Uncommon Denominator
The Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute
http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/
“Think of anything, of cowboys, of movies, of detective stories, of anybody who goes anywhere or stays at home and is an American and you will realize that it is something strictly American to conceive a space that is filled with moving.”
– Gertrude Stein
Talking Points I: Consolidate, consolidate, consolidate
Talking Points II: “Framing a Progressive Agenda: What’s Missing”
Wit and Wisdom: Comics on the 2008 election
Check It Out: The Iraq War on YouTube
Featured Article: “How People See Themselves”
Endorsements: Nancy Pelosi
Get Involved: Spread the word; become a contributor
TALKING POINTS I
The day after the 2006 midterm elections, the basic conservative interpretive frame emerged. A veritable chorus of commentators on the right rose up to declare that the results represented not a defeat for conservatism but rather for a Republican party that had abandoned its conservative principles. The election was less an ideological victory for Democrats, progressives, or liberals, we were told, than it was a sharp correction administered to the incompetents and big spenders who had disappointed their conservative constituents.
On November 8, Rush Limbaugh told his radio listeners that “Republicans lost last night, but conservatism did not.” The next day, George Will wrote in the Washington Post that incumbents were “punished not for pursuing but for forgetting conservatism” and, citing the success of several anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives, argued that “on various important fronts, conservatism continued its advance.” Jonah Goldberg, also on November 9, wrote in the Los Angeles Times that “the GOP’s drubbing had more to do with competence and scandal than program and ideology.” Right in step, Charles Krauthammer, in the November 10 edition of the Washington Post, called the election “only a minor earthquake” ideologically.
There’s clearly a lot of spinning taking place in such assessments, and we might be tempted to dismiss them as just wishful thinking. Yet the American electorate remains remarkably centrist and, after 30 years of steady conservative messaging, even tilts rightward on a wide range of issues and values. So while the election results do represent a big move forward for progressives, there’s a risk in over-interpreting them as some kind of embrace of progressive ideas. Rather than an ideological realignment, we would do better to see the new political landscape as an operational realignment that provides progressives with certain immediate and certain long-term opportunities for influencing mainstream American thought. Failing to take advantage of these opportunities would be unfortunate indeed.
Having helped clean out the Augean stables of Congress (and quite a few state governments), progressives have secured a beach-head – but just a beach-head. The crucial task now will be to consolidate and reinforce this position rather than to advance immediately. Recent history suggests the perils of overreach. Remember the early months of President Clinton’s tenure, which were needlessly distorted by a sideshow fight over gays in the military and by misguided nominations for Attorney General. The centrist Clinton expended vast political capital in those months and paid for it in the midterm elections 18 months later. Over the last six years, of course, the Republicans made the same error, though largely shielded from its consequences by the nation’s post-9/11 obsession with security. Rejecting a strategy of governance from the center, they ultimately – surprise! – lost the center, and saw a huge amount of their power vaporized overnight. To that extent, their defeat was an ideological defeat, and its lessons should not be lost on those now taking office. Rather than tacking hard to the left, progressives and their allies in Congress, from whichever party, should think about coaxing the ship of state back toward the progressive values of fairness, equal opportunity, sustainability, rationality, tolerance, and fiscal prudence.
This will involve careful strategic planning about how best to extend their geographical and philosophical influence in the American political mainstream. That planning should follow the idea of building slowly and surely, not abandoning principle but taking the cautious steps needed to advance principles from a position of strength and stability. It will also require continued investment in progressive infrastructure, without which all our short-term gains could remain just that: short-term.
This strategy of consolidation should start with delivering practical achievements to the American people in the areas the citizenry has identified as important: ethical responsibility in government, a restoration of checks and balances, an increase in the minimum wage, increased attention to domestic security. Such a strategy should also, however, recognize that there are in fact ideological dimensions to these achievements. For these accomplishments are not simply technical bureaucratic measures but reflect a very conscious philosophy of governance, one rooted in the essential American traditions of pragmatism and fairness. In particular, the dramatic success of economic populists and of land conservation ballot initiatives points the way toward how progressives can occupy the center and – more importantly – begin moving the center leftward again. But this is a long, slow process, and it will involve years of careful framing, of progressive narrative development (see next story), and of institutional coordination. In the meantime, the visible adjustments to national policy should be incremental and popular, not radical and divisive.
