Commonweal Institute Blog

In a cleverly-titled October 24 post, “WITT, YOYOs, and Why Americans Don’t Go Green”, Joel Makower described the implications of market research about why it’s hard to get Americans to listen to talk about environmental problems, let alone to take appropriate action. Sponsored by ecoAmerica, a group which, from its minimal-information website, appears to comprise SRI International Business Intelligence, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and Campus Climate Challenge, this

[…] extensive study of Americans' environmental attitudes…points up the serious obstacles faced by activists -- as well as green marketers in the private sector -- in getting Americans to align their actions with their innate desire to make the world a better place. […T]he big-picture takeaways are: • There is no common agreement on what environmental concern means or what to do about it. • Libertarian values are gaining over communal ones. • Environmental complexity is paralyzing. • Pocketbook environmentalism is powerful. […]The…research found that even the most environmentally sympathetic Americans have competing priorities; that environmentalism is hampered by anti-science and anti-intellectual attitudes; and that men and women have very different environmental concerns…. […]The millions of Security Moms and NASCAR Dads who haven't yet tuned into how climate change and fisheries loss might mess with their kids' future aren't about to be beaten into submission by the latest arguments or evidence. They're not about to make purchase decisions based on a maybe-someday rationale for stemming environmental problems. They want to know: what's in it for me, today? So, big news: Americans are shallow, misinformed, self-interested, and unsophisticated. But they're our neighbors, our colleagues, and our relatives. And they're likely your clients, customers, or constituents. If you want to move them toward greener behavior and actions, you'll need to deal -- carefully and creatively -- with all of these sobering realities.

Think of the environmental communication problem as the canary in the progressive coal mine. ecoAmerica's research shines a light on what is making the canary sick. ecoAmerica took the canary in for an MRI—market research investigation—and came up with a grave diagnosis. But they also got a better idea of what will be needed to cure the poor bird.

As we listen to the current flock of feebly chirping progressive politicos and spokespersons, we can tell that there’s something wrong. They sure don’t seem to be singing a coherent song that the public hums under its breath (despite current public revulsion against the conservatives in power).

The message here for progressives (and moderates, liberals, etc.) is: It’s about the marketing, stupid! Marketing is how everything is sold in America, from products to services to political ideas.

Marketing, based on underlying market research, is how the conservative movement has succeeded in developing support for their ideas and values. It’s how they prepare the ground for conservative candidates and policies. And it’s how they’ve been promoting the values—libertarian, pocketbook, anti-intellectual—that have been making it hard to have a broad-based, meaningful dialogue about America’s future.

To date, marketing capacity has been sadly lacking on the progressive side. Until moderates and progressives invest serious money in infrastructure functions like market research, language testing, narrative development, and strategic marketing services for the progressive movement as a whole, we’re not going to make progress.

Research is an essential ingredient of this mix—research to find out what matters to different sectors of the public, and how large sectors of the public can be persuaded to support progressive values and ideas. Linguistic analysis alone isn’t sufficient. Good policy ideas aren’t sufficient. Clever phrases or narratives aren’t sufficient. Single-issue efforts aren’t sufficient. Political polls about candidates and ballot measures aren’t sufficient. All of those things—language, ideas, phrases, narratives—should be tested to identify the ones that will work. Testing isn’t cheap, but it’s worth the investment if we want to be successful.

It’s time we deal -- carefully and creatively -- with these sobering realities.

If you're one of the lucky ducks who has HBO, it should be worth your while to watch the new film about e-voting, Hacking Democracy. Here's a synopsis and the schedule.

It’s ironic that America’s flawed election system may have worked to the Democrats’ advantage this year. More than half of votes in Virginia were cast on electronic voting machines, many of which are touchscreen models that do not produce a voter-verifiable paper ballot. See here for a list of equipment used in Virginia. As a result, the whole idea of recounting the vote in the Allen-Webb race is a fantasy--it can't be done. This is a matter that Democrats and Republicans alike should be concerned about, a top priority for local activists as well as national legislators.

