The Politics of
February 1, 2005
Hank Stone
hstone@rochester.rr.com
The very success of Western Culture has led to unprecedented global
problems. Our natural resources,
democratic government, capitalism, and science have made us militarily strong,
rich, and the envy of much of the world.
We require economic growth and encourage population growth. We humans have taken over the world, and
multiplied out of control, polluting and destroying resources on which we
depend. That is, our culture is
unsustainable.
So something has to change.
We progressives want to transition to sustainable prosperity in a way that preserves our civilization. We believe this is possible, and necessary. But good people disagree about what needs to be changed and how, and even whether there is a problem. In other words, our way forward is a political question.
LAKOFF
Linguist Dr. George Lakoff, author of Don’t Think of an
Elephant, explains that whoever gets to “frame” the political debate has an
advantage that counts for more than being right on the issues 1. The Conservatives in the
Lakoff explains the concept of a frame with the example of “tax relief.” He suggests that simply using those words frames the debate about tax cuts to suggest that:
“Taxes are an affliction, proponents of taxes are the causes of the affliction (the villains), the taxpayer is the afflicted (the victim) and the proponents of tax relief are the heroes who deserve the taxpayers’ gratitude. Those who oppose tax relief are bad guys who want to keep relief from the victim of affliction, the taxpayer. Every time the phrase ‘tax relief’ is used, and heard or read by millions of people, this view of taxation as an affliction and conservatives as heroes gets reinforced.”
Lakoff says if someone frames the debate in a way that disadvantages you, you have to reframe it, but that takes real time and effort—something the Republicans have had the motivation to do in their long years out of power.
So in the Lakoff model, the Democrats need to stop responding to frames that disadvantage them, and respond with frames of their own. The new frames must recall ideas already a part of American mythology, which therefore bring their own positive context with them.
When the Republicans say “The terrorists are out to kill us!” and the response is, “We’re spending too much on war and not enough on social programs,” we lose, because we haven’t challenged the frame that says our safety is under threat.
An alternative frame might be that
When Democrats act like Republicans, they accept their frame and look weak.
This is the wisdom of Dr. Lakoff, and it’s hard to overstate its significance. But there is more to say.
SHELLENBERGER & NORDHAUS
In the article The Death of Environmentalism 2, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus ask:
Has the environmental community’s work over the last 30 years laid the groundwork for the economic, cultural and political shifts that we know will be necessary to deal with global warming?
They answer no, the movement has concentrated on technical solutions like hybrid cars and fluorescent light bulbs, rather than engaging Americans “as the proud moral people they are, willing to sacrifice for the right cause.” People have not been addressed honestly and respectfully, and remain disengaged.
Some two dozen environmental groups agree “we must reduce emissions [of greenhouse gasses] by up to 70 percent as soon as possible.” But not to frighten people, they have promoted “technical policy fixes like pollution controls and higher vehicle mileage standards—proposals that provide neither the popular inspiration nor the political alliances the community needs to deal with the problem.”
“We will never be able to turn things around as long as we understand our failures as essentially tactical, and make proposals that are essentially technical.” Why not? The authors say not only have we framed the question wrongly, but our “very institutions are outmoded.”
“Environmentalists are in a culture war whether we like it or not. It’s a war over our core values as Americans and over our vision for the future, and it won’t be won by appealing to the rational consideration of our collective self-interest.”
Environmental organizations, according to the authors, have become a special interest group. They worry about the environment only, and ignore the interests of unions and corporations, hoping to get modest legislative victories, sometimes at the expense of their natural allies. This misses major opportunities for alliance building.
Shellenberger and Nordhaus worked together on the Apollo
Alliance, a coalition of labor, environment, business, and civil rights leaders.
They are not trying to sell
people on a depressing laundry list of concerns, or painful policy
details. They are “working to create
three million new energy jobs and free
So Lakoff says know what values you stand for and frame the debate. Shellenberger and Nordhaus add, see how what you want can benefit the larger society, and enlist stakeholders as allies. And bring people opportunities, not problems.
OPPORTUNITIES
Problems we face as a country include global warming, nuclear proliferation, loss of jobs, balance of trade, national debt, inequality between rich and poor, corporate ownership of media, corporate ownership of government, peak oil, global overpopulation, lack of health care, strained foreign relations, the Iraq War, voting problems, and terrorism.
