

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
For our democracies to function we need to repair the social contract between generations and work toward such a shared vision of the future.
On this day last year, I was at the United Nations Summit of the Future in New York where world leaders agreed a global Pact to “safeguard the future.”
The Pact for the Future, adopted by the UN General Assembly, lists 56 actions governments have committed to. These cover peace and security, sustainable development, science and technology, youth, and global governance—all with the ultimate goal of protecting the needs and interests of present and future generations.
The challenges are immense. As the preamble to the pact states, “If we do not change course, we risk tipping into a future of persistent crisis and breakdown.” But to start to confront the challenges, we need multilateral cooperation for the long term and the pact provides a foundation for this.
I left the US feeling hopeful.
We all must remind ourselves that someday we will be the past generations and it’s our decisions now that will shape the future.
A year on, it’s hard to hold on to that sense of hope. The world feels like a very different place this September compared with last.
Could such a summit even take place in 2025? Given US President Donald Trump’s "my way or the highway" approach to international diplomacy and his weaponization of tariffs in trade relation; and given the lack of progress toward negotiating a ceasefire in Ukraine and ending the genocide in Palestine, it’s hard to imagine a diplomatic consensus being found today on leaving a better world for future generations.
This downward spiral of the last 12 months makes the pact even more precious.
Amid all the chaos and conflict in the world, with war raging, famine, extreme weather events, and the very fabric of our democracies coming apart at the seams, these commitments provide a vision to hold on to.
For our democracies to function we need to repair the social contract between generations and work toward such a shared vision of the future. Participation in democracy is key across generations—for individuals to say what their priorities are and choose representatives to act on the things they care about. However, participation isn’t equal across generations, and thus nor is representation.
In the 2024 US presidential election, voter turnout was lowest for the 18-24 age group; less than half of citizens in this age bracket voted. By contrast, the highest turnout was among 65-74 year-olds, three-quarters of whom voted. Similar voting patterns can be observed internationally.
It is natural that younger people are reluctant to participate in democracy when they feel governments are not acting in their longer-term interests—the climate crisis being the prime example. To build trust, governments need to show that they are listening and find ways to bring the voices of young people and future generations into decision-making processes.
Creating common visions about a desired future gives governments a goal to work toward. Having a clear vision helps them design policies knowing what direction they want to move in. Having broad, diverse participation can give them the support of the people.
Future generations governance uses co-creative and participatory methods, as well as tools like strategic foresight, to drive toward shared visions.
While it might feel like it, it’s not all doom and gloom in the world today.
Away from the front pages and social media feeds work is being done in different places to strengthen long-term thinking and the consideration of future generations in decisions.
Wales continues to be a leader. Its independent Future Generations Commissioner has existed since 2015 to support and challenge the Welsh government to represent the interests of those not yet born. This role was a result of a participative visioning process with citizens which set out in a legal Act seven well-being goals to “create a Wales that we all want to live in, now and in the future.”
Here in Europe, we have high hopes for the European Union’s first ‘intergenerational fairness’ strategy. Last year the bloc appointed its first Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness responsible for “making sure decisions taken today do not harm future generations.” Their work has the potential to provide a home for long-term thinking in the EU system and to ensure the interests of future generations are respected throughout EU policymaking.
Still under development, the strategy has had a huge amount of input from experts and citizens—myself included.
Another country setting a precedent is Norway. Earlier this year it convened a national citizens assembly to discuss how—as one of the richest countries in the world—it can use its wealth to benefit the world, Norwegians, and future generations. One of the resulting recommendations in as independent Commissioner to ensure that future generations have a voice in decision-making.
Outside Europe, the Australian parliament created a cross-party group for future generations, and Cameroon has created an Indigenous Commission for Future Generations.
Developments like these—at different levels, in different parts of the world—are how the long-term vision set out last year at the UN will be implemented on the ground.
We all must remind ourselves that someday we will be the past generations and it’s our decisions now that will shape the future.
