After the 2016 election, there was a lot of soul searching on behalf of the press who was largely viewed as fueling the meteoric rise and the eventual success of Donald Trump. Years of introspection and public criticism lead to many in the press acknowledging some hard truths:

How the press screwed us in 2016:

1. Obsession with Trump’s explosive (albeit entertaining) antics lead to an explosion in news ratings that allowed many editors to suspend many rules of journalism in order to afford Trump upwards of $1b in free media. I remember Trump rallies being live broadcast on every news station uninterrupted for an hour straight…while he was running against 10 other candidates in the primary. But the others weren’t as good for ratings.
2. Conflict driven narrative of broadcast journalism required the press to over cover the disputes that Trump would conjure up just to maintain his coverage. Trump thrives in conflict and understood early that he could appear to win even while losing and that he didn’t have to be right as long as he could make his opponent also seem wrong…and that the press would gladly broadcast it.
3. Attempts to appear balanced and non-partisan resulted in a false equivalency…that there are pros and cons on both sides and that the only responsibility of the press was to represent both sides equally and let the viewer make a decision.
4. Abandon the pursuit of truth and accountability. Although, this was often not due to a lack of effort by journalist who had to balance probing questions and investigative journalism with being nimble enough to move on to the next salacious story Trump was “trumping” up….often multiple times in a single day.

Four years later and the press is making all four of these fatal flaws all over again. Faced with the unimaginable negligence of the federal government to fulfill their most important function, public safety, it is more critical then ever for the press to assume the role of the fourth estate and faithfully pursue truth and accountability. It is a vital role that safeguards the social contract that the public has made with those empowered to make decisions on our behalf. Once again, the media has forfeited this responsibility in exchange for higher ratings, click bait, and conflict journalism. And once again, lives are on the line.

How the press is screwing us, again:

Well, the short answer is in all the same ways.

1. Obsession with Trump’s explosive (albeit entertaining) antics resulted in hours of coverage of press conferences that have made “Trump at podium” the most incessant image of this crisis. In fact, Trump is so adept at manipulating media to his will, after nearly a year of providing no live press conferences he hijacked them from Mike Pence and Dr. Fauci, moved them to prime time, and cast himself as the leading role.
2. Conflict driven narrative of broadcast journalism has resulted in even me, an insatiable consumer of current events, to know more about the Twitter beef of Trump and Gov. Witmer (MI) then the resource deficiency that the state Michigan is facing. It has even resulted in a sort of daily head-to-head matchup of Cuomo vs Trump with the state of New York’s nationally broadcasted press conference spending significant time responding to the President's latest twitter finger pop off.
3. Attempts to appear balanced and non-partisan…well this has largely just been abandoned all together. But this is also a result of a missing unified voice on the Democratic side (see: where in the world is Joe Biden).
4. Abandon the pursuit of truth and accountability. Once again, this is not a result of lack of effort from the journalist who are in fact asking the hard questions. But lack of patience and attention span has reduced the appetite for an investigative journalist to uncover:

• Who was in the decision chain for disbanding the National Security Council’s Public Health Unit?
• Why was the federal government's production of more COVID-19 test delayed and when did it finally begin?
• How we are balancing the need to safeguard of our public health vs economic stability (the real conflict that deserves more coverage from the White House)?

These are not easy questions and do not fit in 90 second segments. Nor do they run up the ratings as much as Trump calling a reporter “mean and nasty”. But it is the information Americans need to know in order to hold those in power accountable.

To be clear, a lot of this journalism is being done in publications, talk radio, and highly informative podcast. But we know that is not where the overwhelming majority of the public is getting their information. This crisis of consciousness in the media is a systemic problem perpetuated by news for profit and short term benefit while the long term effects could be irreversible.

How can the media cover COVID-19 better?

1. First, stop covering these news conferences for hours each day and instead just cover the news. The media can extract from hours of press conferences only important news to inform the public. This will often result in more coverage of Dr. Fauci and other professionals then Trump, and we know they are not as great for ratings.
2. Dedicate a segment a day to deep dive an element of this crisis that is lost in 24-hour coverage. How are schools educating millions of children that were forced home? How can small businesses access $2 trillion of stimulus funding? How is this affecting the judicial and criminal justice system?
3. Finally, focus more on those impacted and how they are coping then on “Trump at the podium”. Unlike in a hurricane, wildfire, or terrorist attack, we are not being confronted with daily images of those that are suffering. But also missing from those types of disasters are the images of heroism, unity, and responsibility that we deploy to forge our way through hard times. The world needs more reminders of that, and fewer reminders of the smallness that is represented by the biggest podium in the world.

