At 29 years old, I consider myself a young person in community development. Of course that’s relative. If I were working in politics and campaigns, I would be considered a veteran. If I were an NFL quarterback, I would be in my prime. I’m too old to be drafted into the military, and too young to run for US Senate.

I am often asked by friends and family, ‘What is community development?’ My response is simple. When a group of individuals realize that a collective effort can improve their own lives and the lives of those in their community, you have community developers. Community development has roots in social justice and economic inequality. But at its core, community developers use collective action to work for better lives for themselves, their families, and their neighbors.

I am Generation Y, a Millennial. To Generation X, I am entitled, needy, and high maintenance. My desire is not for money, but for group reinforcement and positive peer feedback. In his book Not Everyone Gets a Trophy author Bruce Tulgan suggests I am part of “the most high maintenance workforce in history.” And you know what? He’s probably right! I expect a lot from my employer. Our need to feel valued is so engrained, we will go to such lengths as to whine, pout, tweet and write blog posts about those needs.

I have two things I want to say. First, I would like to remind Gen X that you created us, and therefore, you share the responsibility.

But second, simply placing a label on me fails to address the challenges community development and society is facing. Born in 1982, I am among the first (and therefore oldest) of this generation. There is a 15 year-long wave behind me that leaders today will have to learn, nurture, and empower. And one day when someone asks, “Who’s got the keys to this Global Jeep?” It will be us revving the engine (a reference only a Millennial would understand).

A recent Daring to Lead report released by the Meyer Foundation and CompassPoint presents “Calls to Action” for non-profits to mitigate the problem of aging and high-turnover leadership, recommending non-profits have plans in place for financial sustainability, executive transition, professional development for current leaders, and board development. This advice is sound.

However, the “Calls to Action” not once uses the word “young.” In fact the word “young” is not used in the entire 20 page report. It didn’t even happen to be someone’s last name. This omission is symptomatic of a problem in the non-profit world that is specifically relevant to community development.

Independent writer and blogger Rick Cohen points this out in great detail in his recent post: What Might Young Professionals Want from Careers in Community Development? Cohen has several community development leaders on record recognizing the industry’s deficiencies in future leadership cultivation. In fact, Rick’s piece was the impetus for this piece.

How can the solutions to problems presented by aging leadership and turn-over not include the industry’s youth? I see four possible answers: 1) There are low numbers of young people in the industry 2) The young people in the industry lack the necessary skills 3) Young people are being ignored as part of the solution or 4) The sector is too caught up in the present to worry about the future.

I think the true answer is a little bit of everything.

Demographically, the low numbers of young people relative to our aging population is a macro problem the United States economy is beginning to grapple with; European countries have been going through this for a half century or more. Fast developing economies (like present-day India and Brazil) have high fertility rates and proportionally high numbers of young people.

This is nothing new. America has typically not been the most fertile nation, but our economy has more than compensated for the lack of a young native born workforce with our ability to accept and attract hard-working, entrepreneurial immigrants. In this way, we are truly unique; no one else does it better. And it has allowed us to stay ahead.

However, community development has not capitalized on America’s secret economic weapon as well as other sectors. New immigrants, because they are new, do not have the vested interest in their local community in the same way a life-long resident would. The recognition of a local, placed-based community can take a generation or more to develop. As a result, the truly unique and powerful energy of the American immigrant is lost on community development.

However, even if a new immigrant did want to work for his or her local community development corporation or non-profit, they may lack the necessary education to do so at a high level. A lack of adequate education for community development professionals is not unique to immigrants but young people as well.

Increasing levels of specialization and education required to do community development is a Catch-22 for the industry. Of course, a more educated workforce is a good thing. But non-profit salary levels make paying for that education difficult.

More than that, an up-and-comer with a bachelor’s degree working in a non-profit may love what they do, but they are not naïve. They’ve seen the balance sheet. They know that even with an investment in their education, the money for them to get a significant raise just is not there.