A year ago today global leaders committed us to becoming good ancestors—future generations will be the judges of whether we succeed.
Believing the current style of door-knocking wins campaigns is the same as believing in Santa Claus.
Once upon a time, in a precinct long, long ago, there was a campaign that built voter contact programs solely from those who lived in the targeted neighborhood. The entire community shopped at the same grocery stores and even saw one another at the bank, gym, and library. In other words, this was totally different from today's "ground game," manned by people who drive from hours away, armed with clipboards, shiny new campaign t-shirts, and ready to tell residents exactly how they should vote.
While a ton of articles have been written about the importance of the "ground game" in the final days of the Harris campaign, no one is discussing the increasing problems and decreasing rate of return of this tactic. Time Magazine's October election article, "Democrats Bank on Ground Game Advantage in Pennsylvania," opens with the author observing that "most of the people on Elana Hunter's list weren't answering the door," but does not dig into the actual problem. The same is true with campaign analysis in hundreds of other news outlets. The New York Times wrote a lengthy piece comparing Vice President Kamala Harris' in-house door-knocking operation to the Trump campaign's outsourced field operation. The article highlights both sides bragging about how many doors they knocked on and how much paid staff was hired. But, neither side (nor the writers) discuss how few people answer their doors or even care what the stranger is selling.
This analysis misses the real problems of modern-day door knocking: Voters don't open their doors anymore, voters do not know their neighbors, and undecided voters are more skeptical than ever when it comes to talking about politics.
As Democrats, we should know that a last-minute paid "ground game" that gets dropped into the battleground days before an election hasn't worked in years.
Year-round precinct work with "local captains" who knew their "turf" and how each neighbor would vote disappeared as the campaign industry grew and political parties stopped building traditional ward systems. Instead, they were replaced with volunteers and paid voices that only knocked on doors during major elections. This transition from a known, trusted neighbor to an unknown door knocker has made modern campaigning a data-driven competition that ignores effectiveness as it optimizes toward knocking on the most doors.
Nonetheless, message and messenger still matter in all aspects of campaigns, especially in the field. Door-to-door salesmen are a relic of history (Even the legendary Fuller Brush company started transitioning out of door-to-door sales in 1985).
Public safety studies show neighborhoods are more responsive to community policing programs when public safety officers know the people they serve. Why would political campaigns be different?
Technology has also had a major impact on door knocking. It's now been a decade since the invention of video door camera technology. According to a 2024 Consumer Reports study, 30% of Americans use video door cameras. These changes in neighborhood dynamics and consumer behaviors are realities that must be faced.
The rite-of-passage, where a volunteer gets lost in below-freezing weather canvassing an unknown precinct or gets bitten by a dog while knocking on doors, needs to be relegated to history. While campaign war stories are fun, it's time to be honest about the changing times and begin a new chapter: These age-old tactics are neither sacred nor effective. If no one is home or no one is answering their door even if they are home, political campaigns need to change with the times.
To win more elections, target voters with appropriate messages and messengers. It's time to explore better ways to use scarce time, people, and money to achieve the desired victory. Are there better places to send volunteers to work more efficiently and rally potential voters?
This is not to say that field organizing should be discarded or that campaigns should go completely digital. (Lots of criticism is being written on the current problems with these newer tactics that will hopefully be fixed.) But, as the Democratic Party's messaging and mobilization are transformed, an honest assessment of all tactics is needed to understand what works and create better ways to win.
Remember, just because a tactic worked on one campaign, it will not always continue to work the same four years later. We have tried this with auto-calling and text messaging technologies and know they have diminishing returns each cycle. Now is the time to dig deep and have honest conversations with field organizers and volunteers to learn what tactics need to be retired and start adopting new approaches.
Let's stop pretending that more "fake neighbors" door-knocking is the solution to the Democrats' problems and focus on how to best reach targeted voters with a message that resonates, delivered by respected voices that matter, while we have time now to build a real organic field effort.
