In Massachusetts, an open seat in the Senate is not a frequent occurrence.  Many members of Generation Y were not yet born at the time of the last vacancy, when Senator Kerry first won his seat, in 1984.  Fittingly, such a rare occasion calls upon the Commonwealth’s best public servants to present themselves as candidates.  Bay Staters should be proud of the slate they have to choose from in next week’s special primary.

The four Democratic candidates hail from different backgrounds and appeal to different segments of the Commonwealth, and all four are uniquely qualified for the Senate.  Generation Progress has appreciated a robust campaign that managed, despite the candidates’ political similarities, to highlight their various tactical and personal approaches to the art of government.  Each has particular strengths and weaknesses, and no one has emerged as the obvious choice for a forward-thinking, young generation.

After long deliberation, however, GP determined that one candidate does represent the best blend of progressive policy and clear-sighted pragmatism.  Martha M. Coakley, attorney general of the Commonwealth and formerly a district attorney, is the candidate most likely to produce positive change in line with the values of our generation, over what may well be a long legislative career.  Ms. Coakley may not be the contender who dazzles voters with her rhetoric, but she is an adamant force for the principles of liberalism.  Likewise, she may not be the candidate who promotes one popular cause, such as jobs or good government; yet she has shown time and again that her fervent cause is Massachusetts, and for that she deserves our support.

Nonetheless, if she prevails at the polls, we hope to find certain qualities in Ms. Coakley as nominee – and as senator – that we have not seen up to this point.  At times, her campaign has been cautious to a fault, which may be part of an understandably careful strategy for navigating the primary race.  But as a generation, we are not interested in a cautious advocate.  We want to feel confidence in Ms. Coakley’s ability not only to win the general election, but also to lead in Washington.  The man or woman to assume Senator Kennedy’s seat must not be just another Democrat following in great footsteps.  Rather, he or she must create his or her own great legacy on behalf of the people of Massachusetts.  To date, Ms. Coakley has been a diplomat; let us now see Ms. Coakley the champion.

The primary election in Massachusetts will take place on December 8; the special election will take place on January 19.

To better inform its ongoing discussions regarding an endorsement in the Massachusetts special election, GP’s Political Affairs Committee has sent a questionnaire to each of the campaigns competing in the December 8th Democratic primary.

The committee has extensively researched the candidates’ positions on a broad range of topics.  However, the group did not find publicly available material regarding some aspects of GP’s “big four” platform issues for 2010: Clean Energy, Urban Fabric, Food Politics, and Respected America.  The candidate survey contained four questions, one on each issue.

Political Affairs members will meet again to consider survey responses, as well as ongoing campaign developments, this Thursday evening.  The committee has not yet set a date for announcing an endorsement.

Primary elections will take place on December 8; the last day to register to vote in the primary is November 18.  The special election will take place on January 19.

With the race to fill Senator Kennedy’s seat heating up, a team of Generation Progress members has begun investigating whether the special election will warrant the organization’s direct endorsement of a candidate.

GP’s Political Affairs Committee has begun preliminary discussions analyzing the diverse field: a congressman from Somerville, the state attorney general, a leader in the nonprofit sector, and a prominent local businessman.

What’s your opinion? Has a particular candidate moved you?  Is a certain issue being ignored?  Did a specific article or campaign video sway you toward one candidate or another?  Let us know — we’re eager to hear thoughts and receive useful links from the GP community.  Reach us by e-mail (political@generationprogress.org), Twitter (@GP_tweet), or Facebook (facebook.com/generationprogress).

Massachusetts voters will go to the polls on Tuesday, December 8 to select a nominee to compete in the January 19 special election.

I stayed up (and stayed in) last night to watch the watershed vote in the House on H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.  Many others did, too, as evinced by hours of sustained ferocity, jubilation, and vitriol on Twitter.  I don’t think the outcome satisfied anyone one hundred percent: the right hates the public option, the left hates the Stupak amendment.  That’s government.

On balance, I found the bill satisfactory and cheered its passage.  In particular, I applauded Section 103, aptly entitled “Ending Health Insurance Rescission Abuse.”  In this context, “rescission” (which is another word for “rescinding”) refers to an insurer’s cancellation of an individual policy when the insurer believes the policyholder applied for the policy untruthfully — e.g., when he or she failed to disclose a pre-existing condition.  For an excellent “101″ on the often-unfair pain of rescission, please listen to this report from PRI’s Ira Glass.

Mr. Glass discusses a June hearing of a House subcommittee, during which Congressmen and -women confronted three insurance CEOs about controversial instances of rescission — specifically, when the failure to disclose was inadvertent or insignificant.  One example is the well known case of Robin Beaton, whose claims for breast-cancer treatment were denied on the grounds that she had failed to report the pre-existing condition of acne.  One of the gratifying discoveries of the hearing was that members of both parties expressed outrage.  Congressman Barton, Republican of Texas, referenced Ms. Beaton’s case when he pressed the CEOs: “Doesn’t it bother you that people are going to die because you insist on reviewing a policy that somebody took out in good faith and forgot to tell you that they were being treated for acne?  Doesn’t that bother you?”

