“Look, when I was a kid, I inhaled, frequently. That was the point.”

Two years later, this man, after admitting to smoking marijuana, was elected to be our nation’s 44th president. Yes folks, Barack Obama has openly admitted to getting high; using the substance which was once described by President Regan as being “equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast.”

Have we elected a brain-damaged president? Not according to the degrees he received from Columbia and Harvard Law. No, the Commander-in-Chief seems fully functional.

And we know this. Presidents are people, just like us. Especially the presidents we’ve grown up with.

The Millennials are watching, and they see Presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton as people who were just stereotypical college kids, doing the same things you can find in any dorm across the country.

Pot use has become more and more socially acceptable with each passing generation. Using the illegal substance no longer carries the burden it once held, with politicians like John Kerry and John Edwards coming out of the hemp closet during a 2004 primary debate (see video below) without worry.

In a controversial interview with Bill Clinton, the former president admitted to trying the drug while on scholarship at Oxford in England, but not inhaling (liar). And during an exit interview with Rolling Stone magazine during his last few months in office, Clinton called for the decimalization of small amounts of pot, despite maintaining the War on Drugs.

Yet, maybe he doesn’t consider marijuana to be a drug. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger once described marijuana as being a leaf, not a drug. And it’s a leaf that hundreds of thousands of Americans smoke daily.

In 1999, the Clinton administration called for soon-to-be President George W. Bush to “not cave in” to questions the media had been asking about his own drug use.

Eventually, the media ate up stories about Bush’s own cocaine use, and his arrests for possession of the drug and drunk driving. However, newspapers have reported that Bush has denied using any illegal drug since 1974.

Our generation is very accepting of the fact that drug use exists and we don’t really judge. College-aged kids participate in using such drugs as adderall, cocaine, acid, and especially marijuana.

One day, a new president will be elected, one who grew up in the same world we did. This president will most likely come out and say that they’ve tried some kind of drug that people of our generation are familiar with, and maybe they’ll even say that they liked it.

Presidential drug use isn’t even limited to the ones Gen Y has grown up with.

President Kennedy’s alleged mistress, Mary Pinchot Meyer, asserted that she had smoked with JFK many times, but it doesn’t stop there. She also described situations in which she and the President took LSD. Cuban Missile Crisis, anyone?

A whole lot of our early presidents used the hemp plant also, including Washington, Pierce, and Jefferson.

Jefferson had the plant growing in his backyard, and that’s what he used to draft the Declaration of Independence on. Yes, this country was founded on hemp paper.

According to the book Hemp: Lifeline to the Future, George Washington had once written a letter about using the “Indian hemp seed” to it’s full use. And he described a way to farm it, which matches up to a popular technique used today to increase the potency of the plant.

The other pothead president, Franklin Pierce, wrote home to his family raving about how smoking hashish was the only good thing to come out of the Mexican War.

It seems unconstitutional (another document drafted on hemp), that the plant is illegal in the States today. I don’t think we’ve even begun to really see presidential drug use, something that is sure to change when Gen Y moves into the Oval Office.

No one will be surprised when, one day, the State of the Union includes a few paragraphs about the legalization of a plant that has been, and still is, very much in use.

He’s right, our country is in cultural decline. And while many find it easy to point the finger of blame at contemporary youth, with the texting, and the facebooking, and the childhood obesity, don’t forget that the path downhill was paved by our forefathers (Sorry, Dad).

Many people today bemoan the lack of loyalty among contemporary youth when it comes to employment. Back in the day, your career was more than a means to an end, it meant you were part of an organization. You gave your labor, and they gave you a living wage. Why is it kids these days jump so quickly from job to job?

Maybe because “back in the day” was before Enron, and Madoff, and Goldman Sachs, and the culture of greed and robbery that contradicts everything we were taught about America growing up: that success comes to those that work hard. Or maybe it was because we saw our parents’ jobs shipped overseas. Maybe the culture thought, “If my company isn’t looking out for #1, someone has to.” Or maybe more and more people are starting to find out life wasn’t what they bargained for (raise your hand if you graduated from college and are still unemployed).

Critics bemoan youth’s obsession with the lifestyles of the rich and famous. The Paris Hiltons, Spencer Pratts, and Kardashians of the world are no longer the examples of ignorant, spoiled spawn of the privileged that were meant to be greeted with scorn, but rather idols that are worshiped at the temple of excess. Instead of holding onto time-tested family values, our generation hails materialism and shallow superficiality. See if your grandparents can stomach one episode of The Hills or The Jersey Shore.