Furthermore, leadership turnover in community development is rare. There are a lot of old-hands, or “graybeards” as Cohen points out in his piece, leaving a young person with little opportunity for advancement or promotion. Even if they do wait for that opportunity, they have forgone the education necessary to do the job.

Some may leave the sector because there just is no tangible reward, no incentive to stay, no pay and no promotion. What’s left is a complacent and not quite educated enough, do-gooder workforce.

The old hands of community development are an intelligent, dedicated and self-determined group. These are strong traits to have in this business, but for some, they are seen as dismissive of us Millenials. They will talk about how they have never received a high salary. They were never part of a promotional or organizational chart. They did it all on their own. They didn’t need to compete with the for-profit sector. Why do we?

This dynamic, paired with the built-in deficiencies of a Millennial, are contributing to a growing generational gap in the non-profit field. Millennials would probably characterize this gap as significant, but it’s important not to over-react. We just need to understand each other better. The graybeards didn’t need the worldly rewards for their work. They had other motivations.

Community development grew as a response to the excesses of urban renewal and a call for social justice. The civic battles of the 60’s and 70’s left behind a narrative, a shared history that ignited those who experienced it; it was David vs. Goliath, Good vs. Evil. The little guy stands up to the powers-that-be and defends his home. From that narrative came a sense of ownership, a sense of responsibility and pride. A community developer is born. It’s a POWERFUL narrative.

But fast-forward 40 years and it’s a narrative that defines community development by where it has been, not where it is going. Young people have not been thwapped with that motivation. We simply cannot relate. We will need to create our own narrative.

Enter Gen Y, the Millenials.

State by state, community development boards and staffs are fighting tooth-and-nail for programs like HOME, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Community Development Block Grants, and other tools of previous decades. Being supportive, Millennials begrudgingly submit to the acronyms and jargon while secretly hoping our careers in community development are not spent budget-cycle after budget-cycle clinging to the accomplishments of our predecessors.

We quietly ask ourselves, “What if those programs went away? How would we replace programs offered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development? Or would we want to? What would a modern-day ‘Community Reinvestment Act’ look like? Or is it necessary? Can financial institutions be compelled by opportunity instead of regulation?” These programs were created at a singular point and time with a certain definition of social justice.

Likewise, in the future the answers to the above questions are directly informed by how we see the future of social justice and community building. We try to imagine communities of the future being served with new and different tools. And the production of these tools will depend on those definitions.

And herein lies the hope.

As Cohen correctly points out, our narrative will evolve, but likely will be less about social inequality and be more about building and strengthening every community. His collections of thoughts are evidence that young people are charting a new path in community development. It is a motivational path about building the future as opposed to serving up justice for the past.

I am part of a generation not motivated by money; that’s good, because there is none. We prefer group interaction and feedback. This is ideal for a non-profit sector filled with small shops and flat management structures. More than anything, we simply want to leave our mark. The world of community development, too often defined by its past, RIGHT NOW is welcoming a generation with no motivation other than to chart the future. It almost sounds too good to be true. There must be a catch.

There is. We’re gonna want a trophy.

As the 2012 presidential election nears, candidates confidently profess that their policies and visions will maintain the superpower status that has become the foundation of American pride. On the campaign, candidate Mitt Romney promises an “American Century,” one in which “America leads the free world, and the free world leads the entire world[1],” further emphasized by the release of his most recent book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness. Such assurances especially resonate with voters as the imminent rise of China threatens American supremacy. However, what some fail to realize is that American dominance, as positive it sounds to American ears, is incompatible with world peace and the preservation of human rights. For the business elite and wealthy, the American superpower could not be more ideal. But for the billions worldwide who lack basic needs or who suffer in the shadow of extreme violence, American foreign policy often provides the greatest obstacle to improvement. The special nature of America’s superpower standing perpetuates significant levels of worldwide inequality, international violence, and cultural exclusivism. If we wish to create a world of equality and peace, we as Americans must be the first to sacrifice the notion that the suffering of others is a suitable price to pay for American supremacy.

