Ruben Navarrette offers yet another self-congratulatory analysis of the sense of entitlement among today's young Americans in this touching article slamming young people for being civically engaged. 

While Mr. Navarrette makes salient points about the positives of being young in the work force, citing our cheap salaries, greater freedom of mobility, and fewer financial and social obligations, the current response to the economic crisis has not effectively responded to the needs of young Americans. The underpinning philosophy of the 80 Million Strong Campaign is that with adjustments in the way the government partners with society (hello financial sector!) we can recover from the recession as a stronger and more unified society.

However, as Mr. Navarrette focuses on the challenges that today's adults face, he fails to note that the adults of today did not experience the same rates of double and even triple digit educational debt on top of credit card debt up to their eyeballs.  Lending practices were different in their younger years, as was the cost of education and the standard of human capital in the workforce.  Of course every demographic of society is impacted by the economic crisis, but this has not precluded other demographics (including those based on age, see here) from advocating for their interests.  This is not fruitless "intergenerational warfare" over limited government resources but a mobilization of constituencies petitioning the government to work for them.  In some circles that is called participatory democracy.  Apparently in Mr. Navarrette's it's called entitlement. 

Moreover, it's the communities that were marginalized even in times of economic prosperity (youth disconnected from educational and employment institutions in particular) that are feeling the amplified impact of the economic crisis.  The Reagan bootstraps philosophy, which Mr. Navarrette so proudly espouses, has its place in empowering the individual to take action for his or her own wellbeing.  Yet when applied indiscriminately to the entire population, this concept serves to reproduce the "gimme" society in a different form, that of individual greed, in which social and individual wellbeing are played against one another in a zero sum game.  This perspecitive, as evidenced by the recent global economic crisis (which was arguably the result of such thinking) is as equally shortsighted and narrow-minded as Mr. Navarrette's hyperbolic assessment of young peoples' "sense of entitlement" in the 80 Million Strong Campaign. 

Tragicomically, Mr. Navarrette's claim that very spirit of entrpeneurship that  has atrophied among America's youth as demonstrated by a group of young people petitioning the government is quite a poor read of the situation.  The 80 Million Strong Campaign did not fall from the sky.  It was created by the creativity, ingenuity, political prowess, and determination of young Americans.  I can think of no activity more entrepreneurial and "bootstraps" in nature than mobilizing ones constituency to challenge the status quo in favor of greater political, social, and economic inclusion. 

Young people have the right to participate in the economic recovery of their country, and to advocate for their economic empowerment.  Our generation has already begun to demonstrate their committment to civic engagement and participation in the political process that governs their lives (consistently increasing turnout rates for elections and 18-29 year olds serving as the decisive constituency in President Obama's election). 

Perhaps we should be looking to the young people of the 80 Million Strong Campaign as a sign of hope that America's next generation has had enough of the economic zero sum game and is ready to draft a new social contract in which they can participate with a proper balance of individual initiative and partnership with the government.  Or we can choose to continue to label that innovative spirit "entitlement."  Nothing big hangs in the balance, just the future of our country.