C-SPAN II broadcast yesterday’s event at the New America Foundation. The video is here.

Neil Howe and Reena Nadler first present their broad overview of the Millennials as a poilitical generation. I then summarize our new study that argues that (a) where a generation begins politically affects its political orientation for decades to come, and (b) the Millennials are starting more liberal than any generation for at least 40 years. (The slides from our report are a lot easier to see in the PDF). At the end, I raise some cautions about viewing the Millennials as a homogeneous group or simply comparing the average young person today to the average young person of decades past. There are enormous social and political differences among Millennials.

Scott Keeter from the Pew Research Center then makes some very astute remarks about the papers and his organization’s findings. Hans Riemer, who was Obama’s Youth Director in the primaries, reminisces about the campaign. (By the way, I agree with Hans that young voters won Iowa for Obama and thereby determined the election.)

In the question-and-answer, Howe and I debate a little the question of whether working-class youth fit generalizations about the Millennials as coddled, risk-averse, optimistic, high achievers. I try to emphasize that working-class youth will participate if offered constructive opportunities. There’s nothing wrong with them as people. The problem is that society offers them very few opportunities to serve, lead, or create. Implicit in this mild debate is a slight difference in theoretical orientation. I believe that people in general react similarly to opportunities, but that opportunities vary with time and with socioeconomic status. I don’t think of the character of a generation as an important causal factor in history, but I do recognize that different cohorts have different formative opportunities. (And opportunities always vary for people who happen to be born at the same time.) As an example, I don’t believe that my generation–Generation X–has failed to obtain political office because we always lacked intrinsic interest or commitment. Many of my Yale college classmates wanted political careers desperately. I think we lacked opportunity in an era of gerrymandered electoral districts and out-of-control campaign spending.

The final stimulus bill that the president will sign on Tuesday includes $201 million for AmeriCorps, an increase of roughly one fourth. I don’t know whether positions in AmeriCorps programs count as “jobs” and will thus help the president to meet his target of four million jobs created or preserved. At $10,900 for a year’s work, the AmeriCorps stipend is low–as pay. But I would justify putting this item in the stimulus because thousands of young people are missing the educational advantages of work now that the youth unemployment rate is above 21%. AmeriCorps programs provide generally good experiential education in the form of work-like positions that are challenging and inspiring. They can thereby partially compensate for a lack of jobs.

Shirley Sagawa and others are correct that the best measure of AmeriCorps is quality, not quantity. It matters how much participants learn and achieve, not only how many people participate. But I think the quality is high enough today that the $201 million will be well spent.

My colleagues Connie Flanagan and Les Gallay and I have a new paper about the Millennials’ political orientation. It is, I believe, the first paper that traces the political evolution of several past generations in order to see whether there is a typical pattern over people’s lifetimes. We find that there is a typical trajectory of political opinion. On this basis, we predict that the Millennials will put a distinctive stamp on American politics for decades to come. The paper is already online (PDF). It will be released formally and discussed next Wednesday in Washington.

The event is entitled “The Latest Generation: The Unique Outlook of “Millennials” and How They Will Reshape America.” Speakers will include Neil Howe, Reena Nadler, and yours truly. Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research at Pew Research Center, and Hans Riemer, National Youth Vote Director for the Obama campaign and former Political and Issues Director for Rock the Vote will comment.

In a comment yesterday, Michael Weiksner argued for more public voice in the allocation of stimulus funds. Experiments from around the world have found that public involvement in public-sector spending decisions improves the quality of those decisions and reduces corruption during the implementation phase. If, for instance, citizens help to decide that a school should be built at a particular location, they are likely to make sure that it is built well, on budget and on schedule.

I’ve argued that the federal government should take the lead in encouraging public voice; that should be a top priority of the new White House office on civic engagement. But it’s also possible to introduce public participation further downstream. Virginia has launched an official website to collect public ideas on how to spend that state’s federal money. Ideally, the site will turn into more than a list of suggestions, with perhaps an opportunity for voting. There should also be ways for people to add value to suggestions, wiki-style.