With the prospect of Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, it’s time to starting talking about reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in an honest, equal and balanced manner. According to Wikipedia:

Conservatives, in contrast, see attempts to revive the Doctrine as an attempt to silence conservative voices, noting that sectors of the media they believe to have a liberal bias (major newspapers, newsmagazines, evening newscasts of the broadcast networks) would not be touched by the Doctrine.

To be fair, in the past few months we have seen and heard a few peeps of reviving courage on the part of the mainstream media (with special kudos to Keith Olbermann for his outspoken courage), as they began to sense that things were not going too well for the Republicans.

However, a number of the newly elected Democrats are distinctly out of step with traditional Democratic values, and ran on fairly conservative platforms. This shouldn’t be surprising, as both they and their constituents have been bathed in rightwing messaging for decades. The Democrats in Congress, while moving into the majority, are still going to be constrained by public opinion. This means that they will be constrained by what the people can see and hear with the rightwing messaging machine still in place and major corporations still in control of our main media outlets.

If we want to see real change, we need to have public opinion on our side. Informed public opinion will depend on getting moderate and progressive voices heard widely in the nation’s marketplace of ideas. That’s why bringing back the Fairness Doctrine should be a top priority for the incoming Congress.

There is a lot of talk about "the center" and "centrists." Lots of people say the progressive blogs are on "the left."

To put this in perspective, when and where is the last time you heard anyone talk about nationalizing the oil companies? That would be a "leftist" proposal.

After all, the oil companies do not "own" the oil any more than anyone can own the air or the water. They are extracting OUR resource, under license from US to operate, and as corporations are granted limited liability by US. In exchange, they are supposed to be serving the public interest. A discussion about whether they are serving the public interest might involve questions about how much they are setting aside to cover the costs of putting carbon into the air, or to pay for research into transitioning away from fossil fuels a they start to run out, how much they pay their employees, and other ways that WE might benefit from allowing them to extract OUR resource. So obviously, they are not serving the public interest.

A broader discussion would ask whether we need to reform the corporate system into something that really does serve the public interest.

The fact is, "leftist" arguments are not even part of our national discussion. Without that perspective in the discussion, it can't really be said that there even is a "center," can there? And without ALL sides contributing to the marketplace of ideas, how can society arrive at solutions that incorporate the best ideas from all the different perspectives?

It is time to restore the Fairness Doctrine!

How many of you have heard of the Fairness Doctrine? Public broadcasters are licensed to use OUR airwaves. It used to be that in order to be licensed they were required to serve the public interest. One part of that public interest was to present a balanced view of different political viewpoints and to cover controversial issues of public importance. This "Fairness Doctrine" requirement was intended to protect the public from the possibility of moneyed interests buying up all of the information sources, leaving the public hearing only their viewpoint.

There was also a personal attack rule, which required stations to notify people or groups who were attacked on their broadcasts and give them the opportunity to respond on the air. And, candidates were given the opportunity to respond to attacks or endorsements of opponents.

According to Bo Lipari, Executive Director New Yorkers for Verified Voting:

If you watched the cable news coverage on Election Night it was easy to come away with the impression that few problems were experienced with electronic voting - the predicted ‘train wreck’ had not materialized. But out in the real world, the HAVA mandated changeover of voting systems resulted in real failures that resulted in long lines and lost votes. Just like the fancy new high tech voting machines, the mainstream media has failed us yet again……

Once again, Ohio and Florida are on the list of states in which election outcomes are in doubt, along with Wyoming, Connecticut, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington, and New Mexico. Republicans are marginally ahead in most of these races.

And once again, you’d think from the mainstream press that the election is over, the results are known, and everything is hunky-dory.

Could the margin of Democratic victory on November 7 have been even greater than reported? Or less? Do the vote counts indeed represent the will of voters in those states? Will recounts even be possible in all of those states, given the voting equipment used? Will we ever know?

Let’s hope California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who’s in line to become the new Chair of the Rules Committee, will be willing to assert that our democracy should not be outsourced to voting machine vendors with secret software and hidden agendas. Americans deserve to have accurate elections with results in which we can have real confidence.

Whew! The results of the elections are a bit of a relief. If you’re reading this blog, however, you likely agree that there is much yet to be done. One arena in which I’d like to contribute to making the progressive platform stronger is one of our Achilles heels; Foreign Policy. Progressives must get comfortable with talking about Foreign Policy solutions so as to lay this tired criticism to rest. This will be the focus of most of my posts here.

