Friends, Kossaks, and Country, man.
These are grim and grimy times. No dispute. And every one of us has heard some version of "when things get really bad, that's when you have to fight even harder".
Yes, it's a cliche. But it's a cliche because it's true.
Now is the time to reconnoiter, regroup, recruit and split the opposition.
(Some of the following has appeared in previous comments and diaries)
Reconnoiter:
We have to study our opponents. People develop patterns. A little history:
Newt Gingrich was very predictable in one way: every time he got caught in an embarrasing situation, he blamed it on the the liberal media (there was some in the 90's). That habit helped cause his downfall after the 1998 mid-terms, when the the President's (Clinton's) party actually picked up seats (unheard of) in mid-term election.
This was all during the impeachment scandal, which Gingrich had been actively pushing throughout the campaign. When the Republicans lost seats, he actually blamed the media for focusing on the impeachment and therefore keeping the Republicans from getting their message out. At that point, his fellow Republican leaders took the Speakership away from him.
We need to find out what patterns Boehner and other Republican leaders have. Why? A predictable opponent is almost as good as an ally.
If we know their likely reactions to praise/criticism, victory/defeat, success/embarrassment, we can be ahead of the game in the news cycle with our messages waiting. Patterns themselves provide us with a weapon, because people hate to be inconsistent with their own actions and are suspicious of inconsistency in others.
This overview of pioneering social psychologist Robert Cialdini's work on influence and persuasion provides some insight:
(all emphasis in citations provided by TGW)
Commitment and Consistency
People have a desire to look consistent through their words, beliefs, attitudes and deeds...
Good personal consistency is highly valued by society.
Consistent conduct provides a beneficial approach to daily life....
...The drive to be and look consistent constitutes a highly potent tool of social influence, often causing people to act in ways that are clearly contrary to their own best interests.
How does this help?
1.Public commitments are the strongest. An official who has made a public commitment to a position will be loath to change it, even if staying the course has a political cost.
2.If a public official has to change from a previous public commitment, supporters will see him/her as a hypocrite.
So, we need to look for ways to force the opponent into a no-win situation in which they loose some support either by pursuing or abandoning a position. (Conversely, we need to frame the positions we want in such a way that it is consistent for our allies to adopt them).
Regroup:
We need to stop fighting the last battle and start planning for the next ones. This means looking for every opportunity win victories, from getting a new recycling bin in a neighborhood to raising money for successful elections of progressive legislators in 2012.Every victory builds momentum.
I have diaried previously on 2011 opportunities such as local elections, the budget and transportation reauthorization. Other opportunities, such as No Child Left Behind Reauthorization, a new farm bill, and others will present themselves. We need to get into each fight early and often. Each represents a chance to affect policy and or recruit (the next topic).
Recruit:
Jonathan Smucker's analysis of why and how grassroots movements fail provide us all with a warning:people must identify with us if we want to succeed.
Here's a good rule of thumb (I think it is paraphrased from Saul Alinksy): Actions should be designed to get you more allies than opponents.
Again, food for thought from the Cialdini summary:
Social Proof
...People often view a behavior as more correct in a given situation--to the degree that we see others performing it...
Similarity--people are more inclined to follow the lead of others who are similar.
This is why we need to be visible. The Tea Party gained the visibility edge this year and the visibility acted as its own recruiting tool.
Liking
People prefer to say yes to individuals they know and like....Compliance practitioners may regularly use several factors....
Similarity--is a second factor that influences both Liking and compliance. That is--we like people who are like us and are more willing to say yes to their requests, often without much critical consideration...
Increased familiarity--through repeated contact with a person or thing is yet another factor that normally facilitates Liking. But this holds true principally when that contact takes place under positive rather than negative circumstances. One positive circumstance that may works well is mutual and successful cooperation....
Authority
In the seminal studies and research conducted by Milgram regarding obedience there is evidence of the strong pressure within our society for compliance when requested by an authority figure....
Three types of symbols have been demonstrated through research as effective in this regard:
Titles
Clothing
Automobiles.
In separate studies investigating the influence of these symbols--individuals that possessed one or another of these symbols, even without other legitimizing credentials, were accorded more deference or obedience by those they encountered.
Other movements understood this. Look at films of the Civil Rights marches: everyone was in their Sunday best. When I see tee-shirted, bearded and pierced activistis trying to get signatures and donations in a busy business downtown, it make me nuts. I have no problem with the style, but it would be more useful at a concert. If you want business professionals to stop and talk, dress like them. If you want Soccer Moms or NASCAR Dads to support you, don't bang a bongo at a World Bank protest, dress and act in a way that makes them sympathize with you; put on a sports jersey.