But look closer and you’ll find that America’s obsession with wealth and glamour has always been there. Yeah, rappers have songs about fancy cars, but so did Janis Joplin. Contemporary culture may worship Brad Pitt, Miley Cyrus, and the other empty vessels of Planet Hollywood, but how is that any different from America’s obsession with Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, or the Rat Pack? This country has always held up wealth and fame as the most important of values.  The only difference is that thanks to louder broadcast media, today it’s more obvious.

Another consistent complaint is the lack of interest the youth of America have in politics. People in the 18-29 demographic consistently come out in low numbers in elections while the older crowd consistently shows them up. It’s gotten to the point where we have Puff Daddy on TV telling America’s future leaders that it comes down to vote or die. The generation of our parents had the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, heroes of activism that changed the world for the better. How come kids these days just don’t care?

Maybe because our generation grew up with the candidates who answered to lobbyists, the cable TV mudslingers, a media that seizes on sex scandals instead of tackling issues, and a litany of toxins that has bred cynicism among an entire mass of Americans when it comes to politics. It’s not just young people who say they hate politics and politicians these days, it’s everyone.

No matter what era it is, society will constantly bemoan the decline of youth. Whether it be Elvis, or the hippies, or video games, or MTV, or just general anxiety about the future, someone will always be asking, “What’s up with kids these days?” But youth is a reflection of society, and as our culture free-falls into a downward spiral, so do we.

Photo by peopleofwalmart.com (top) and Brian Auer (bottom)

Given the impressions of Libertarians in the media, it’s no wonder that many people are left confused as to what we actually stand for.

Libertarians are generally aligned towards the center of the political spectrum, and thus irritate the vocal leaders of the bipolar political majority in the United States. We’ll work together with Democrats to cut the outrageous military spending, and rally with Republicans to protect the rights of gun owners and the Second Amendment.

But we don’t even agree with each other most of the time. The only core beliefs and principles that bind Libertarians together are the preservation of personal freedoms and the recognition that government solutions to society’s woes are rarely efficient (if at all effective). The stance of not expanding government to a size where politicians and corporations can abuse their power has left us with very few allies in the media and political arenas.

The video above illustrates how there is a wide variety of opinions on the various “stalemate” culture issues. As you’ll note, the main thing these people have in common is that they interpret personal freedoms first and foremost. Furthermore, another trend you will find in Libertarians, perfectly illustrated in the video, is that we are well-spoken, clear on what we’re trying to say, yet remain polite to opposing views. So if we can disagree on so many different issues, and have no official party stances on those issues, what exactly makes a Libertarian a Libertarian?

“We seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others,” says the official Libertarian Party website.

We agree that the original framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is where we should return to, rather than whittle away. It’s within the Bill of Rights that the hot Libertarian beliefs are contained: freedom of expression (and press), freedom of self defense (gun owners’ rights), and that it’s the responsibilities of states to handle issues that weren’t specifically delegated to the federal government (even in the time of the colonies, it was recognized that there were no one-size-fits-all solutions).

A Libertarian will almost always oppose the Federal Reserve, government-run monopolies, welfare systems, and the exponentially expanding federal debt, as well as government intervention in economic markets. We (safely) assume that both power and money corrupt, so in order to prevent corruption at the highest levels, we must limit both as much as possible. Have I mentioned why mainstream politicians hate us?

While I may have given the impression that Libertarians are only portrayed negatively in the media, there are actually a number of positive icons to be found. In fact, you probably have watched (and enjoyed) many a Libertarian artist. One could say that humor and biting satire is yet another common thread of Libertarianism, such as Trey Parker’s Emmy-winning joke on how the Federal Reserve helps our economy or Penn & Teller’s cultural docu-series, Bullshit!

Youth disenchantment with the government is growing. Millennials came out in droves in the last presidential election, but have since reverted to their old habits – such as not voting. Many blame a inability to connect with either in the two-party system. Well, take heart, because the Libertarian party is the third largest in this country and a recent Pew research survey said that young people have a generally positive association with the word “libertarian,” though many are uncertain about what exactly the word means.