A while back I wrote a little piece on US Dollar exchange rate fluctuations. The aspect of that essay that I’d like to revisit today is the national debt tango the US is dancing with China. In a nutshell, America spends much more than it saves, much of it on Chinese goods. But we’re paying China with credit (treasury securities).

We’re happy with the arrangement because we can continue spending like carefree teenagers. China is happy with it because it keeps their exports cheap for the rest of the world and continues the red-hot growth in their economy.

What does this have to do with Progressive Foreign Policy solutions? I’ll continue in my next post.

Ira Chernus has rightly identified the need for progressives to an alternative narrative if we are to extricate ourselves expeditiously from the ongoing mess in Iraq. As he describes our present drifting predicament:

[…T]he story of the 2006 election isn't over yet. It's like one of those movies on DVD with several alternative endings. You get to choose the one you want. [….Bush] seemed to confirm the media's story of the election as a negative verdict on "staying the course" in Iraq….Of course, that narrative does have a good dose of truth in it. Most Americans do now oppose Bush's Iraq policy and particularly its implementation. But the Democratic win does not mean that voters simply saw through the administration's lies and now demand the true story. They just want a new story. [….]But the Democrats as a party have not yet come close to agreeing on a single, clear alternative policy -- no less a story to tell about it. They've merely played on our cognitive dissonance about the Bush administration's losing war by telling us what they are against. [….]

Chernus is right about the need for a new story in order to move forward:

[...T]he election results hint at a public hungry for a new story about the war. And George Bush's day-after response -- sacking Rumsfeld -- shows that, however reluctantly, he will change his story in response to voter disaffection. The public may be able to force policy change too, but only if there is a compelling new story that demands a new policy.

He doesn’t hold out hope for this new story emanating from either of the major political parties. Instead, he has dropped it in the lap of an unlikely savior:

This is a job for the peace movement, whose role has always been to articulate alternatives. Now is the time to offer a new narrative using an alternative recipe, the same one that the peace movement has always used: Take big dollops of truth and moral compassion in equal measure and stir.

The peace movement as a force has been marginalized by the media (despite its many sincere adherents) and by all the powers that be in Washington. The purity of the positions that traditional peace lovers tend to embrace might rightly be resisted by many of good will who see the complexity of the situation, which mixes the occupation of Iraq with nuclear weapons posturing in surrounding countries, China’s hunger for energy sources, Peak Oil, the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, Osama bin Laden, Islamic and Christian fundamentalism, etc., etc., etc. In this situation, pure peace-people will find it hard to be true to their traditional values and come up with a viable alternative and, if they do, the source of the message will unfortunately be discredited.

However, the need for a new narrative is a great opportunity for the progressive movement as a whole. This is the time that progressive voices representing multiple perspectives, not just peace, need to articulate and advance an alternative narrative. We need a narrative that represents the values of environmentalists, women’s rights advocates, those who oppose corruption in government and overweaning corporate power, labor, and civil rights advocates, all of whom have a stake in what’s happening in Iraq. We need a narrative that not only can gain more supporters right away for a new direction, but one that can strengthen a progressive vision that can serve as a foundation for preventing future conflicts of this type and for opening doors to solving related social problems.

The task of coming up with a creative alternative narrative should rest with a progressive infrastructure organization, not limited to a single issue, that is willing and able to develop various narrative options and and test them for effectiveness before widespread promulgation.

This is not the time for hunches or multiple competing stories—it’s the time for a disciplined, professional approach. And the sooner that process can start, the better.

As I was saying, American consumers love cheap Chinese goods. We love them so much that we’ve decided to pass the bill along to future generations. That ethical choice aside (for the moment anyway), let us think about what is in the common good with regards to China.

Ask yourself this question, “Will American consumers pay 25% more for a 3-pack of socks so that 200 sock factory jobs can be saved in the Midwest?” Though it pains me to say it, I maintain the answer is “No.” Knowing this and knowing how fused the US and Chinese economies are, it may make sense to rethink our feelings on China’s growth.