I believe the press could get this right. I believe they could safeguard the social contract that the public has with the powerful. I believe they can investigate the potential death of 200k people as rigorously as they investigated 30k missing emails. Because I believe these are all products of the press’s will and priorities, rather than capacity and ability.

As millennials seize political power how will they govern?

There has been a lot of talk in the early days of the 116th Congress about the historic gains made in working towards a truly representative democracy in Washington. The most women ever elected, the first Native American women, and the first Muslim women. The People’s House, as Congress is affectionately called, is beginning to look a lot more like the people it represents. But there is one group often left out of the representation conversation, millennials.

The 116th Congress also represents the youngest Congress in history comprising 26 millennials (age 22–37), up from just six the previous year. These millennials decided they would not wait for a seat at the table to become available, but instead brought a chair — they challenged incumbents and demanded generational representation at the table of democracy. In the same election cycle, a record 700 millennials ran for state legislative seats. And just this last month a millennial, Pete Buttigieg, became the first millennial to announce his candidacy for President of the United States. Indeed, millennials, many of whom first exercised their votes in the era of Obama, are now amplifying their voices in the age of Trump.

This generational representation is significant since millennials are grossly under-represented across all chambers of political power; we are 27 percent of the electorate but only 6 percent of Congress. This representation is also significant because having our voices at tables of power will inherently change the conversation to reflect where America is going rather than where it has been.

To be clear, our voices are not monolithic. However, there are three defining elements, what I refer to as the Millennial Archetype, that give a glimpse into what we can expect from millennial governance. These elements echo across our identities and our ideologies.

The recession generation. Most of the millennials entered the workforce during the worst recession followed by the biggest bank bailout in recent history, leaving us to fend for ourselves. That recession saddled millennials with massive student loan debt coupled with crippling unemployment. As a result, we maintain healthy distrust for large institutions.

Millennial governing: Corporate regulation and student loan reform (not to be mistaken with lowering the cost of college) will be a part of most millennial governing agendas. Regulating banks and big corporations will also be a prominent priority for millennials.

The internet generation. Millennials were the first generation that grew up with internet access in the home. We use the internet to connect with each other and have forged some of the most profitable companies in the world through social media and the shared economy. Most importantly, we overwhelmingly trade privacy for convenience. We also became more aware of urgent problems facing the world and recognized the interconnectivity of the human experience.

Millennial governing: Expect millennials to impede the regulation of social media companies and the shared economy. Millennials will also prioritize reversing the effects of climate change…since we must eventually inherit the earth.

The majority-minority generation. Central to who we are is, well, who we are. We are the most diverse generation in history and have ushered in the rapid diversification of America. We have overwhelmingly migrated back to urban centers where diverse people and ideas flourish. We are less likely to participate in the othering of people, foreign or domestic.

Millennial governing: more tolerant and compassionate toward differences in religion, orientation, and ethnicity. This will also significantly affect foreign policy where millennials assuming power will be less likely to ignore humanitarian challenges or injustices abroad.

It is a worthy venture to pay close attention to how millennials govern, what we prioritize and how we continue impacting the world as we’d like it to be. At this very moment, there are hundreds of millennials preparing to run in various elections in 2020. So, consider it a foregone conclusion, that millennials are coming to the table with a chair, and preparing to change the entire menu.

Immigrant children have been ripped from the arms of their parent’s and detained in cages at our borders. Muslims have been effectively banned from entering America from certain countries. Businesses have been given autonomy to determine if they want to serve LGBTQ couples, or not. NFL players have been villainized as unpatriotic “sons of bitches” for peacefully and silently protesting police injustice. And black bodies continue to be abused and discarded by those meant to protect us.

Make no mistake about it, Republicans are engaged in a dangerously divisive culture war, and Democrats are (possibly too) late to the battlefield. The culture war is going to be amplified in the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation challenge for Brett Kavanaugh who, if confirmed, could tip the scales of justice on each of the aforementioned issues. And the culture war will be a central theme of the upcoming midterm election, in fact it could determine the outcome of the election.

Both Democrats and Republicans have made strategic calculations to determine their positions in this ongoing culture war. Republicans have determined that the benefit of uniting their base toward victory is worth the cost of dividing the country into chaos. Subsequently, Democrats have made the calculation that they have a better chance attracting swing voters back into their coalition, if they avoid identity politics in exchange for exclusively focusing on economic issues.