It’s next to impossible to concisely convey the beliefs of a party that holds the principals of economics and the Bill of Rights above other considerations. With the rise of social media, many Libertarian organizations, news sites, and other groups are growing (it also helps that mainstream politicians have been providing failure after failure to assist in recruitment).

We may lack the support of high-profile politicians, the companies that own them, or the media; yet according to George Will, a Libertarian’s greatest ally is “arithmetic.” The numbers on the balance sheets don’t lie, and our government is spending our generation specifically into a hole that is nearly impossible to get out of. All these social programs that are going to rely on our generation’s money will ultimately fail before we even get to use any of them.

The party is ending, Gen Y, and we’re being left with the tab. Educate yourself and get involved!

Cartoon by Andy Singer

Then I stumbled upon BPGlobalPR, a Twitter handle posing as British Petroleum to put down the company in a truly witty manner. With tweets like “If you fall off your horse, get back on. If your horse explodes and leaks oil everywhere, try to sell that oil. #bpcares,” @BPGlobalPR attracted thousands of followers instantly.

And then, on Facebook, options to “like” groups such as  “Boycott BP,” “1,000,000 Strong to Boycott BP,” or “R.I.P. Spongebob, who died in an oil spill cause [sic] of BP,” popped up within a few hours of news of the spill.

Gen Y is a protesting generation. We are opinionated and we demand change. Almost eerily similar to the Baby Boomers (they call us Echo Boomers for a reason), we are ready to fight – but not always by using picket signs or sit-ins. With social media and new technologies tightly woven into the fabric of our day-to-day lives, we’ve started to use them as tools for protest.

And the result of tweeting out what we oppose or “liking” a group connected to a current controversy, Gen Y comes together in the millions. With a few characters and the click of the mouse, we unite for a common purpose. It is our large numbers – and the unprecedented ability to easily connect them – that give us more power to influence change than ever before.

The power of the click is undeniable, but the intent behind it might be. Yes, Gen Y is passionate. But, what if we’re clicking away to support this, that, and the other because it means that we don’t actually have to stand up to what we’re against in person? Along with joining groups to put a stop to the world’s many injustices, we also join groups like “Things magically appear when your mom looks for them” or “I hate when you pour a bowl of cereal and there’s no milk.” So yes, Gen Y comes together in protest, but also to acknowledge that they too use their cell phone to see in the dark.

New groups like these flood our home pages and become more and more ridiculous. This brings me to question the difference between drive and following a fad. Perhaps your 15-year-old neighbor you’re now friends with on Facebook is not informed on the BP controversy and is just pressing “like” to seem older or more sophisticated? But I would argue, Gen Y is actively protesting and working towards a brighter tomorrow.

Whatever your take is on how Gen Y protests, we can agree that Gen-Y is causing a stir in cyberspace. For example, when BP discovered the twitter group “BPGlobalPR” they contacted Twitter and demanded for the handle to be deleted. Instead, the handle was required to make it clear in their “bio” section that it was not actually affiliated with British Petroleum. So, of course, they concocted this: “We are not associated with Beyond Petroleum, the company that has been destroying the Gulf of Mexico for 81 days.” And now they’re selling t-shirts, too.

But the oil spill is not the only buzz-worthy story on the newsfeed. When Conan O’Brien was removed as the host for The Tonight Show, there was an uproar and profile pictures sprouted all over the world, appropriately captioned as “I’m with Coco.” And although Conan didn’t get his spot back and had to leave NBC, at least he knew that Gen Y was behind him (and this may have influenced his decision to go to TBS, over another network).

This social media support movement is not specific to the U.S. In fact, social media protests dominated Iran’s 2009 elections as young people across the world banded together against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“Tehran’s authoritarian leaders clearly were caught off-guard. They had managed to take down the telephone system opposition supporters used for texting, but for some reason were slow to  eliminate other social media. As open defiance of the election results broke out, citizen journalists used new media to spread the word. And the whole Web was watching,” wrote The Washington Times.

Media outlets started calling the event Iran’s Twitter Revolution. And although some say that the entire uproar was “exaggerated,” it still received a huge response from Iran’s government, which proves that governments of all nations are reading what we put out there via the Internet. And by blocking certain social networking sites, like Iran did after the Twitter Revolution, says that they fear the voice of Gen Y.