(You can find documents from the subcommittee hearing here, including Ms. Beaton’s testimony and a transcript.)

Section 103 takes direct aim at rescission, stating unequivocally that:

A health insurance issuer may rescind group health insurance coverage only upon clear and convincing evidence of fraud described in subsection (b)(2), under procedures that provide for independent, external third-party review.

Allowing for rescission of truly fraudulent insurance policies, the House bill does what the insurance CEOs blatantly, unequivocally refused to do at that subcommittee hearing: end the inhumane practice of canceling good-faith policies on trivial grounds.  That’s commendable work by the House.  And that, too, is government.

The word I’ve been using to describe my feeling after Tuesday’s Discourse is unsettled.  I appreciated the high turnout, and I found the topic (and the conversation) interesting, no doubt.  However, I think we missed the mark in a few ways — making the event a perfect learning opportunity for Discourse, which is, after all, a very new program!

What contributed most to my unsettled feeling was that our discussion didn’t result in satisfactory answers to the questions we posed at the outset.  We had asked: “What is a good U.S. citizen in the year 2010?” and “Is the ideal of a global identity reachable?”  And while we did talk a lot about American identity, I felt that we could have shaped the conversation so that we were working toward answers.

The goal of Discourse is not to solve global problems, of course, and I don’t think we should try to forge consensus by the time we adjourn.  The point of Discourse is to create a space for true conversation wherein participants can explore ideas, challenge preconceptions, and become better-informed thinkers and debaters.

I voiced my concerns last night at a meeting of several members of the Political Affairs team and the Discourse planning committee (partially pictured at left!).  We talked about a slew of changes for upcoming Discourses — including less complicated prompts (those three paragraphs and one video we sent out were overkill!) and a more structured format for the event itself.  We also agreed that the moderator should be more impartial but also a bit stricter about ensuring that all participants are allowed equal speaking time.

What did you think about the event on Tuesday?  I would love to hear more feedback as we shape this program into a success.  Please send comments to me by e-mail (chairman@generationprogress.org).  I won’t publish or distribute them to GP staff if you would like your comments to stay private.

My many thanks to everyone who attended this week, and I do hope to see you all at Part Two on November 10!

— Michael

Fifteen GP members and friends gathered at Boston’s Red Hat Café Tuesday night for the first of two Discourse roundtables on the American identity.

The full house of local intellectuals grappled with such topics as the creation of a global identity free of national(ist) and ethnic constraints.  We pondered: Are all societies equal?  Is the U.S. still seen as the world’s savior?  Is this entire question just a trick of labeling, and “American” an undefinable quality?

This Discourse drew on a broad range of perspectives: many participants were immigrants or the children of immigrants.  A few were not U.S. citizens but had lived here for years.  Still others came from old American families, yet even they were acutely aware of where their first ancestors had hailed from.

Once we dug into the subject matter, some conclusions were very readily agreed.  Kristen, GP’s community chair, adamantly rejected the notion that she had to choose between self-identifying as a U.S. citizen and as a global citizen.  The room agreed that the dichotomy was false, and that we are all able to maintain multiple allegiances and points of view.  First-time participant Isha suggested that, ideally, American and global identities should be naturally complementary.  “The U.S. isn’t a melting pot… it’s a mosaic,” she noted, positing that if more Americans deeply explored the cultural richness around them, they would more readily embrace the concept of borderlessness.

Some conclusions were harder to come by.  A key point that eluded understanding was why many Americans see some global issues so differently from most of the rest of the world — one prominent example being climate change.  In fact, America has drifted so far afield on climate change, participants agreed, that the U.S. had lost its global leadership on the issue.  Perhaps, someone suggested, the issue didn’t seem to be an immediate concern here.  Bemoaning a collective short-sightedness and social amnesia, one participant mused that “when climate change becomes a crisis, we’ll solve it; then we’ll forget about it” and disregard any lessons for the future.

In the end, those Discoursing agreed that our generation would — or at least should — be transformative, daring to try new solutions to fulfill America’s global obligations and instill a sense of equity among societies.  GP member Emmanuel stated his belief that our peers have the historical perspective to recognize and correct our mistakes.  Though others expressed skepticism at that notion, it is at least a goal worth working toward.

Part Two of Discourse’s American Identity series will take place on Tuesday, November 10, at 6:30 p.m., location TBA.  To reserve a seat, please visit discourse.eventbrite.com.  A fuller review of Part One will be available in advance of Part Two!

Heads up!  If you’re looking for something satisfying to do tomorrow (Saturday), check out the “Is Green a Mirage?” forum sponsored by the New England arm of the Young Professionals for International Cooperation.

The focus: “the impact of global environmental programs on our communities, governments, and international relations. … The forum will touch many of the topics that will be addressed later this year in Copenhagen, with hopes to promote awareness of current issues in the New England community.”