First, the global preeminence of the United States is directly related to worldwide levels of poverty and inequality. According to the American perspective, our superpower status and unmatched affluence are what allow us to lift less fortunate countries out of poverty, a gesture of benevolence and the solidarity of humankind. However, what most Americans fail to realize is that mass poverty around the world is directly connected to the excesses and riches of the so-called “developed world,” represented by no country more suitable than the United States. Inherent in the presence of a “superpower” are the gross power differences that allow one country to domineer over other nations. In this case, American power has resulted in the past from exploitation of less powerful Latin American and African countries. After America emerged from World War II as the dominant global player, George Kennan, head of the State Department, said in his Policy Planning Study 23:

We have 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population… In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.

In such a “pattern of relationships,” the Third World was to “fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market” for industrial capitalist societies, as a 1949 State Department memo read. American foreign policy went accordingly. In 1954, the CIA engineered a coup that overthrew the first democratic government in Guatemala, whose policies were based on social reforms and threatened the agricultural monopoly of the influential United Fruit Company. The coup set into motion a string of military governments that destabilized the country and eventually committed genocide against its own citizens under the guise of anti-Communism. While Guatemala has now experienced economic growth and democratic elections, a 36-year-long civil war is a tall price to pay in service of American interests. The United States’ superpower status has allowed us to exploit countries like Guatemala and to cripple their stability for our own interests. As Paul Farmer, founder of Partners in Health, says in his book Pathologies of Power, “To argue that human rights abuses occurring in Haiti, Guatemala or Rwanda are unrelated to our surfeit in the rich world requires that we erase history and turn a blind eye to the pathologies of power that transcend all borders[2].” Today, American oil corporations such as Texaco are sucking the Amazon basin dry of its rich petroleum. Contracts coaxed out of less powerful governments give most of the benefits to exploitative corporations rather than the country’s whose resources are being extracted. As a further side effect, indigenous communities in the Amazon basin, such as the Huaorani and Cofan people, suffer from polluted rivers and destroyed homes. Yet American power allows corporations to emerge unscathed and with pockets filled with oil profits. Viewing America as a superpower inherently reduces smaller, less powerful countries and communities as pawns to be wrung dry of their resources. The control that developed nations are able to exert over poorer countries for their own interests only exacerbates the inequality that lies at the root of suffering.

Second, the various interventions and displays of force that are valuable tools for America’s dominance have threatened peace and security worldwide. The United States’ use of force stands unprecedented, as America has tried to further its own interests abroad. The most recent manifestation of our international power play in the Middle East has failed to bring about any sort of peace or stability. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a radical violation of the United Nations Charter’s prohibition on territorial aggression. Yet, as Richard Falk and Howard Friel point out in their book The Record of the Paper, an enemy nation accused of violating international law stirs up an outrage. When the United States, on the other hand, commits such a transgression, international law all but dissipates. Falk and Friel record that in the seventy New York Times editorials during the invasion of Iraq, the words, “UN Charter” and “international law” never appeared[3]. Our American sense of entitlement seems to grant the United States transcendence above the laws that bind lesser nations. Furthermore, the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda promised a body count from the very beginning. Drone attacks on northwest Pakistan that were aimed at militants and Al Qaeda leaders started in 2004 and only increased at the advent of Obama’s presidency. Over a hundred civilians have been killed by unmanned attacks, and to no one’s surprise, drone attacks have been inextricably linked to the increase in anti-American sentiment within Pakistan[4]. American intervention in the Middle East is not a new phenomenon either. 1953 saw the CIA coup that deposed the Iranian prime minister, Mossadegh, who had begun to resist Western oil companies that controlled Iranian petroleum. Before we denounce Middle Eastern countries for their anti-American sentiments, we must look at how America has wielded its superpower status and whether American power has truly created peace in the world.