We should make no mistake: The conservative communications and attack machine – horribly animate in such media ghouls as Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity – is very much alive, very much determined to demonize its opponents and plow salt into the fields of progressive ideas. And the conservative infrastructure of funders and think tanks is still out there, still operating through the night, still seeking to frame the debates and lay the groundwork for future success. But for now they are weakened, and the time is upon us to marginalize those forces by seizing the center and staying positive, proactive, and responsible. Consolidate, consolidate, consolidate.
TALKING POINTS II
At time when news of climate change, human rights abuses, the UN's Millennium Ecological Assessment, and the dire state of the half of the world’s population that lives on less than $2 a day should be bringing new adherents, Progressives seem to be losing influence around the world. The work of many of us demonstrates that appealing alternatives exist to the destructive practices of the last century. Yet despite our efforts these lessons remain isolated and largely ignored. We must and we can do better.
The following discussion integrates the work of Professor George Lakoff, Senator Bill Bradley, David Korton and others. Each has put forth, in my view, a part of what is missing that would enable us to solve the puzzle stated above, but each alone is insufficient. Together they may provide the basis for laying out a Progressive strategy.
Lakoff points out that those who would maintain the status quo have spent the last 25 years investing heavily in leadership training, in professionally crafted attacks on Progressive policies, and in skillfully communicating their agenda. Senator Bill Bradley has observed that Conservatives have built a solid pyramid to support their world-view. When the Goldwater Republicans lost in 1964, they didn't try to become Democrats. They figured out how to make their own ideas more appealing to the public, undertaking a sweeping, coordinated and long-term effort to spread Conservative ideas on college campuses, in academic journals and in the news media. Korton argues, however, that until Progressives plausibly address the concerns of ordinary Americans, in ways that have an intuitive ring of truth, no amount of institutional revision will enable Progressives to recapture the popular imagination.
There is little doubt that investments by radical Conservatives have put them in a position to control the agenda. In his New York Times article, “A Party Inverted” (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30bradley.html?ex=1269838800&en=ca0476c9b26363e7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland), Bradley describes how big individual donors and large foundations formed the base of the Conservative pyramid. They financed Conservative research centers that now make up the second level of the pyramid. The political level - strategists like Karl Rove - refined the Conservative agenda through polling, focus groups and then framed it in language that appeals to the broadest electorate. This made up the third level of the pyramid. The fourth level is populated by Fox News and the other Conservative commentators and networks who spread the polished ideas. Because the pyramid is so stable, putting a different top on it has been relatively easy.
In contrast, says Bradley, Progressives run for office, lacking a coherent, larger structure on which they can rely. They must design each campaign anew, assembling a campaign apparatus as they seek to formulate ideas and a vision. Many donors sign up to support a Progressive campaign only after assessing whether the candidate has assembled his or her political, media and idea people. But at the intensity of a campaign is the worst environment in which to try to do this. There is no time for patient, thoughtful development of new ideas, no time to comb the Progressive organizations for solutions that may be successful in one location, but unknown more broadly. Winning in the press takes precedence over building a consistent message. The closest that Progressives get to a creating an authentic brand, Bradley notes, are catchy slogans.
If Progressives are serious about change, they should learn from the Conservative success, and create an equivalent structure. The work of the laureates of the Right Livelihood Foundation is a good start, but to take this work to scale will require replicating the other aspects of the Conservatives edifice. This it won't come cheap. But it is the only alternative to remaining small and divided. Getting Progressive ideas accepted by the general public will require that we learn to communicate, to work together and to produce a consistent, and well-framed vision of a world that works for all life, not just for the wealthy constituents of the status quo.
Just replicating the architecture of the Right is insufficient. David Korton, author of When Corporations Rule the World and other books, observes that the Conservatives have captured the public's imagination with plausible stories about how to achieve the three things that people want: prosperity, security and meaning.
Conservatives have carefully crafted and framed their agenda as an assertion that the wealthy and the corporations are the engines of prosperity. If they are given access to the money (tax-cuts, etc) they will invest it wisely, build new businesses, create jobs, etc, to increase the prosperity of everyone. The poor, conversely, are poor, the claim goes, in part because it is God's sign that they are not worthy (the fact that the rich are successful, is similarly seen as a sign that they have been blessed). In addition, the story goes, the poor don’t manage money well – they are poor. Better to give the resources of society to the wealthy who have demonstrated their capacity to invest it wisely to enhance the economy for us all. Government programs that give more money of any sort to the poor (support programs, safety-nets, welfare, etc) are seen as an inefficient way to create greater prosperity because "everyone knows" that the poor do not use money wisely, and that spending resources on them will not increase jobs or economic activity.
