Thanks.

I think the short answer to this question is that American politics have become more complicated, and more crowded. Whereas 40 years ago political actors probably consisted mainly of the state, the private sector, a few interest groups, and the citizenry. Now I think there are a lot more NGOs, policy centers, and new interests to factor in. I think the end result is that, since political clout is more thinly distributed, there’s a higher bar for political efficacy. In other words, resources and affiliation with some well established organization is more a prerequisite for effective political participation now, whereas general protest politics or loose coalitions may have been sufficient a generation ago.

I think this trend is most notable when it comes to elected office. Both the financial and the educational bar are probably higher now than they’ve ever been; chances are Lincoln would never be able to jump start a political career today.

If this is true, and there is really a higher infrastructural/organizational/educational bar for effective political activism, maybe general grassroots politics don’t make as much sense anymore. Maybe college kids of our generation are turned off from the obvious ineffectiveness of retro politics. Some of the smartest and critically engaged kids around me, who are probably the ones that will go on to make the most political difference, are not heavily involved in campus activism. For a lot of kids, I think it comes down to weighing short term/long term efficacy. For a lot of people, the way they can incur the greatest systemic change is to establish a great academic foundation right now.

What I would like to see is more academic-based student politics (such as publications) that hug the intersection of these two routs to activism.

-Tim