http://images2.americanprogress.org/CAP/2011/10/99percent_video.mp4"},"plugins":{"sharing":{"url":"/images/rd2/flash/flowplayer.sharing-3.2.1.swf","embed":{"autoBuffering":false,"autoPlay":false}}},"playlist":[{"autoPlay":true,"autoBuffering":true,"url":"http://images2.americanprogress.org/CAP/2011/10/99percent_video.mp4"}]}’ /></object>

Show Embed Code

Savino highlighted some of the tensions at work. The leaderless organization, for example, with ample messages but no unified goal, has baffled media headlines and political strategists alike. In Washington, D.C. and New York, the Occupy tent sites developed into alternative communities, with food lines, health clinics, and "public libraries," even while many in both cities still do not understand what the protesters want.

So what comes next for Occupiers?

Savino and Shakir agreed that the movement has a broad appeal that will likely continue. According to Savino, “This is where everyone who is disillusioned with Obama has gone. In 2008, we were active, engaged, we wanted to see change, and we didn’t get any.”

They also agreed that the leaderless dimension that remains frustrating from a political strategy standpoint may in fact be an asset. Without one "face" to the movement it will be harder to undercut credibility.

Most significantly, both panelists agreed that the movement’s biggest value may be to act as the morally galvanizing voice for politicians to seriously address income inequality.

But wherever the Occupy movement goes from here, Shakir said, it has already been tremendously significant in restoring a moral dimension to our national conversation. A year from now, he concluded, “one goal is to see Occupy Wall Street be the lobby against anything morally outrageous.”

Read about more events in the Progressivism on Tap series.

SOURCE: Center for American Progress

Georgetown professor and author Michael Kazin, center, discusses the American left with CAP Senior Fellows Ruy Teixeira, left, and John Halpin, right.

Read about more events in the Progressivism on Tap series.

Michael Kazin, professor of history at Georgetown University and author of American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation, kicked off the eighth season of the Center for American Progress’s Progressivism on Tap series on October 26 with a discussion on the challenges and accomplishments of the American left. Busboys and Poets in Washington, D.C., hosted the event.

Kazin opened by asking whether leftist movements of the last century were a success. This is hard to prove if success is measured by structural change. Radical movements in the United States historically do not leave behind lasting institutions, parties, or alternative economic theories. Kazin argued, however, that the left built an enduring cultural legacy—a significant expansion on the ideas of freedom and diversity and protection of rights for all members of society.

Further, pro-labor groups in the 1890s, civil rights and peace advocates in the 1960s, and anticapitalists in the 1990s were all radical voices that pushed the envelope on what constituted the "common good," pointing a finger at systems of discrimination and abuse at work in our society. If what is lacking in our progressive narrative today is a coherent economic alternative to the current brand of capitalism, Kazin said, what is very much alive and well is that “utopian idealism” of an America where no people are exploited, discriminated against, oppressed, or denied the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But progress takes time. Movements don’t affect policy change overnight, according to Kazin. Rather, major progressive successes historically occurred when radical movements were picked up, shaped, and enacted by liberal politicians and pragmatic theorists.

Conservative pushback against a liberalizing culture has been building for years, and Kazin admitted that telling young progressives simply “to defend the gains” of their predecessors may not be enough.

Instead, he concluded by offering a challenge: How can progressives help shape the radical voices at Occupy Wall Street into more successes for the left?

Read about more events in the Progressivism on Tap series.

The following video features conference speakers, including Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, attendees, and CAP fellows answering the question: "What is the American idea?"

 

Show Embed Code

(mp4, YouTube)

SOURCE: AP/Ed Reinke

William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton, with his wife Hillary Rodham Clinton and daughter Chelsea at his side, takes the oath of office as the 42nd president of the United States from Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on the west steps of the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, January 20, 1993.

I first met Bill Clinton on the campaign trail more than 40 years ago. When he later ran for president, I supported his candidacy not out of nostalgia or even friendship but because I knew he had a strong grasp of the challenges America faced at the time, and the impact those challenges had on working-class families we both grew up in. President Clinton is one of the best educated and most erudite people I’ve ever met, but when it came to policy decisions, it was the moms and dads sitting around the kitchen table trying to pay their bills that mattered most to him. I think that’s why the only time in the last 35 years that wages for middle-class and poor Americans rose consistently was when Bill Clinton was president—and that fact alone makes me proud of my service in the Clinton administration.