And maybe they should fear us, the way the government feared the Boomers. Because of groups like Anonymous, Gen Y has taken online protesting to a whole new level. Through the usual social networking platforms and discussion forums like 4chan, Anonymous creates online protests like  Project Chanology (a protest against Scientology). But they also have been deemed responsible for declaring May 20, 2009 as “YouTube Porn Day,” when they allegedly embedded family friendly videos with porn in protest against governments that don’t favor net neutrality.

Some refer to Anonymous as “domestic terrorists,” but “terrorism” (in my opinion) is a term that is overused and non-specific at this point. So despite criticisms, Anonymous is simply using their right to protest. They just cause a slightly larger stir. Groups like Anonymous is make Gen Y seem unstoppable, which makes me wonder if it is possible for Gen Y to actually “save the world” through online activism?

We are the generation of the social network, and that means “connection” in the broadest sense of the word. Gen Y updates together, tweets together, and stands up together when the occasion calls for it. We’re not just telling our friends what we think. We’re announcing our views to the world.

Photos by scragz (top) and karen90631 (bottom)

Disregarding the obvious political slant (although Beck himself is not teaching the courses), there are some big questions here. What constitutes a university, or even an academic program at that? Where should we draw the line at marketing online “programs” as a university? Who is really qualified to teach? If anyone can start their own online academic program, who should we trust?

The fact that just about anyone can attach words like “academic,” “courses,” “university,” or “program” to their online content is interesting. I don’t think anyone would confuse Beck’s courses for a real accredited academic program, but I still have no doubt that some users will readily sign up for it. The fact of the matter is that Beck isn’t the first to name his own unaccredited university; he’s just brought it to a new level.

Apple did it. Take iTunes University for example; it’s an online public access point where just about anyone can create a page under which to distribute their content. It’s an amazing resource, where we can often find genuine college course lectures and materials, but Apple sure isn’t passing out degrees. There’s still plenty of subjective and non-academic content under the iTunes U umbrella and I find myself having to weed through to get to the good stuff.

Some companies even have their own corporate universities, often comprised of training programs for a specific internal positions and/or continuing education for staff’s professional development, where the company almost always picks up the tab. Although some corporate universities offer courses for Continuing Education Credits (CEU’s), most often the programs are offered with a company slant rather than general education, making the content difficult to transfer elsewhere.

Then there’s everyone else. The unaccredited Christian bible universities of the world that seek “only God’s approval.” The Average Joes disguising their mediocre knowledge of a field as a course at their self-created “university” (as an example, check out CoreTech University online). And of course, the Glenn Becks of the world basically re-branding the same old opinionated content on their site in the form of an academic program to make an extra buck.

But what does this all really mean? If anyone can start a university these days, whom should we trust with our time and our money? In an age where Gen Y is graduating with mounds upon mounds of college loan debt and not reaping the career benefits they thought they would having a college education, maybe all these privately-run, relatively inexpensive universities aren’t a bad idea. Maybe there’s more value in these various, industry-targeted, biased programs than we give them credit for. After all, if someone is willing to pay money for Beck’s program or anyone else’s, there has to be at least some value in it for that person.

So let’s keep this conversation going, because I don’t have all the answers. Did you find more value in the online program you paid $99.99 for than the college degree you paid at least $30,000 for? What about all the online resources that you don’t pay for? Is it even necessary to pay for an education anymore—if we weren’t worried about having that little piece of paper that declares us competent in reading, writing, and arithmetic? Do you think all the unaccredited programs sprouting up need more regulation or common terminology? How is all of this changing the educational landscape for the future?

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Last week I was in one of the most powerful rooms in the world, I’m sure of it. I was privy to a once-in-a-lifetime experience as a Canadian delegate taking part in the G8 and G20 Summits. It was awe-inspiring, incredibly empowering, and just too darn cool. 150 Millennials, all with incredible insight, well-formed opinions, and a collective vivacious spirit, were given the opportunity to draft a communique to represent the voice of a generation on the issues that are currently facing the G8 nations.

We all know that Millennials like to share their voices. We are confident with our words, passionate in the way we use them, and better yet, we’re not all talk; we take action, too. We’re committed to channeling our collective voice in way that constructively changes our own future for the better. And that’s exactly what we were doing at My Summit 2010.