No threat to world peace is more pressing than rising militarization and the perpetuation of nuclear arms. The United States has exacerbated such issues as well by continually striving to strengthen our overwhelming military dominance, especially as our economic influence is threatened by the rise of China, India, and other nations. American military spending accounts for 40% of the global arms spending, more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined[5]. However, worldwide goals toward peace will require limits on the superpower model of exorbitant militarization. The nuclear arms landscape epitomizes the military tension perpetuated by the United States along with its allies. As the dominant power, Western developed nations have dichotomized the world into those who are allowed nuclear weapons and those who are not. The United States has shown no intention to take initiative in our own nuclear disarmament, because we view ourselves as the entitled military power. We claim that our ally, Israel, a country with a history of open hostility and outright invasions toward Palestine and Lebanon, may keep their nuclear weapons while Iran, our enemy, cannot. The problem with Iran is that any country with American as its foe has little incentive to demilitarize. America has shown its willingness to intervene in enemy nations through the previous examples of leftist Latin American governments and more recently the examples of Afghanistan and Iraq. No country that boasts 40% of the world’s arms spending can claim to be working toward peace. If we truly want a world free from the ever-present shadow of nuclear destruction, we must first and foremost give up our ideas of being the military superpower. Weapons and armies cannot be our sources of pride. They are far too often sources of destruction and instability.

Third, the idea of American supremacy engenders cultural exclusivism within the United States and a dangerous ignorance about the rest of the world. There is a widespread and unquestioned belief that we live in the greatest country in the world filled with the greatest citizens. Whether or not such a statement is true, it is simply counter-productive. We have erected a barrier between the “developing world” and us, and many of us peer across the gap with emotions ranging from contempt to patronization. In my own travels around the world, often what surprises me most is the level of knowledge foreigners possess about American politics and culture. South Africans have extensive knowledge about the current Republican primaries in the United States, but how many Americans could name the current president of South Africa? America is the hub of the world, and we are not at all tempted to deny it. A global world requires global citizens, but those living in the center are far less tempted to understand the outskirts. History classes and education in general are still Euro-centric, and most Americans graduate high school without formal schooling in the deep histories of Africa and Asia whose consequences still shape today’s world. The United States’ increased involvement in the global landscape requires a deeper understanding of other countries, their cultures, and their histories. A peaceful resolution to American tensions with the Middle East can only occur if Americans understand Islam, Middle Eastern history, and the socioeconomic forces that underlie the rise of terrorism. Current global issues arise out of highly complex chains of events, and only scholarship that transcends the borders of our country can give us a complete understanding of how to approach these increasingly global problems.

Ultimately, America’s position as the world’s superpower is incompatible with the eradication of poverty and injustices throughout the rest of the world. Much humanitarian aid currently arises out of a paternalistic benevolence toward the less fortunate. The idea of charity assumes that America can continue to pursue wealth, as long as the expendable iota is donated to the starving African children. The problem with this view of humanitarian aid is aptly expressed by Paulo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed:

In order to have the continued opportunity to express their ‘generosity,’ the oppressors must perpetuate injustice as well. An unjust social order is the permanent fount of this ‘generosity,’ which is nourished by death, despair, and poverty. . . . True generosity consists precisely in fighting to destroy the causes which nourish false charity.

True humanitarianism must acknowledge that structures that make America wealthy and the structures that impoverish billions are one and the same. Hunger, for example, arises not from a shortage of food worldwide, but rather problems of inequitable distribution—a byproduct of the current structures that make a preferential option for the rich. Contrary to what many have subconsciously come to accept, poverty is not inherent to our world. This falsity is easiest to believe from the perch of the United States, where we can intellectualize poverty and injustice just enough for the suffering of an innocent Pakistani or of a “savage” Huaorani to become an unavoidable side-effect of Darwinian struggle for survival. This belief allows the developed world to avoid self-implication as a force that enables poverty. The assertion that America can indefinitely continue accumulating wealth and power relies on the false assumption that our extravagance has no consequences. Ultimately, the force of oppression acting upon the poor is the promise of American supremacy and the belief that no glass ceiling should limit the growth of a superpower.