There are just a few problems with such a fool-hearted and coldly calculated decision for Democrats to avoid the culture war:

There are more of us than there are of them. Demographics are destiny, and they tell us two things about our political future — millennials are officially the biggest voting bloc in America, and this country will be majority-minority in the next 20 years. The battleground states, where elections are won and lost, are significantly younger and diversifying astronomically faster. These two emerging electorates create tremendous strategic opportunity for Democrats, if they get this pivotal moment right.

Recent national opinion surveys have concluded that the top three qualities that voters are seeking in candidates this cycle are someone they can trust, someone that will fight for what they believe in, and someone who will do the right thing. If Democrats could increase the turnout of younger and minority voters by fighting for us, then they actualize the blue wave that they are hoping for in November.

Recommendation: Democrats should take a bold moral stand when the values, issues, and the very identity of their most critical voters are under attack.

It undermines Democrats’ most cohesive message in the midterm…they should have control of Congress in order to check Trump’s power. Last week, I conducted a series of battleground focus groups with millennial's and minority voters that all had low-to-mid vote likelihood in the upcoming midterm election. The most shocking discovery: these voters do not believe that Democrats would (and to varying degrees could) check Trump’s erratic and divisive behavior, even with the majority.

Many Democrats, myself included, had taken it as forgone conclusion that the check and balance power of a Democratic-controlled Congress would be a compelling reason to attract voters in November. But if Democrats have not been seen aggressively fighting back against Trump’s most dangerous and divisive actions now, then why should voters trust them to do it with a majority in Congress?

Recommendation: Democrats should take a note from our allies in the parliamentary system where the role of the minority party is to oppose, not merely campaign to become the majority. Opposition requires action.

White swing voters hate racism, too. Standing up to racism and intolerance is popular amongst the majority of Americans, even white Americans. Seventy six percent of Americans support a pathway to citizenship. Sixty seven percent believe separating parents and children at the border is unacceptable. Sixty seven percent support marriage equality for LGBTQ couples. Sixty one percent believe African Americans are more likely to be mistreated by law enforcement. Taking a stand on these issues affecting minorities who are under constant attack is not only the right thing to do, it is the politically prudent thing to do.

A political messaging project, which I recently conducted with Demos, found that language that boldly addresses racial inequalities in an attempt to unite us is more effective than racially agnostic language that is tone deaf to social context. The project concluded that Democrats discussing economic issues absent of race and class leads to less votes than confronting the issues head on.

Recommendation: Democrats should employ the weapons of unity and inclusion as aggressively as Republicans have employed the weapons of division and animosity. No reason to be bashful about it, they certainly are not.

At some point, political expediency must concede to just doing the right thing. Even if it was not the most strategic political decision, although I think we have proven that it is, standing against bigotry and racism is just the right thing to do. Political power in this country swings back and forth like a pendulum. We win some and we lose some. However, despite our overwhelming shortcomings, America has strived to become a moral compass to guide the world. If Democrats concede this culture war by choosing not to engage, then we risk losing something far more important than an election. This is a fight for the conscience of America, and that is one we cannot afford to lose.

Recommendation: Democrats, do the right thing.

To be fair, this is not the beginning, and unfortunately likely not the end, of the culture war forged through our two-party political system. In fact, Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign shares the exact same tenets of Senator Barry Goldwater’s Southern Strategy of the 1950’s — mobilize white voters against the progress made by minorities.

The biggest difference between Republican efforts in the 1950’s and their efforts today is that Democrats took a moral stand, and won. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1965 he famously declared “we have lost the South for a generation,” an acknowledgment of the millions of votes he had conceded in the pursuit of civil rights and justice.

Today, America is being faced with the same moral crisis. Demographic shifts and advancements of minorities are once pressure testing the cohesion of our diverse society. Democrats have an opportunity to defend the morals and values of this country from those who wish to oppose them, both domestic and abroad. This time it might also be their only chance of winning the next election.

Millennials. The buzz word of this election cycle, and for good reason. We are the largest demographic in the country representing 77 million people and 24 percent of the population. We are often over represented in national dialogue because we amplify our opinions through social media, and more recently through direct social demonstration in urban centers throughout the nation from Charlotte to Tulsa. However, our votes have not been as resounding as our voices. Despite the number of millennial eligible voters (69.2 million) almost exceeding eligible Baby Boomer voters (69.7 million), lower levels of registration and inconsistent participation have deluded the power of our votes. In 2012, 72 percent of Baby Boomers participated in the election, only 46 percent of millennials participated in the same year.