Rather than confronting these assertions with intuitive, internally consistent, but alternative stories about how society can achieve greater prosperity, Progressives reiterate tired litanies about the need to give more tax money to the poor. This is, simply put, non-responsive to the story that the Conservatives have successfully delivered to the general public. Merely attacking the Conservatives and saying why their schemes won’t work, while perhaps statistically true, is insufficient. The Conservatives have given the public a plausible way to achieve what they want. Until we do the same, we are simply not in the game. The majority of the public will stay with the side that set the agenda. Progressives will continue to be seen as whiners who attack, but can’t put forth a competing agenda
On security, the Conservatives have persuaded the public that military might and a Rambo-like stance will increase your personal security. Aggressive policies to neutralize terrorists, the use of color-coded alerts, erosion of civil liberties and preemptive wars are the way to get tough with the world's threats.
Many Progressives have programs that will do a far better job of achieving real security, but the Progressive movement rarely says more than “peace is better than war.” To counter the belief that massive militaries are the answer, it is incumbent on us to put forth a coherent theory of how individuals, communities and whole societies can achieve greater security, for themselves, their families and for the world.
On meaning, the neo-cons promote Christian fundamentalist theology. An American President who personally speaks to God is preferable to one who wrestles with moral ambiguities.
The Progressive response is to repeat its doctrinaire insistence on the separation of Church and State. Many Progressives speak meaningfully to what it means to be human, to what spirituality is. We understand that this critical inner work must be integrated with the more technical answers. But we have not communicated this understanding outside of our limited community. Perhaps most important, Progressives generally lack the sort of emotional intelligence that will enable our work to appeal to people's desire to connect at the human level. Many liberal candidates are inaccessible technocrats. People want to vote for someone with whom they can connect, someone that they admire, like and to whom they can feel connected.
Korton argues that until the Progressives can tell competing stories that describe how to achieve what people want most, we will be rendered irrelevant by the more artfully crafted, and massively funded, Conservative message. Much of the Conservatives’ story can be de-legitimized, but until we have a better story, we're in trouble. Our job now is to get much better at crafting these stories, framing them and telling them.
WIT AND WISDOM
“In 2008, Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, may run for president. And if elected, he’ll take a no-nonsense approach to Iraq. And the first thing he’s going to do over there is get rid of the squeegee guys.” — David Letterman
“Yesterday, Democrat Russ Feingold announced he has decided not to run for president in 2008, which finally answers the question no one asked.” — Conan O’Brien
“There’s a rumor Dick Cheney may run for president in 2008. If he wins, that would make him the first three-term president since Franklin Roosevelt.” — Jay Leno
“According to a new poll, Democrats are favoring Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nominee for 2008. Democrats say they are looking for a fresh and exciting new way to get their asses handed to them.” — Tina Fey
CHECK IT OUT
If you want to get a better sense of why the global image of Americans has descended to such abysmal levels, you might want to check out some of the footage from Iraq that’s been posted on YouTube (www.youtube.com), the free video sharing website. While some of the clips are simply snipped from news programs and re-posted, others are home-made productions combining video of military operations with heavy-metal music. Some of these are extremely graphic, and some are clearly intended as promo pieces for the U.S. effort in Iraq. The effect is unsettling. On the one hand, it’s good and valuable to have direct access to raw information from Iraq, to see what’s being done in our name, and occasionally even to hear American troops speaking unedited about their experience. On the other hand, the callousness of more than a few of these videos plays right into the hands of everyone who would demonize the United States as a soulless imperial behemoth.