As the election nears, Washington politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, are promising the American public that the United States of America will remain a superpower in a changing world order. But if we truly believe in equality and the empowerment of the poor, the first sacrifice must be this American superpower. A world with a superpower cannot be a world of peace and equality. As every world power in history has learned, the domination of one nation is oftentimes inextricably linked to the oppression of many. America’s rise to the pinnacle has left in its wake poverty and instability, disguised as the unavoidable byproducts of the world at work. The call for an end to American dominance is a call for a better America, one that allows space for the empowerment of the disempowered, and one that can earn the respect of not only its constituents but of the global community. The “post-American” world does not have to be a dystopia that policymakers desperately try to avert. It can be a positive movement toward a world that abstains from the excesses and surfeits inherent to structured inequality. As the global community faces unprecedented levels of poverty, ecological imbalances, and militarized violence, the mark of a nobler, fairer United States of America will not be the attainment of power but rather the relinquishing of it.

Is now the time to seize momentum in the quest for nuclear security?

Is economics the key to supporting the Arab Spring?

Is climate security a reality or a narrative?

We are scheduling at least five simultaneous one-hour breakouts following each session. Each breakout will address a topic discussed during the session, a related skill, or a pathway for action. For example, following the panel on US security a breakout might discuss the US relationship with Iran, how to message security issues with the American public, and/or a student campaign on nuclear weapons. Overall the breakouts should be interactive, energizing and inspiring; therefore we are very open to creative topics and approaches. Breakouts will ideally be led by students attending the event.

Find out more here, and let us know if you have an idea for a breakout! Contact us at 2012challenge@aidemocracy.org or 202.709.6172 with any questions.

2012 is a monumental year for many reasons. In the US, it is an election year, which brings with it an outpouring of political and moral opinions. To the rest of the world, which is recovering from groundbreaking events like Arab Spring and the war in Afghanistan, 2012 seems to mark a return to normalcy, at least so far.

In this constant state of flux, the US faces several challenges in determining its role on the global stage. But I sincerely hope 2012, above all others, will be a year of change and refocusing.

The world’s population hit 7 billion a few months ago, and supporting all these people is a global challenge. Thanks to modern medicine and technology, we have been able to extend life spans to almost twice the age of the early 20th century. But this advancement is not uniform: there are still areas in the world that suffer greatly due to factors like HIV/AIDS, malaria and other infectious diseases. In fact, the UN estimates that life expectancy in Botswana would be 70.1 years instead of the current 31.6 years, if the scourge of HIV/AIDS had not struck the country. Numbers like this across the continent indicate that diseases like HIV/AIDS and malaria continue to affect millions of lives, and it is our responsibility to make this issue a top priority on the international agenda.

It will be a challenge, especially for the US, where the Republican Presidential candidates are talking about cutting a significant part of the foreign aid budget.  Nevertheless, I hope that we will consider our role in the bigger context of global development, and prioritize universal human health over national concerns in the long run.

Now, given the state of the economy, it’s not hard to understand why these are issues are the focus of many voters, even young people. For the first time in a long time, the economic outlook for young Americans is bleaker than it has been for previous generations. And yet, our generation is the most global generation in history. We recognize that the world is interconnected, and that what happens in one corner of the world, affects us all. We also recognize that as a result of this interconnectedness, combined with our deep desire for a more just, healthy, peaceful and sustainable world, US foreign policy needs to change to reflect this reality and this aspiration.

Elections are an opportunity to chart a new path for the US role in the world. And 2012 is no exception. So amidst all of the talk about jobs and the economy, we are hosting a conference to make global issues a part of the electoral discourse. Check out the rest of this website for info. on sessions and workshops, partners and more. And stay on top of The Loop for updates on the conference as it gets closer.

We’re excited about this opportunity but recognize it will also be a challenge. We’re up for it…are you?