Part of the awe that was omnipresent was the fact that we could joke, laugh and have fun, all while dreaming big for the future of our respective homes and native countries. Best of all, we shared our own strong, passionate, and lively viewpoints with the powers that be. In Canada, that meant having the opportunity to speak with the Governor General – Canada’s representative of The Queen.

Her Excellency The Right Honorable Michaelle Jean, more easily referred to as “the GG,” spent upwards of two hours listening to us. That’s right, listening to us.

She talked too, that’s for certain, but 80% of her time with us was spent listening to what we wanted to tell her about our future, our role in that future, and what changes we know are necessary for our generation to take on the burdens of the generations before us.

“Your reflections – every word counts,” were the words that greeted us as the GG began to address the delegation, saying also that, Our “presence here is vital” and that we must “seize the opportunity to make a difference.”

The spirit in the room was spell-binding. The energy at the summit was infectious. We clapped, we hooted and hollered. We cheered on our fellow delegates as we each took a turn at the microphone. Millennials have a high appetite for knowledge, and ideas, but also for change. The mantra in the room that day seemed to be “dream big.” Simple words; ones that we often don’t give enough credence to, but it was clear that these Millennials are definitely dreamers.

Canadian delegate Thomas Dehod pointed out that perhaps the right way to reflect President John F. Kennedy’s famous words is with a slight modification: “Ask not what the world can do for you, but what you can do for the world.”

So we proposed solutions – changes to involve more young people in government, support for economic development in ways that allow us to go into stable and rewarding jobs, ways to bridge the gap between the financially stable countries and the financially suffering. We had ideas for it all. Because, as Stephen Cheung, a delegate from the U.K. said, “There is no one issue more important to young people, all issues are important.”

What do 150 youth do with these kinds of words, interactions, and inspirations? We take them home to our own countries and we find ways to make change. We’re dedicated, inspired and ready to help out our generation. We’re no longer just the next generation; we’re the generation of today.

We’re connected, we’re relentlessly daring, and we’re ready to take action.

Kimberley Mosher attended My Summit 2010 and her coverage of the G8/G20 will be a continuing series on The Next Great Generation.

Check out G8 youth delegate Barbara Soetan

It also passed due to the perceived need to maintain order and discipline within the armed forces (although it has yet to ever be shown that homosexuals would disrupt the general order). In fact, Dr. Gregory M. Herek, a national authority on attitudes towards homosexuals stated that, “The research data shows that there is nothing about lesbians and gay men that makes them inherently unfit for military service…”

Not only are homosexual men and women fit for military service, but at a time when our nation is engaged in two wars and deployed in countless locations around the globe, they are desperately needed. To date, over 13,500 service men and women have been dishonorably discharged from the armed services for engaging in, talking about, or showing a preference towards homosexual behavior.

Of these able-bodied Americans, over 55 of them were trained linguists who specialized in Arabic languages. Not like that skill set is an area of critical need or specialty at the moment, or anything…

The economic impact of the policy has been staggering. A Blue Ribbon Commission from the Palm Center has reported that over 10 years, the discharge of homosexual troops will cost the Pentagon over $363.8 million.

Luckily, there has been progress.

The repeal of DADT was a huge campaign issue for the Democrats, especially with young voters,  and a prominent staple in the slew of presidential promises. Movement was slow, but on May 27, the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House of Representatives voted to attach an amendment to the DOD funding bill that would repeal DADT policy.

Now, Republicans are arguing for the maintenance of the military’s strength and tradition, while Democrats are hammering on the issue of social prejudice and equality, however they do both agree on a singular stipulation.

The Pentagon is currently reviewing the consequences of repeal implementation by conducting various surveys of over 3,000 enlisted men and women. Once the review is finished, President Obama, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs will have to certify that the repeal is possible without damaging the military’s standards, effectiveness, cohesion, recruitment, or retention.

So why does this matter to me, to you, to us?

Of all active members in all branches of the United States Armed Forces, over 64% of males and 70% of women are under age 30. The army is Gen Y. So why do we think that our overly progressive attitudes stop once we put on a uniform?

It seems more and more that we, as a nation, are moving in two separate directions. While some cling to tradition, others reach for progression. The “tradition” of marriage, the “tradition” of family, the “tradition” of the military— are all being confronted by Millennials’ progression, and all are subjected to the wills of our generation.

But here is the kicker: We don’t follow a will, or a mindset. We are individualistic, and driven, and more than able to respect, remember, and cherish tradition while we plead and strive for progression.