We need to be a movement, not an exclusive club. If that means doing the modern version of getting clean for Gene once in a while, we should do it.
Okay, so much for getting people to identify. How do you get them to join?
Start small: those who become civic-minded stay civic minded. The condo owner who votes for a recycling bin today supports county-wide energy savings tomorrow, votes for green state legislators next week, and supports progressive Congressional candidates down the line. Maybe the voter becomes a candidate her/himself.
Referring again to Cialdini, consider this fascinating and much-cited study in which people ramped up their level of commitment for a cause after taking a small action:
This paperdescribes part of the study (emphasis added by TGW):
Consider, for example, the "drive carefully" study. Researchers randomly assigned homeowners in a residential neighborhood to either a control group or an experimental group. A researcher, posing as a "volunteer," asked the homeowners in both groups if they would allow the volunteer to post a gigantic "Drive Carefully" billboard in their front yards. Each homeowner viewed a photo of the billboard demonstrating it was so large it would almost completely obscure the view of the house from the street.
The only difference between the two groups was that two weeks earlier another "volunteer" had asked the homeowners in the experimental group display a three inch by three inch sign that read "Be a Safe Driver." The subjects in the experimental group, who complied with this seemingly innocuous request, were much more likely to agree to the gigantic billboards in their front yards: seventy-six percent of those in the experimental group versus a mere seventeen percent in the control group agreed to do so."Because they had innocently complied with a trivial safe-driving request a couple of weeks before, those homeowners became remarkably willing to comply with another such request that was massive in size.
This site adds more information about the experiment:
Moreover, in a further variant, the residents were first asked to sign a "Keep California Beautiful" petition. Two weeks later, they are asked about placement of the large billboard, and 50% agreed, even though the first request differed in subject (beauty) and action (signing)! The researchers theorized that the first action actually changed way the participants viewed themselves, e.g., "public-spirited citizens" in a way that influenced them to act in accordance with that view in the future .
Split the opposition:
Remember: never attack a movement's members, always attack its leaders.
Why?
Cognitive dissonance (the academic theory, not the common usage) suggests that attacking the supporters may actually increase their level of commitment.
It works like this: Say someone has two contradictory ideas: "I smoke" and "Smoking is bad for me". This causes discomfort, which must be resolved. Unfortunately, it is usually resolved in an ego- protecting way, so you wind up with something like: "Smoking isn't bad for me" instead of "I'm stupid to be smoking and should quit".
If we make fun of a Tea Party supporters, they hold the following ideas": I like my candidate's ideas" and "All these people say the ideas are crazy". Well, no matter what the evidence for the lunacy, that's likely to resolve into "the ideas are right" instead of "I made a mistake". This is particularly true if they see criticisms as hostile.
On the other hand, if a supporter holds the following ideas "I like this candidate" and "this candidate just said that s/he is going to screw me personally ", the supporter is more likely to question the candidate.
For a great exploration of cognitive dissonance, see Tavris and Aronson's Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts.
Opportunities to split the opposition abound this year. Going back to the Commitment and Consistency principle, we need to keep hammering the Republicans on the debt at every opportunity. Similarly, whenever a Republican comes out against a provision of Health Care Reform that they are on record as previously supporting (see Mitt Romney and Orrin Hatch, among others), we need to show this.
In addition, we must publicize every split in the Republican party currently underway, from the campaign to chair the RNC, the related battle between Rove and Palin/DeMint to control the party, and whatever divisions come up in the presidential champaign.
Small victories will lead to larger ones. It's time to build an avalanche of small victories.
***
Recommended reading/listening/viewing :
The incomparable Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Online preview here
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. by Robert Cialdini. This is the single most valuable book I have read on how to persuade and how to avoid being persuaded.
Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives, by George Lakoff. See also: Cognitive Policy Wonks and The Progressive Strategy Handbook Project
Frank Luntz: everything he’s written. He's a conservative message master, and you have to know the enemy. Remember the great scene in Patton, when the victorious general shouted: “Rommel! You magnificent son of a bitch! I READ YOUR BOOK!”
Making the News: A Guide for Activists and Nonprofits, By Jason Salzman
The Campaign Manager: Running and Winning Local Elections, By Catherine Shaw
How To Win A Local Election,by Lawrence Grey
The
Opposition Research Handbook: Guide to Political InvestigationsGuerrilla Marketing
<a