Particularly troubling are some of the comments and exchanges in the forum section that accompanies each video. At the bottom of the barrel are mindless rants like the following, from “Linz9021,” posted in response to a video submitted by “armorguy”: “just gois to show ppl u mess with america or our buddies thats what happens to you WOOOOO GO USA.” Or this eloquent posting by VashSt: “shut the f— up, all you just hate usa b/c we are better then the rest of the world, the truth hurts and your mad, so f— you b—h.” Oaktree44, at least spelling correctly, opined: “Time to exterminate this culture.” Predictably, there are equally intemperate comments at the other extreme. “Stupidest thing i've ever seen,” wrote sameo51. “I honestly hope North Korea ‘tests’ its next nuke on NYC or Washington DC.” And aznwarlord offered this well-considered perspective: “pussy ass americans cant fight for s— go kill some innocent kids that all u can do.” Samsun55 took the apocalyptic view: “The American history based on blood and she will end with blood.” Taken together, such comments suggest nothing so much as the fact that dark side of human nature – violent, vengeful, unreasoning, tribal – runs as strongly here as anywhere else, and that denying this is one of the underlying causes of our current predicament.
While the debate rages between the cretins and the troglodytes on each side, there is much reason to believe that a sane center still exists. It is this center – regarding the Iraq war as a tragic waste with terrible consequences for both countries – that will need to prevail if the United States is to rebuild its global prestige. Observed “rmamundson”: “It is the people with this unthinking vengeance mentality on both sides who are creating problems for the rest of us in both countries who just want to live our lives in true freedom.” “Sad,” chimed in “infidelguy”, “everytime someone disagrees with this war they are called left-wing nutballs when there are plenty of people on the right that disagree as well. Sad state of affairs. They have been tricked by the 'powers that be' that everything is black is white, us or them, right or left.” And “gonzoted” emphasized the emotional price exacted by war: “The images, feelings and lives our boys over there are forever changed. I feel sorry those guys when they come home and realized how damaged they've become from the horrors of war.”
The images from Iraq flowing onto YouTube provide an essential, if disturbing, window onto the rawness of war, and the raw feelings it unleashes. The website is free, and requires no personal information to view the videos. Check it out.
FEATURED ARTICLE
The following is an excerpt from Hubert Burda’s “How People See Themselves,” which appears in the current issue of Edge: The Third Culture.
“In today's media society, in which hundreds of different media compete for the attention of viewers, readers and listeners, a great deal of importance is attached to presenting oneself. Those who know how to present themselves get noticed, and a whole raft of consultants from different horizons make sure that their protégés are presented as effectively as possible. The opportunities of personal representation and self-presentation have become democratised to an extent that would have been unimaginable many years ago. Nowadays anyone who wants to draw attention to themselves and communicate to the public an image of themselves can to all intents and purposes do so.
“As a publisher in a media company with a global presence, who is confronted on a daily basis with a plethora of images of people portraying themselves to the media, but who has remained in close touch with his field of study — art history – I naturally am always interested in the history of such phenomena. I should therefore like to take a look back at the early stages of modern portrait art and follow its development from then until now from the following perspective: what does the self-presentation of the people being portrayed say about the image that they have of themselves and that they want to convey to a specific community?”
Read the whole article at http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/burda06/burda06_index.html.
ENDORSEMENTS
“In these challenging times, we need an advocacy think tank like Commonweal Institute to communicate our principles and programs in ways that will resonate with the broad public and empower citizens to take a more active role in our democracy. Commonweal takes a strategic approach to advancing issues in a way that will help decision-makers be proactive in confronting the challenges of the future.” – Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, 8th CD-CA, Speaker-Elect of the House of Representatives
GET INVOLVED
If you agree with Nancy Pelosi (see above), there are a number of ways you can help the Commonweal Institute achieve its goals.
Right now, as you read, you can simply forward the Uncommon Denominator to friends and family who might be interested in learning about the Commonweal Institute. Getting the word out is crucial.
You can also join our network of donors building the Commonweal Institute. Your tax-deductible contribution is vital to making the Commonweal Institute an effective organization. $100 would help so much! Even a contribution of $10 or $20 will make a difference because there are so many moderates and progressives. Click here to contribute online. Or call 650-854-9796. Your support is essential.
To subscribe to this free newsletter, send a blank message to: ci-newsletter-subscribe@commonwealinstitute.org.
– or –
To subscribe at an email address other than your regular one, go to http://commonwealinstitute.org/mailman/listinfo/ci-newsletter_commonwealinstitute.org, and then enter your name and email address and click on “Subscribe.”
Privacy Policy: The Commonweal Institute does not share subscriber information with any other organization or individuals.
325 Sharon Park Drive, Suite 332
Menlo Park, CA 94025-3465
650-854-9796 (voice), 650-854-8132 (fax)
www.commonwealinstitute.org
No comments:
Post a Comment