Traditions change and evolve, and we, as a population, grow and adapt. There was a time when African Americans and women were not allowed in the military, but the tradition of our military’s strength and prowess survived, and it will survive again after we repeal DADT.

Photo by The National Guard

Once upon a time in school, I remember being taught that all arguments needed to be supported by facts.  Now, I spend a considerable amount of time reading on the web. Much of the content I consume is created by Gen Y, and there’s a visible trend in that content.  You no longer need to craft a careful argument to have an opinion.

A generation ago, Boomers also had opinions.  However, the lack of an easy publishing platform meant that they couldn’t broadcast those opinions to the world.  Now, with web access being ubiquitous in the developed world, every time Gen Y has an opinion on something, it makes sure it’s published for the world, or at least its closest friends, to see.

Opinions, however, are like a drug.  The more you express them, the more of them you have, and the greater your need to express those too.  As such, Gen Y has created a mindset that it must have an opinion on everything from a political debate, to the quality of the pie at the new pizza place down the street.

High levels of education facilitate this fact. In my opinion, university education is rarely about cramming your head full of  facts, instead it’s about creating points of view and crafting arguments.  Thus, we have a generation trained to create arguments, and have opinions.  The problem comes outside of the classroom, where the need to do the hard part of arguing – supporting the argument with facts – disappears and it becomes easier, and addictive, to simply state one’s opinion.

The explosion of broadcasting tools is a great example of this.  Young people have flocked to blogging to express all of the opinions in their heads in written form, or if not writing, then video blogging.  And if those two forms of expressing opinion are too onerous, there’s always updating Facebook or Twitter statuses with one’s up-to-the-minute opinion of everything and anything.

While being opinionated is important, it’s also scary to think of a whole generation of opinionators.  News becomes nothing more than a mass of editorials from people who may or may not be qualified to write them.  This is an important distinction, because while everyone has the right to an opinion, it does not mean that all opinions are created equal. Some people’s opinions on a topic are worth more than others’ because of their backgrounds and their knowledge of the facts. Often, we confuse opinion with expertise, and anyone with enough knowledge to formulate an opinion — in other words, anyone with enough knowledge to formulate a sentence — deems themselves an expert.

Education and the web are both wonderful things that have given Gen Y tremendous advantages.  However, they’ve both also facilitated one of the most obnoxious traits of our generation.  We can’t not have an opinion on any matter, and frankly, it’s exhausting.  Some matters are not worth having opinions on.  Others may well be worthy of opinions, but that doesn’t mean that everyone needs to have one.  I think Gen Y could do with a little more indifference from time to time.

Then again, that’s just one guy’s opinion.

Photo by Obie Fernandez

Future Lover of Democracy?

For all our criticism and cynicism towards the Federal Government, a recent NPR article revealed that Millennials are more trusting of Uncle Sam. That’s according to a Pew Research Center survey. While some (like my dear old dad) would like to believe that this trust comes from blissful naivete, I believe it comes from a sentiment harvested and nurtured during the last presidential election – and not just from progressives.

Regardless of which candidate you supported, the 2008 Presidential election was a life-changing, historical event, especially from Gen Y. It was the first time that the majority of adults under 35 became actively involved in the political process, mostly because of a charming, spry, young candidate known as Barack Obama. His campaign was smart enough to realize the potential of online and new media tools that we use on a daily basis, thanks to his savvy Gen Y staff. His is the first presidency of the Millennial Generation. Exit polls on election night revealed that Obama won by a larger percentage among young voters than older voters. His first term in office became possible thanks to a new wave of votes – from us.

It’s this feeling of a symbiotic relationship between the voters and the federal government that gives us a sense that we all have a stake in the future. I wouldn’t say it’s so much blind trust, or Obama love – but rather the knowledge that Democracy actually works if you put effort into participating.

I should let you know, that for all my pontificating about President Obama, I did not vote for him. I couldn’t, I didn’t become a U.S. citizen until 2009. But it was the election that motivated me to actually get off my butt and make my way to Immigration, determined to be able to fully participate in the democracy that my college history professor (Hi Mike Brown!) made me love. I think I fell more in love with the power of an active democracy than I did with Obama, and I wanted to be a part of it.