President Clinton also had a true reformer’s instinct. He understood that it was the principles behind his progressive vision that were sacred, not particular policies or programs, and that the first priority of our federal government must be that every citizen share in the great gifts America could bestow. As President Clinton told the nation a few weeks after his inauguration, “I believe we will find our new direction in the basic old values that brought us here over the last two centuries: a commitment to opportunity, to individual responsibility, to community, to work, to family, and to faith.”

What the Clinton-Gore administration accomplished over eight years, putting those principles into action, was truly remarkable, particularly when it came to the economy. For example, Clinton recognized from the start that years of huge federal deficits had sapped the country’s confidence and forced up interest rates for everybody. But he wasn’t willing to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, who were already weighted down by a sluggish economy and declining government services. Clinton believed that the burden of deficit reduction should largely be borne by the people who had benefited the most from the Reagan tax reductions 12 years earlier: the very top of the wealthiest earners. By the way, the tax increase enacted turned out to be an excellent investment for them, because business investments, profits, and return on private investment soared in the Clinton-era economy.

Though Clinton knew there had to be some budget cutbacks, he wasn’t going to ignore the needs of working families either. Many times on the stump, he said, “No one with children who works full time should live in poverty.” He recognized that in a globalized world, where America is competing with rising nations, we must invest in Americans through education, and that for people to innovate and adapt to change, they need to feel economically secure. So we found the money to double the earned income tax credit. We strengthened the Community Reinvestment Act. We raised the minimum wage. We put funds into infrastructure projects that strengthened the overall economy and created good jobs. We moved millions of people from welfare to work. We kept education funding high, and raised it higher, so every child would have a chance to succeed. And we created the AmeriCorps, to give young people a way to serve their communities and earn money for college.

The Clinton administration found room to invest in other programs that strengthened families and helped make life better for all Americans, too—and expended immense political capital to make them possible. President Clinton advocated and secured the passage of the Brady Bill, which kept more than half a million felons, fugitives, and domestic abusers from buying guns. We put 100,000 new police officers on the street, contributing to the sharpest drop in crime the United States had ever known. We reformed the college loan system to make it easier, simpler, and less expensive, and significantly expanded work-study and Pell Grant programs. We adopted the most stringent air pollution standards in the nation’s history and extended safe drinking water protections to 40 million additional Americans. And we preserved more of America’s dwindling open spaces than any other president since Theodore Roosevelt—an accomplishment I helped shape and of which I am particularly proud. Under President Clinton, the National Park System expanded by more than 4.6 million acres, including 13 new national parks and 17 new national monuments, and 60 million of acres of roadless national forest were protected from exploitation and development.

In short, we invested in America and its people to put the country on a path to prosperity—and it worked. When Clinton was sworn in, the unemployment rate was more than 7 percent and hadn’t been less than 5 percent for 20 years. Eighteen months into the Clinton administration, the unemployment rate dropped below the 6 percent mark, and by the time Clinton left office, the unemployment rate had been less than 5 percent for 44 consecutive months. For African Americans and Hispanics, groups for whom the economy never worked well, the unemployment rate fell to levels not seen in decades. The administration also emphasized investment in science and technology. Our eight years in office saw the full flowering of America’s information economy—a transformation that touched every aspect of our lives and continues to flourish.

George W. Bush’s administration, unfortunately, followed a very different path. President Bush oversaw the clearest and most sustained application of conservative ideology in action. While Bush’s supply-side crusade did work for those at the very top of the income spectrum, it did so at the expense of everyone else. Income inequality soared, median incomes declined, and millions lifted up under Clinton fell back into poverty. Today the country is struggling to recover from the onslaught: More than 15 percent of Americans are now live below the poverty line, the highest level since 1993, and a median income working-age family is making almost $4,000 less on average then they made in 1999. Harvard University economist Lawrence Katz has aptly called the 10 years following Bush’s first oath of office “the Lost Decade.”

Though I’m deeply saddened by the toll conservative ideology has taken on our economy, I still take heart in what the Clinton administration was able to accomplish, and what those accomplishments mean for our future. Under Clinton we turned the economy around using progressive economic policies that focused on long-term fiscal discipline, working to close the widening gap between rich and poor, and spurring innovation and investment to grow the economy overall. And the United States created 23 million jobs, not coincidentally but as a direct result. The challenges America faces now in the Great Recession left by the Bush administration are profound, but I am confident that the same progressive principles that President Obama is championing today can put our economy and our country back on the right track once again.

