(x-posted in varoius places)
This is the (aforepromised) rough draft of my pet project: Framing a progressive energy policy. For my previous posts on the subject, click my profile. I suggest checking out Energize America, a Kos project for creating an energy policy. It is my hope to provide projects like that with a coherant framing. Input is greatly appreciated.
I am (obviously, sometimes) indebted deeply already to the work done by the my fellow Kossacks, the Apollo Alliance, Nordhaus and Shellenberger, George Lakoff, Frank Luntz, and the fine folks on the Rockridge Institute forums.
Introduction
Energy production and consumption is at the heart of governing America. It not only touches but is central to our economy, national security, foreign relations, government corruption, and election finance reform. Changing the way we produce and consume energy is central to the entire progressive vision. It is vital therefore that progressive Democrats have a strong, well-framed energy policy.
Democrats have long addressed the issue only obliquely. The Democratic Party's Agenda might be aiming at the issue. If so, it misses by several feet:
We reject the false choice between a healthy economy and a healthy environment. We know instead that farming, fishing, tourism, and other industries require a healthy environment. We know new technologies that protect the environment can create new high-paying jobs. We know a cleaner environment means a stronger economy.
They appear, absurdly, to have made energy reform a special pet interest of the farming, fishing, and tourism industries, with a bare nod towards the economy. There is a better way. Confront head on the issue of New Energy. The best hope we have in all areas concerning energy is not issue-based lobbying. It is representative, elected power.
Energy reform is not only a good idea, it is supremely electable. It should be prominent on the Democratic Party's Agenda, should be campaigned on in a strategic, cohesive way in the 2006 Federal elections.
Intent
People vote their conscience, and it is right that they should. Energy policy can and should be framed in moral terms. This article is by no means an energy policy. It is a progressive guide to framing energy. It presupposes an ambitious, progressive energy policy3 and a basic understanding of framing.
Frames
Energy is best framed in the following terms.
- Hope
Americans have always had a hopeful vision for the future. It is the American Dream. We believe more strongly in possibility than any other people on earth.
We can create a bright future.
The words Bright Future give you three advantages. First, it implies that the current times are dark, a sentiment with which more and more of us agree: only 68% of us think the country is headed in the wrong direction (Gallup, 10/05). Second, and most importantly, it is hopeful, optimistic. Thirdly, it implies an assurance that we will not, as Ronald Reagan once (infamously) said, "freeze to death in the dark." (Implied is where you want to keep that assurance. Voicing it baldly will only reinforce and trigger latent fears.)
Peak Oil is coming, whether we like it or not. Ours is the more hopeful response.
- Vision
Energy policy is about oil prices, utility bills, and the future. Center the debate on which candidate has the clearer, better, more hopeful, more American vision.
A bold new plan.
We have a bold new plan; they have desperation. Their energy policies speak (eloquently) for themselves: plundering our sacred places is the last defense of the hopelessly lost. They present no clear plan for adapting to the new demands of the evolving world.
Your agenda is the bright new solution. Theirs is old, tarnished, outdated. Picture the conservative energy policy as a dinosaur: extinct, irrelevant. Phrases such as "Fossilized Energy Policy" will do your work for you.
Some other talking points:
Our current energy policy is a dead end, and we are not a dead end people. Americans deserve an energy agenda which doesn't end in an empty oil well. Hurricane Katrina made it clear that we need a better strategy. Your critics are like frightened ostriches sticking their heads in the oil sands of the Middle East: unwilling to see the problem and unable to form a solution.
- Independence
Independence is a proud American tradition, and is crucial to our political playing field. The phrase "independence from foreign oil" has therefore gained much currency lately, across party lines. The better phrase to use is "Energy Independence" because it does not suggest by antithesis that the solution to the problem is domestic oil. We can and should go further than the conservatives with an energy independence frame.
We don't need to be dependent on foreign dictators.
A more personal approach to the framing may be in order during a bid for office: "my opponent is" or "the conservatives are" dependent on foreign dictators. This will rankle the conservatives, because it attacks directly their ideal of strength.
This is a good way to frame the debate, especially when followed by a prosperity frame (below). It puts the focus on whether or not we need to depend on dictators. Under this frame, anyone who argues that clean energy is technically impossible also argues for dependence on dictators: a weak position indeed.
This frame sets up the region of the Middle East as ruling our country and makes the patriotic appeal to rid ourselves of this controlling influence. It ties well with a security frame.