As for my young conservative counterparts, I can only infer. According to the survey, only 32% of those ages 18-29 trust the government. That doesn’t mean that the other 68% are rushing to hang out with bored retirees at the latest Tea Party rally, or the mainstream two-party system either. In a Nation article, 21-year-old Learned Foote, a self-described conservative, unequivocally stated, “I hate Republicans.” But that hasn’t stopped him and others members of the College Republicans from participating in the political process. Instead they’re taking on a mission to carve out a space for their new conservatism in the political landscape – no doubt led by Meghan McCain. So maybe Foote and McCain don’t trust the government as much as that 32%, but like all Americans, they were taught to love and admire the unique Democracy that has existed since its ratification in 1788 – we just didn’t really believe it worked until November 5, 2008.

Boomers should be smiling. Its our parents who experienced the political turmoil, craziness, and revolutionary changes of the 60s that instilled this little bug of democracy inside Gen Y. Sure, they didn’t always agree or trust their government and it’s politicians, and wanted to rabble-rouse and protest everything. But there is one thing they believed in – the political process laid out in the U.S. constitution.

They knew that we all have a stake in the actions of our government. It just took us a bit longer to reach that point.

Photo: Valeria Villarroel

“In this global economy, education beyond high school is not a luxury — it’s a necessity.” – N.C. Governor Beverly Perdue’s State of the State Address, March 9, 2009.

If that statement is true, then we’re screwed.

Yet when politicians deliver such rhetoric, no one bats an eye.

The idea of college as a necessity has become so commonplace, so widely accepted by policymakers and pundits, that the glaring insincerity of it goes largely unnoticed.

A little less than 34% of North Carolina adults have at least an associate’s degree, according to the U.S. Census. So if we take the Governor’s college-as-necessity argument at face value, two out of every 3 state residents are walking around without the basic necessities for life in a global economy.

Indeed, the nation as a whole must be in dire trouble. Only about 35% of adults across the United States have attained an associate’s degree or higher, meaning the vast majority of our fellow citizens are doomed to wander helplessly through the searing wasteland of global competition.

No one doubts the advent of a more globalized economy has put enormous pressure on American business and placed increasing emphasis on the kind of skills and flexibility associated with a college degree. The decline of high-wage employment for high school graduates — the blue-collar work that once underpinned the American middle class — is all too real.

Which is why it’s perfectly inexcusable for politicians to pretend that sending the country to college will solve anything.

For starters, tripling the size of the nation’s post-secondary infrastructure is simply not possible. No matter what creative combination of online education, community colleges or four-year programs one might propose, it is not feasible to push every high school graduate into a degree program.

Nor is it fair. Already, a huge portion of K-12 graduates who enroll in college find themselves struggling to complete the work.

In North Carolina, the state’s 16 public colleges have a combined six-year graduation rate of about 59%. After six years, more than four of every ten students haven’t managed to earn a diploma. And we’re one of the few states considered good at running universities.

When we are graduating barely 6 in ten of the students we enroll now (and far less at community colleges), what sense does it make to call for a massive expansion of enrollment?

There are a number of reasons politicians like to declare college the solution to our economic woes. The empty promise of higher education for all provides hope for every family; study hard enough, and a bachelor’s degree can secure the good life.

And for the average politician, journalist or policy analyst — who went to college, is surrounded by friends who went to college, and interacts with other professionals who went to college — it certainly seems like a sure-fire path to a comfortable life.

But the rhetoric of universal higher education distracts us from actually addressing the problems that have decimated economic security for working class Americans.

How do we create wage growth for the overwhelming majority of workers who don’t go to college? What should replace the lower-skill manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries? How should we address the tremendous rise in income inequality in recent decades?

Sending more people to college is not the answer to any of these issues.

An expansive education is a wonderful thing, and we should make it available to as many people as we reasonably can.

But if we are going to tackle the very real challenge of devising an economy that provides everyone a fair shot at a decent standard of living — an economy that works for the vast majority of the country without post-secondary education — we have to drop the disingenuous notion of college for all.

You don’t need an associate’s degree to be hard-working. You don’t need a bachelor’s degree to be a good person. And you shouldn’t need any degree to make a good life for yourself.

About the author: Eric Johnson works in communications for a scholarship foundation in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He is a 2008 graduate of UNC-Chapel Hill, where he spent four years covering higher education and state politics for the Daily Tar Heel.