Rather than screaming about the Chinese threat or lamenting China as superpower, doesn’t it feel better to acknowledge that there are other countries that wish to be as influential on the world stage as the US is? This is where the Progressive solution enters into the picture; Is the world not big enough to share?

I know, I know, something doesn’t sit right. What about nucular proliferation and Taiwan? I agree, there are complications to be ironed out. But it is a first step. I shall continue with a gigantic second step next time.

Don't fall into the trap of believing the mainstream media smiley-face blather about how well this latest election went. Jonah Goldman and Tova Wang have written a concise summary of the election problems seen all over the country in 2006, rich with details.

The mainstream media in its instant analysis has proclaimed the election system worked surprisingly well in 2006. While it is true that no single catastrophe of election administration grabbed headlines this year, it is quite dangerous to suggest that the problems voters encountered on Election Day were not serious. As over 25,000 callers from across the country to the 866-OUR-VOTE voter information and protection hotline confirm, these problems led to thousands of eligible Americans being denied the opportunity to cast a ballot. […]While the case should not be overstated, it is critical that as we immediately enter the 2008 presidential election cycle, we undertake a more honest assessment of what happened in this election so we can concentrate on ensuring real, meaningful reform before the next federal election cycle. Only if we understand the problems that voters reported in 2006 can we enact real solutions that will move us toward a more fair and accurate system of elections.

It‘s about time the local, state and national leaders of both major parties recognize that our democracy is more important than partisan advantage. They should take advantage of the opportunity this coming year to make significant advances toward fixing our broken election system in time for 2008.

So if we allow ourselves to accept that the world is big enough to share, this simplifies our world to a refreshing extent with regards to North Korea.

When China supplies upwards of 50% of North Korea’s heating oil requirements, it tends to create a fair amount of leverage (halfway down the page here). China cuts off heating oil to the DPRK and all of a sudden there is compliance with China’s wishes. China held a repeat performance in September with the same successful result.

Prescription after the jump…

One would think that reporters and media commentators would have learned by now that they are vulnerable to being used as the vehicles for politically-motivated propaganda. The mainstream media, wittingly or unwittingly, not infrequently promote political agendas without checking out the background of guest speakers, “research reports”, press releases and identifying them to the public.

I recently caught venerable NPR providing an hour of air time to Mike Ratliff, senior vice president of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), in an hour-long discussion of ISI’s misleading study, which appears to have been designed to persuade the public that higher education is failing to turn out informed citizens. Read the exposé,

Contrary to the dominant MSM narrative that Democrats won last week’s election because they moved to the right, Democrats won across the nation by running solidly progressive campaigns. In an interview on NPR, Senator-Elect Sherrod Brown, who beat incumbent Mike DeWine in Ohio, explained:

My race in Ohio, a state that has gone Republican more often than not in the last dozen years, a state that as people say is a slightly conservative state, I ran a very outspokenly progressive campaign. Standing up for the middle class, taking on the drug companies and the oil companies. You know, “Whose side are you on?” And I think that campaign shows that you can win in moderately conservative states as progressive Democrats, someone who is outspokenly supportive of advocating for the middle class. I think that will work in the Senate as it worked in Ohio. That is what I am, and what I think an awful lot of Democrats are. And I think it is a position that a lot of independents and Republicans found attractive in Ohio this year and will continue to around the country.

As Senator-Elect Brown’s campaign exemplifies, even in more conservative states like Ohio, Democrats won on progressive appeals and pragmatic solutions. Still, to ensure an enduring progressive majority, what is needed now is for progressives to connect these pragmatic solutions to deeper themes. Progressives need to articulate a deeper sense of what we want America to look like, with a narrative that speaks to our values, and to communicate where we want to lead the nation, and continue to build the foundational infrastructure to get there.

If we are going to ensure that last week’s election was more than a one-off, then developing compelling narratives and building progressive infrastructure continue to be of the highest priority.

Ok, hands up, who is already familiar with the J Curve?

The J Curve is a refreshingly handy, simple, and (I would maintain) progressive method of understanding how countries fit into the global puzzle. Imagine a graph with political and economic stability on the vertical axis and political and economic openness on the horizontal axis.

For those visual learners, view the graph and continue reading below.