As Democrats, we should know that a last-minute paid "ground game" that gets dropped into the battleground days before an election hasn't worked in years. It didn't work on Howard Dean's well-funded 2004 campaign that flew tons of staff and volunteers to Iowa. It's now 20 years after the infamous Dean scream, and we continue to blindly follow the same failed "orange cap" tactics of these past campaigns: inserting last-minute volunteers and door-knocking teams instead of thinking about how to create long-term community-based approaches.
We all have to grow up at some point and face the truth. Or you could keep believing in Santa Claus and see what gift he brings you in the next election cycle.
The Poor People’s Campaign is organizing to push the concerns of poor and low-income people into the center of the 2024 political debate.
Amidst all the nail-biting uncertainty over the 2024 election, one thing’s for sure: Turnout will be key. This February, the Poor People’s Campaign announced plans to mobilize a powerful yet often overlooked voting bloc: the 85 million eligible voters who are poor or low-income.
The campaign crunched the numbers and determined that if this bloc voted at the same rate as higher-income voters, they could sway elections in every state. But most voting drives—and candidates—still ignore this segment of our society.
“The conventional wisdom—which isn’t very wise—is that the poor don’t care about voting,” said Poor People’s Campaign Policy Director Shailly Gupta Barnes at a February 5 press conference. “But that’s just not true.”
In Arizona, 40% of voters are low-wage—and in 2020 the margin of victory was just 0.03%.
What’s the biggest factor discouraging low-wage people from exercising this basic right?
“Political campaigns do not talk to them or speak to their issues,” explained campaign co-chair Bishop William J. Barber II. “In our election cycles sometimes we have 15, 20 debates for president. In 2020, not one of those—not 15 minutes—was given to raising questions about how the policies of that particular party or politician would impact poor and low-income people.”
The Poor People’s Campaign is organizing to push the concerns of poor and low-income people into the center of the 2024 political debate. Their goal is to mobilize 15 million “infrequent” poor and low-income voters.
Will politicians listen?
At the press conference, pollster Celinda Lake ticked off one battleground state after another where even a small increase in participation could determine the outcome. She pointed out that in Arizona, 40% of voters are low-wage—and in 2020 the margin of victory was just 0.03%. “You’d have to be a moron to not get this,” Lake said.
What are some of the most pressing issues on the Poor People’s Campaign agenda?
The campaign and the Institute for Policy Studies just co-published fact sheets for the nation and all 50 states on the interlocking problems that hit the poor hardest: poverty and inequality, systemic racism, ecological devastation, and militarism. Several speakers spoke about these problems from their own personal experiences.
“I’m tired of companies and billionaires buying politicians who are pushing people deeper into poverty and debt,” said Matthew Rosing of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. “I’ve put up with the thankless toll of minimum wage retail jobs and back-breaking construction jobs in a state that has 19 billionaires. And because of our flat tax, they pay the same state income tax rate as I do.”
Linda Burns, a former Amazon warehouse assembly line worker, has struggled for basic labor rights and decent healthcare benefits. Burns was a supporter of the valiant union drive at the Bessemer, Alabama, facility that Amazon eventually crushed through harsh intimidation tactics.
Burns says she was fired for her union activity, which led to the loss of her health benefits right before a needed surgery related to a workplace injury. Today she works 16 hours a day as a caregiver.
“I’ve worked too hard to have nothing,” said Burns. “We have to stand up for our rights.”
Veronica Burton spoke about the economic gulf in her community of Beloit, Wisconsin. A woman who lives “around the corner” from her is a billionaire while Burton is struggling to pay bills in the face of multiple rent increases and the low wages she earns at an understaffed child-care center.
On top of dealing with her own problems, Burton often finds herself trying to help parents of the children under her care. “We’ve had mothers unenroll their children because they can’t afford their asthma medicine,” she said.
These and other organizers in more than 30 states are ready to put on their door-knocking shoes in the lead-up to this year’s election and beyond. “We are not an insurrection,” Bishop Barber said. “But you better believe we are a resurrection—a resurrection of justice and love and righteousness.”