To Joe Romm and Bill McKibben:
Climate legislation has been pronounced dead. Those who have worked hardest to pass it have given up.
And yet, this is the only time in the near future in which a bill can pass. We must not miss the moment.
I write to suggest that a jolt from outside could still revive the patient. The best efforts of senators, activists, environmental groups, and the climate community have all been put forward. I salute them and all their work. It was not enough. And there is one resource that was not used, that even at this late date could be put in play, and possibly revive the bill. I think we should use the base.
The right-wing conservative base coordinated to throw Tea Parties during the last August recess, and successfully injected their concerns about spending and deficits into the political system. They used the media to amplify their arguments until both allied and opposing politicians had to adjust their politics to accommodate them.
I believe that with only a little leadership, our base would readily take to the streets to hold Climate Parties and agitate for a climate bill. Since the 2008 elections, our base has mostly sat on the sidelines, preferring not to make waves in the expectation that our elected leadership would deliver. Whether wise or not, this strategy was largely good enough, except for on the matter of climate, which elected leadership has allowed to fail completely. I believe our base is restless on the sidelines, frustrated that right-wingers have owned the airwaves, frustrated that its elected leaders have underwhelmed it. I believe they are eager to strike back, seize the stage, grab a megaphone, make their presence known. In short, I believe the base itself would be happy to hear the call, thrilled by the chance to do something.
And there is something valid it could do. The Tea Parties have demonstrated the model already.
We could throw Climate Parties for the next eight weekends in cities and towns across America. They would be designed to cleverly, visually communicate our arguments to and through the press, so that they will become the subject of political discourse and be broadcast into the homes of more casual voters. Anything that would earn a question from a reporter, and broadcast time for the answer, would work. So we could bring hockey sticks. Oversize thermometers. Little green houses from Monopoly sets. Melting blocks of ice. Empty rain gauges and water bottles. Bowls full of dust. Wilted crops. Beetle-killed trees. Mosquito nets. And we can get more elaborate. A kiddie pool with water, vinegar, and shells in it, to represent the acidifying ocean. Marshmallows, dyed with blue and green food coloring to look like the earth, then roasted over coal briquettes. We could make a town of dollhouses and lincoln logs and then flood it. We can serve everybody Hurricane cocktails! This is all in addition, of course, to the traditional cardboard signs and graphs and slogans. Some of these ideas seem whimsical, but they work as visual hooks, designed to get the attention of local and national press, get them to cover us, talk about us, and rebroadcast our arguments.
We should also have Energy parties, across the street from the Climate Parties, to communicate the positive answer to the problem we just posed. Remote-control cars to represent electric vehicles. Train sets to represent high-speed rail. We can make solar cells from cardboard, black paint, and duct tape. Kitschy garden windmills can stand in for wind power. CFLs, caulk guns, and light switches to represent conservation. We can make a big show of burying some of those charcoal briquettes, or build a little oil derrick and then stick a ballcap on top. The guy with a caulk gun should have a sign that says "I have a job!" And we could have a group of people, all wearing caps, trading carbon -- with a sign next to 'em saying "markets are the American way!" And finally, we should have a big cardboard copy of the bill being passed around -- because passing the bill is the preeminent task of this moment -- and we should call out the Senators we need by name: Dorgan Conrad Rockefeller Goodwin Webb Bayh Landrieu Lincoln Pryor Nelson Graham Voinovich Snowe Collins McCain Murkowski Lugar LeMeiux Gregg.
This press-targetted base activism, pursued through the last four weeks of the August recess, through the resumption of Congress on September 14th, and for the next four weeks of the congressional session, culminating in the 10/10/10 event, would hopefully accomplish several goals. Swelling attendance would demonstrate the size of our base and their energy and commitment. It would also orient the political discourse onto our issue, and more discussion of climate and energy is generally good when we have activists, and not Democratic politicians, fighting the deniers. It would specifically broadcast our arguments into the homes of independent and casual voters, many of whom have not heard a sustained case from a non-politician since An Inconvenient Truth in 2006. It would create a platform for fighting the deniers -- cable news airtime -- that while not perfect, is much more level than the platforms of advertising and lobbying and talk radio that they have been using to such effect. It would improve awareness of the climate problem, and should improve receptivity toward a climate-and-energy bill, among these independent and casual voters. In sum, it would raise the energy and hopes of our base, focus the attention of the press, and improve the receptivity of the electorate, all of which tends to raise the cost of inaction and lower the cost of action for the various actors needed on the bill.
Now, ideally this would have been done in July. The politicians you need to cultivate for the inside game hate this kind of outside pressure, so it is understandable that groups pushing for this bill did not use the base early, and perhaps understandable that they did not use it in mid-July either. But using the base is clearly the only way to change the calculus now.
There are four weeks of Congress between the day it reconvenes, September 14th, and 10/10/10. That is about as much time as it would take to pass a bill. After 10/10/10 there are only three weeks until the elections. We know the Chief of Staff does not want to go into an election with this bill.
However, the Chief of Staff has been dragged into winning electoral positions before. In 2006, when Emanuel chaired the DCCC, he advised his candidates to avoid the Iraq War and campaign on domestic discontents instead, until liberal activists used Iraq to defeat Lieberman in a primary, and the electoral salience of Iraq was proven beyond all doubt. If a climate bill is to be passed in early October, it must be part of some non-suicidal electoral message, even if not the one that Emanuel might prefer.
When challenged by election-minded Democrats, as this effort surely would be, the answer would be to offer up "Democrats: getting things done" as the new election message, to replace whatever inaudible message the White House is currently advancing (Recovery Summer?). Much was made of independent voters respecting George W Bush's certainty, clarity, and steadfastness back in 2004, as contrasted to Kerry's ambiguity. The notorious refrain was "even if I don't agree with the president, at least I know where he stands." The analogous message the Democrats would need to use were they to pass a climate bill in October would be "I don't agree with all of it, but at least they're getting stuff done." Democrats would need to make health care, financial reform, climate and energy, and the 2009 economic measures into more than the sum of their parts: "at least Democrats are taking on major problems and delivering serious legislation. All Republicans ever did was start a war and drown a city."
This message has the advantage of being true, and could plausibly appeal to the independents and unimpressed left-leaners needed to defend Democratic majorities this election. It's at least as good as anything the Administration has signaled thus far. Parts of the Administration might not like it, but we'll be able to argue that we're not asking the party to walk the plank, and that we're in fact locking in a stronger message than the mush they have now.
Working to pass a bill now would not necessarily doom the Democrats, does offer up a workable campaign narrative, and is, of course, vitally important to civilization -- and it's one of the president's campaign promises! With just a little coordination (with MoveOn, DailyKos, HuffPost, and one or two of the more confrontational Green Groups), it would be possible to start the ball rolling and put our base out on the public square, demanding this bill pass, vacuuming up press coverage, and convincing independent voters of its merit. I think eight weeks of Climate Parties and Energy Parties and other press-grabbing stunts, all culminating in a push for legislation by 10/10/10, could change the political climate around the bill enough that it becomes passable, even in early October. It would take a deliberate effort to organize our base to take over the airwaves, but the base is ready, our arguments are good, the window is closing, and earth and civilization hang in the balance. If there was ever a time to make a big play, it is now.
What do you say?