These are big problems that individuals cannot solve, so progressives believe citizens need government to fix them. There are three things wrong with that view.
First, the same system we seek to change has lead to”the good life” for many, and conferred wealth and power on its decisionmakers. These decisionmakers continue to make choices they believe will be most profitable and least disruptive. Also, people imagine that the more serious a problem, the more impetus there will be to solve it. Not necessarily. For example, lack of jobs is a problem so painful to think about that politicians are paralyzed with denial.
Secondly, ordinary citizens, after working hard all day and tucking in their children at night, are ready to watch TV and forget about their troubles. When we bring people more problems, we are asking them to pay attention to our distressing alarmist messages and to annoy their legislators. But if they simply trust that everything will turn out all right, they can ignore us, relax, and go on with their lives.
Lastly, talking about these problems invokes an unhelpful “problem solving” frame, which suggests that we can continue “business as usual,” while devising independent patches to address the effects we don’t like. But the problems come from business as usual! A new system, a new concept of how to live in the world has to be invented.
We are trapped in an obsolete worldview, upon which we rely for our sense of who we are, our jobs, our food, our relationships, our shelter, and the shirts on our backs. And we don’t know in detail what the future world we need will look like. But we will need to be pulled forward by visions of success rather than being pushed by problems.
Things are as they are for a reason, and any policy change in the public interest will be painful to some interest group. Nobody wants to be forced out of a comfortable situation. If negative consequences will happen in the future, or will happen to someone else, or (who knows?) may be avoided entirely, there has to be a good reason to undertake change.
The Apollo Project does not complain about a lack of jobs, but offers an opportunity to industries to make money by creating new jobs in renewable energy. That’s a winner!
Spaceship One just won a $10 million prize for making two sub-orbital space flights within two weeks. The opportunity was irresistibly dramatic, promising bragging rights and future financial gain, and called forth genius and daring from the winning team.
Why not offer prizes for breakthroughs in physics and chemistry that could transform our energy landscape? Plants like soybeans know how to turn sunlight (and rainwater and air) into oil--oil capable of running trucks, tractors, and cars. Chemists don’t know how to synthesize oil efficiently and renewably in a chemical plant, because oil has always been cheap. How about a prize for anyone who can develop the chemistry to synthesize oil renewably3? A $1 billion prize might stimulate creativity!
Prizes could also be offered for political breakthroughs, including those enabling the transition from the war system to world peace. The world now spends $800 billion per year on militarism, yet continues to have wars. How much would a just world peace be worth, and to whom?
Problems can’t be solved until they are turned into opportunities. This is done routinely in business, where the payoff is in money, and the concept of investment is understood.
Our American elected officials hold office for only 2-6 years. They can’t address global warming, and other long-term problems, because a get-well plan would have up-front costs, but a delayed payback.
So we need to process problems into opportunities--opportunities for politicians, citizens, and corporations. If we start with a problem, we can work backwards to find ways it could potentially be solved. We can envision possible solutions, and we can ask who would benefit if the problem were solved. We have not created an opportunity until we have found some people (or corporations or governments) whose interests will be served by solving the problem. If how to solve the problem is not known, we have not created an opportunity until we have created an incentive for a good solution to be found. Once a workable solution is known, an opportunity exists when someone has the capability and motive to deliver it.
Problems will be ignored until opportunities to solve them can be created. Opportunities require a business plan: What will be done? Where will it be done? How? Who will benefit if it is done? And what will motivate this person (or corporation or government) to implement this solution instead of doing what they are now doing? What is the frame needed to sell the enterprise?
To create these business plans, we need groups in and out of government to function as Councils of Elders. Such groups would independently study large scale problems. They would find bright and knowledgeable people, pay them to study future needs of the society, make recommendations, create reports (perhaps in the form of infomercials), and pay to present them to the American people.
Obsolete frames cause future problems. But a new frame is not enough. Someone with money and power has to pioneer a system to process problems into opportunities. A complete business plan defines the customers, the suppliers, the transactions among them, and the positive motivations—opportunities-- for all who participate. When the new frame is translated into new roles, then needed legislation and corporate participation and citizen acceptance will fall into place.
We have a new world to build, and need to encourage those with the vision to create opportunities.
Most politicians and citizens want to do the right thing. Nobody can cope with the web of global problems we face.
But everyone loves a good opportunity!