Sara Haile-Mariam

My latest on Huffpost- on young people, policy, and the midterms. Excerpt below:

To that end, passing loan reform gives democrats the ammunition they need to re-engage young voters. Let’s be clear; young people did not simply vote for Barack Obama but for the principles that he spoke of and the policies that he promised. Among them, they voted to make college more affordable. A recent study released by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics speaks of their frustration and reveals that 45% of the 18-29 year olds polled “are concerned about their ability to stay in college given the state of the economy.” Passing loan reform indicates that democrats hear them and that they’re doing something about it.

Yesterday, I got in a debate with a friend of mine about, among other things, 2010. History is cyclical, he claimed. The party in charge always loses seats in the year after a Presidential election. He cited examples, and while I heard him, I also heard a similar claim made two years ago. The claim that a black man could never be President. I spent some time this past week looking at 2010 races, crunching numbers, reading the interpretations of strategists and experts. Yet while I hear them, I also feel a certain sense of defiance. After all, the very existence of the Obama Presidency should speak to our ability to break outside of what history suggests is possible.

His victory represents the greatest affirmation of my generation’s electoral potential. The young people of Iowa set an example, of what we could achieve, the power to confront and defy the expectations of history.

Why should 2010 be any different? My friend rolled his eyes (as he often does when I say something to this effect) and insisted that this explanation could be used in any argument “If you’re going to go there…” He’s right, but that doesn’t explain why we shouldn’t go there.

I do think that this argument is instinctive and explains why assurances and explanations of why we need to compromise on legislation have backfired with, specifically, elements of the Obama grassroots. Why compromise when the basis of what we once we did was the belief that we didn’t have to. The belief that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” and consequently are more powerful than the expectations of history.

I think that the way to reconcile this tension, is to pivot to 2010 now. The strategy behind the Obama campaign, was to expand the electorate in states that were initially un-winnable. So why wouldn’t Progressives pivot to expanding Congress now? Not to punish those who didn’t vote according to our ideals, but to ensure that there are options, more variations to get to 60. One of the most effective features of the campaign were the constant updates from Plouffe. Videos, emails, all focused on providing the grassroots with insight into the big picture. Right now that’s not being articulated- and it should be. Not just in a legislative sense but in an electoral one too. We’re compromising on health care now, we’re going to expand our ability to get to 60 next fall and try again next year.

Give people something to invest in, a long term strategy. The election is no longer the end goal, and I adamantly disagree with those who suggest that Obama supporters were just in it for his election. He made sure to articulate how that couldn’t be the case ie: “I know you didn’t do this for me.” I don’t think those kind of statements were simply an exercise in humility, but rather the framework from which he could then go back and remind supporters of their obligations post-election. I think it’s time to pull that card now.

Ps. Happy New Years.