Bear Poops in Woods; Hillary Clinton Says Stupid Thing

One of the most common myths about the millennial generation is that it's composed of spoiled brats who don't care about anything and know nothing of the value of work. Although there is one true thing about this belief, namely that millennials tend to be the products of the self-esteem culture where everyone's above average, the bulk of it has very little to do with reality.

So, when Hillary Clinton said that young people think work is a four-letter word because they try to get the best jobs they can out of college instead of settling for the first offer, it was clear she was engaging in ex recto rhetoric. Now the New York Times has the evidence to prove that Clinton's rhetoric was not just pulled out of thin air, but also factually wrong:

Lost in the argument over whether young people today know how to work, however, is the mounting evidence produced by labor economists of just how important it is for current graduates to ignore the old-school advice of trying to get ahead by working one's way up the ladder. Instead, it seems, graduates should try to do exactly the thing the older generation bemoans — aim for the top.

The recent evidence shows quite clearly that in today's economy starting at the bottom is a recipe for being underpaid for a long time to come. Graduates' first jobs have an inordinate impact on their career path and their "future income stream," as economists refer to a person's earnings over a lifetime.

Another thing that is lost in the constant whining about the moral strength of people under 25 is that instant gratification isn't a particularly new invention. Instant gratification in the form of instant messaging may be new, but then again instant gratification in the form of television was new in the 1960s, too. Let's not forget that Animal House was not made in 2002.

The fact of the matter is, things get said about young people in politics that nobody dares say about other groups. Say that blacks or Hispanics are lazy and don't like to work, and see how far you'll get, outside Rush Limbaugh's constituency. Obviously, the truth is never oppressive. If you have concrete evidence that young people think work is beneath their dignity, by all means present it. But unsubstantiated slurs can and do oppress, especially when there already exists evidence that points otherwise.

A while ago, Ezra Klein wrote a very compelling article about the youth vote and how the Democrats consistently fail to increase under-25 voter turnout. Although Ezra doesn't use this language, his argument's gist is that because of police harassment and political attacks (think media censorship), young Americans have developed a fatalistic attitude to politics, so such fear-based arguments as "The Republicans will draft you!" will not work.

The bottom line is that most youth have an oppositional relationship to politics, and indeed to the government itself. Whether it’s culture wars, threats of a draft or harassment from a cop, the public sphere seems generally arrayed against us, or at least hoping we’ll delay our involvement for four more years. Never mind the calls for youth participation, complete with the solemn invocations of JFK. But if politicians are going to constantly refer to the motivation Camelot offered them, then they better be prepared to offer us similar inspiration. If that’s not in the cards — and judging by recent offerings, it’s not — they better fashion a more compelling, less hectoring pitch.

Fact is, the current strategy (such as it is) would never be attempted on another constituency. In hopes of mobilizing the Latino vote, legislators are tripping over themselves to pledge support for immigration reform and high-level appointments. Same goes for other interest groups: Union members are promised wage increases, evangelicals are offered cultural concessions, business owners get tax breaks, Cubans get anti-Castro policies. What promises are made to youth?

When you look at daft comments such as Clinton's, you can immediately understand the bulk of the American youth problem of politics (which is largely the same as the rest of the global middle-class youth problem of politics). Even when politicians try to help make university education more affordable, they feel the need to use infantilizing language.

I don't know why Clinton ignored the fact that making sure one gets a good first job is a smart strategy. It could be because she was looking for an opportunity to marginalize her daughter's generation, because she can't fathom the idea that the capitalist system rewards luck more than hard work, or because of another reason I haven't thought of. I don't think it matters; I'm the last person who'll start a fight over whether some bigoted comment is more racist or sexist. But given the body of evidence available, and the fact that Clinton of course knew how hard her daughter's work was, it definitely wasn't an honest mistake.

Whatever Clinton's motives were, the practical effect of her comment was that she oppressed under-25 people. Her apology to Chelsea only made things worse, because it's clear she only apologized to her and not to the entire generation. Before the apology, she could at least pretend to be against entitlement. Now the only remaining effect is unfairly attacking young people. In the 1950s, many conservative politicians bashed black people as a way of courting whites. Maybe Clinton's bashing young people as a way of courting Boomers.