Some GPers have been involved in the planning of this event — and with free admission plus mimosas, who could say no?!

Check out this PDF for details, directions (it’s in Cambridge), and contact info.

Consider the odds. 5,000 federally registered political action committees across the country. Millions of dollars worth of federal political donations being spent in any given year. And last night, four people talking around a dining room table in Boston.

I know, I know. The odds are tough.

When GP talks about changing the way a generation of Americans relates to national politics, we understand what we’re up against. We’re competing against all of those infamous special interests and professional lobbyists in Washington. We’re competing against big money $500-plate luncheons. That’s just the way the game is played.

Our mission is to bring together Boston’s young and civic-minded in support of progress. We do this by producing events that don’t cost an arm and a leg to attend. Those small donations add up. And we spend that money where it matters most: in competitive races across the country where one more radio ad or 100 more lawn signs can mean the difference between actual progress and the same old status quo.

So last night, four GP regulars got together and talked about the future of progress. We’d like you to know that we’re still busy raising our usual ruckus around town. Want to join? Here are some ways.

• Discourse by Generation Progress is a series of face-to-face conversations about current events and big ideas. On Tuesday, October 27, Boston locals from all walks of life will meet at The Red Hat for interesting, useful dialogue. This session’s topic? American identity, citizenship in a flat world, and what it means to be an American citizen in 2010. Don’t miss this. Learn more and sign up here. Free wings!
• GP-Talk is our online email discussion group. People you know and people you’ve never met share their thoughts on the news, politics, and society. It’s all in your email — it doesn’t get easier than that. And it doesn’t get more interesting. Click here for more information. Email us if you want to take a test drive: gp-talk-info@generationprogress.org. It’s worth it.

If you would like to join the Generation Progress mailing list and get news about our events, issues, and candidates, you can sign up right on our website.

GP members gathered this morning for the first GP Coffee, a new program for active members to meet informally and chat about the organization, upcoming events, and politics in general.

Dan Kamyck, our marketing chair, hosted and led today’s discussion.  Topics included potential venues for GP’s 2010 events, marketing materials, recruitment, and the organization’s online presence.

GP member Tanya even invented a little bit of GP-speak, coining the new term bugle, meaning “channel of communication” — as in, “We need to streamline our bugles!” — i.e., ensure that all our public outlets (our Twitter stream, Facebook posts, this website, etc.) are in sync.

That specific topic — managing our bugles — will be the focus of an upcoming meeting of the GP Marketing Committee.  For more information, please e-mail Dan at marketing@generationprogress.org.

GP Coffee is a semi-regular gathering; the next event, which may or may not involve more caramelized cauliflower, is scheduled for November 7.

Remember when the debate over marriage equality reached fever pitch during the 2004 election?  Massachusetts had just begun issuing same-sex marriage licenses, and on Election Day many states whisked in brand-new bans on gay marriage.  The culture war was hot.

Since then, however, the issue has noticeably faded from prominence, and along with it, much of the vocal opposition.  Support for same-sex marriage has steadily risen nationwide, especially in states where it is now legal.

That’s the way we expect social movements to play out: scattered instances of a new (often progressive) policy, followed by backlash, followed by a raucous national debate, followed by a long dénouement during which the progressive policy gains acceptance as the new norm.

However, with respect to the debate over abortion, a new poll from the Pew Research Center suggests that the pro-choice movement is not enjoying that key final phase in which progressive policy becomes settled status quo.  Yes, the dénouement is certainly here: on this side of 9/11, Roe v. Wade does not occupy the political center-stage.  Yet far from adapting to a new legal reality, Americans have instead begun to quietly reverse their support.

Today, just 47% believe that most abortions should be legal; 44% believe they should be illegal.  These figures are a sizable shift from the 54-40 advantage pro-choice policy held only two years ago.  Nearly every segment of the population has participated in the slide: support has fallen even among liberal Democrats (down five points), Jewish respondents (down ten points), and women (down five points).

How could this be?  Pew points to a simultaneous trend: the number of Americans considering abortion a “critical issue” has dropped 13 points since 2006 to a mere 15%.  The tumble is most severe among liberal Democrats: only 8% call the abortion debate “critical,” down from 34%.  Among white evangelical Protestants, however, the “critical” number still hovers around one-third.

Shouldn’t a less prominent issue also become less contentious?  Why has diminishing importance in the voters’ minds actually caused reversal on the left and retrenchment on the right?  Only 19% of conservative Republicans now say they “wonder if their position is right.”

What makes abortion different?  Perhaps the answer is that we haven’t seen the peak of the abortion debate just yet — no fever-pitch raucousness that ushers in a new policy that most people can, if begrudgingly, learn to live with.  Perhaps there is an election yet to come in which abortion is a decisive issue for the party bases, much like marriage in 2004.  If so, pro-choice groups have their work cut out for them: public opinion is not trending their way.