Clinton’s campaign theme in 1992 was “putting people first.” Looking back, I’m proud to say we did just that. We cleared the path for success for the broad middle class and those striving to climb it, and we moved this country on a progressive course in the process. That’s a record of achievement I’m proud to be a part of, and a lasting legacy of what progressivism, at its best, can accomplish.

John Podesta is President and CEO of the Center for American Progress and served as President Bill Clinton’s last White House chief of staff.

SOURCE: AP/Rogelio V. Solis

Author Kathryn Stockett poses by a poster for "The Help," the movie made from her book, prior to a benefit screening of the movie in Madison, Mississippi, Saturday, July 30, 2011.

“The Help,” this week’s non-action movie release, tells the story of black household workers in the South in the early 1960s—domestic helpers who take great risks by sharing stories about what it’s like to walk a mile in their shoes. Their tales not only reveal the great sense of empowerment that comes from sharing and having your voice heard but also remind us of the greatness of the real women who do this work today under sometimes terrible conditions. The release of the movie offers a moment to draw the connections between those household workers five decades ago and current immigrant domestic workers, many of whom are of Latino, African, and Caribbean descent.

The author of the novel on which the movie is based, Kathryn Stockett, a white upper-class Southerner, undertook the extraordinarily difficult task of writing from a perspective that is not her own. This means the narrative is definitely not all that it could be. Readers and moviegoers will wonder whether she paid enough attention to stories of actual women who did this household work during the pre-Civil Rights era, some of whom I know were in my family and just about every black family.

Similarly, maybe American audiences should question whether we too often ignore the stories of the women who do this work today, in this era before, one hopes, comprehensive immigration reform. What are we missing if we don’t pay enough attention to our history of connections to one another, to the stories of women who work hard to care for their families, sometimes acting as super nurturers by caring for two sets of children—some at work and their own at home?

“The Help” needs to be matched up with research that presents actual stories to reflect the low pay and minimal respect society offered to black domestic help in our country over the past five decades. In addition, research needs to include details about the debilitating costs of being locked out of the government safety net created under the New Deal, which granted a lot of discretion to states that were then free to discriminate against African Americans. Kenneth Neubeck and Noel Cazenave’s Welfare Racism would be a good place to start.

Further solidifying these women’s position at the bottom of the ladder was an absence of necessary civil rights legal reforms and a Jim Crow culture of fear and intimidation that often kept them from challenging the status quo. For today’s immigrant household workers, it seems to be the same story but a different day, with all the pieces being in place to exploit their labor.

Once again, low wages, minimal respect, and being locked out of much of the social safety net due to legislative provisions that are often exclusionary even for those who are documented and who recently became citizens are all commonplace. This is why there is a need for federal immigration reform and workplace reform today just as there was a need for federal civil rights legislation back in the 1960s.

Second-class status is just as intolerable today as it was then. So, too, is fear and intimidation. Today that comes in the form of actual abuse to the potential of deportation, preventing workers from more aggressively challenging the status quo.

But just stating these obvious similarities doesn’t seem to be enough. As with the fictional household workers in “The Help,” true human connections to the experiences of others won’t occur unless we hear one another’s voices and share our stories. The value of this is evident in the ongoing movement to provide platforms for those who often go unheard. Examples include the Half in Ten campaign’s Road to Shared Prosperity project and the My Life is True project.

Another storytelling project is the National Council of La Raza’s “We Needed The Work: Latino Worker Voices in the New Economy.” It offers the directly relevant story of Victoria, a household worker who was asked to work 24 hours a day, cheated out of earned pay, and laid off at a moment’s notice without the opportunity to collect her personal belongings. Learning of Victoria’s story likely creates some sense of connection for:

• African Americans who may be reminded of women in their families who were or are household workers
• Low-wage women of all colors who have been mistreated in the workplace
• Women like Kathryn Stockett, a white woman of privilege who was so shaped by the woman who worked for her family as a child that she decided to write “The Help”

It is only through this joint sense of connection that we can build an America that supports the well-being of everyone within our borders. But even more importantly, the sharing of stories empowers the tellers and validates their contributions to our society. This is important for everyone but especially for those groups who have in some way been locked out of full participation in all the opportunities that America has to offer.

Joy Moses is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Poverty and Prosperity program at the Center for American Progress.