- Security
An important part of any platform these days is security: specifically, protection from Middle Eastern terrorism. With more Americans than ever losing faith that the "War on Terror" has made us any safer, is it especially important to present a clear vision of how you will make our country safer from terrorist attacks.
Energy independence will depressurize the world's most volatile regions: the real solution to violent extremism.
Worldwide dependence on middle eastern oil exerts tremendous pressure on the region. Too often that pressure backfires on us. Do not shy away from the connections between our skyrocketing heating bills and the war in Iraq. One simple metaphor: "We will not be held hostage."
- Prosperity
For many Americans, the last five years have been hard. Unemployment levels have been high, and cost of living has gone up while the real value of wages have gone down. You must tie your energy agenda to a greater prosperity theme.
Environmentalists are often called the enemies of industry - a label we cannot afford: most Americans want to protect the environment, but all Americans need their jobs. Keep a clear focus on the economic benefits of your energy agenda.
Clean energy will pay for itself and create good new jobs.
Far from endangering business, we are creating an entire industry. Emphasize the benefits of leading the world in supplying product and innovation to this new global market.
Do not - ever - set environmental protection, yourself, or your energy agenda against business. Republicans will try to put you in this position. Prevent them from doing this by including the economic benefits of your energy agenda forthrightly.
- Leadership
Closely tied in to the American concept of patriotism is leadership. Consequently, it is a good idea to highlight the fact that the United States would be at the forefront of a global initiative: something to be proud of. By tying your energy agenda to a sense of pride in country, you force anyone who contradicts you directly to explain why they want to see America fall behind the rest of the world.
America can and should lead the world in this bold new project.
Repeat your confidence in America's ability to lead in the new energy world, by way of taking it for granted: because we can, we should. If an opponent questions whether or not we can, it is an affront to our great nation. If they argue that we should not, then they are dooming our country to irrelevance.
By attaching your argument to the American Leadership frame, you rest on the shoulders of the American belief that where there is a will, there is a way. You can then focus on the moral question of whether it is right to continue down the destructive path we are on or to find a better, brighter way.
General Tips
Lakoff's last chapter in Don't Think of an Elephant is an excellent source for some basic framing principles. I will rehearse here some of framing issues specific to the energy debate.
- Don't fall into your opponents' frames.
In a forum on June 24, 2004, entitled "U.S. Climate Policy: Towards a Sensible Center", Senator Lieberman said: "Confronting global warming need not be wrenching to our economy if we take simple sensible steps now." From the same forum: "Consider the costs of inaction, for they will ruin the economy with a certainty far more destructive than any greenhouse gas control program ever could."6 Never say that, or any other such nonsense. It insinuates that the conservative critics are right: new energy will cost the voter money and pain.
Do not simply trot out the facts in defense of your position: blindly contradicting your opponents only has the effect of reinforcing them. Remember Nixon: "I am not a Crook!" Do not simply contradict - reframe. If asked a leading question such as "what about the costs to the energy industry of integrating clean energy into the grid?" The response is not "The costs need not be as high as you think." The response is more like "Creating whole new fields of industry will be good for energy businesses."
- Alternative Energy
Never say "Alternative Energy". It presupposes that it is an impractical idea: alternative to the more legitimate plan.
- Vision vs. Fantasy
Clean, sustainable energy has been derided as an impossible fantasy: essentially immature. It is, rather, in fact, a sweeping vision. If attacked: "Your policy is an unrealistic fantasy", counter-attack: "You lack vision, and your grandchildren will not thank you."
And remember: sweeping visions are fine, but emphasize also the practical, immediate benefits of a changeover.
- Conservation
Never say anything like "energy conservation won't be as hard as you think." While conservation is itself a noble goal, asking voters to sacrifice has no place on a winning election platform. If you talk conservation, talk about rewards - not obligations. Efficiency is a better talking point.
- The Bambi Defense
Most of what the ordinary voter heard in opposition to drilling in the ANWR has centered around the essential argument that some places are so special that they should not be opened up to industrial speculation. This is the Bambi defense: look at Bambi flutter his big eyelashes. Don't hurt Bambi.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger made it abundantly clear in their bombshell essay, The Death of Environmentalism, that the Bambi defense isn't working. Not by itself. It doesn't achieve any of our goals, least of all (ironically) our environmental goals. A better response would have been to criticize the lack of vision inherent in the policy, and to propose a better vision.