Further deluding the power of the millennial vote is this idea of protest voting, that we should support a third party candidate even though they cannot win, just to show our dissatisfaction with the two major party candidates. What do we gain from this? Our candidate will lose. Our issues will lose. We will lose. The idea of protest as a deliberate and coordinated effort to lose is a form of protest that does not achieve any of our desired objectives. As Jesse Williams recently proclaimed in a GOTV ad to millennials voters, “You say you are making a statement by not voting but nobody hears it.”

We simply cannot become the largest and loudest generation with the least amount of political capital.

Democracy is hard work and change is not easily achieved. Contrary to the false hope created by too many GOTV efforts targeting millennial voters, change does not happen by just voting, although, it does start there.

We are a remarkably powerful generation, here are four ways we can begin flexing our political power, on and beyond Election Day.

ELECTORAL POWER.

The power to elect candidates that support our agenda and reflect our values is the power we are most familiar with. This is also the power that is most often promoted to us because it is the kind of power that has a greater benefit to others then to ourselves. Our vote helps others win. However, it often feels like we have forgotten how much we, millennial voters, have the power to pick leaders that determine the direction of our communities, our country, and the world.

In 2008, Barack Obama got three million more votes from young people then John Kerry did just four years prior. Barack Obama won by just three million votes. Had those young people stayed home the way they did in 2004 then Barack Obama would not have a path to victory. Our power rest in the fact that we represent the margin of victory.

Demonstrations of power beyond electing candidates become less familiar to many young voters, primarily because they are not promoted as much from those asking for our votes. Here’s how we continue to flex our power far beyond Election Day.

Voting is not the end of the democratic process, it is the beginning.

NEGOTIATING POWER.

Not every candidate that we vote for will be perfectly aligned with our issues. Pause…and take a second to let that resonate. We cannot be the idealistic generation that will not vote unless the candidate is exactly where we are on every issue. If we are indeed the margin of victory, and I can show multiple graphs that prove that we are, then we also have the power to negotiate candidates closer in line with our issues.

In 2008 Barack Obama received the overwhelming support of the LGBT community despite being publicly opposed to same sex marriage. However, as a result of relentless demonstrations, lobbying, and negotiating from one of his most committed voting blocks, the Obama administration not only overturned the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy but President Obama also publicly announced his support of marriage equality, paving the way for the historic Supreme Court decision officially making marriage equality the law of the land.

If we stand united, vote consistently, and negotiate passionately, we can move the issues most important to millennials the exact same way the LGBT community did.

ACCOUNTABILITY POWER.

Elected officials navigate competing interest and multiple priorities from their first day in office. Once we have cast our votes and initiated negotiations with the candidates that we have elected to office we also flex our power to ensure that our issues remain their priorities.

Early in the first Obama administration many Latino activist grew frustrated as they observed disproportionate attention going toward legislation to pass Obamacare and not enough attention on comprehensive immigration reform. Multiple demonstrations were held outside the White House and US Capital until the President initiated a series of executive orders to reduce mass deportations across the nation. This was not the win that the Latino community was seeking, but it demonstrated this President’s commitment to their issues and their power to directly change their communities.

PUNITIVE POWER.

There is one kind of power that we likely hear the least about because it is typically not to the advantage of those asking for our votes, the punitive power to fire those that do not advance our agenda or support our communities. Quite frankly this is my favorite expression of political power and is arguably the greatest democratic tool we have to advance our communities.

We gave them the power and it is time for us to start taking it back.

One of the most effective demonstrations of punitive power exercised by young people recently was in the 2016 race for Cook County State’s Attorney. The incumbent State’s Attorney, Anita Alvarez, had been harshly criticized and protested by Black Lives Matter and other activist for not filing charges against the police officers that gunned down unarmed Laquan McDonald thirteen months prior. Young people started a movement against Alvarez that resulted in thousands of newly registered voters, a sophisticated grassroots campaign, and a national hashtag that earned national coverage…#byeanita. Anita Alvarez, the incumbent, was overwhelmingly fired on March 15 losing by 30 percent.

Millennials have proven time and again that we have real political power and that we will flex it. But our power is diluted when we do not vote and further diluted when we protest vote for candidates that cannot win. Democracy takes a lot of work, and contrary to what many of us have been taught, it simply does not end when we vote. Instead, we must vote for candidates that closest align to what we want, negotiate to move elected officials closer to our agenda, hold them accountable once we have elected them to office, and fire them if they do not make enough progress before their name appears back on the ballot.

If the biggest generation in this country flexed all of its power more consistently then we could truly begin shaping the nation that we will inevitably inherit.