Commonweal Institute Blog

A CNN poll this week shows that, as CNN worded it,

"...most Americans still agree with the bedrock conservative premise that, as the Gipper put it, "government is not the answer to our problems -- government is the problem."

"Queried about their views on the role of government, 54 percent of the 1,013 adults polled said they thought it was trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Only 37 percent said they thought the government should do more to solve the country's problems."

In a cleverly-titled October 24 post, “WITT, YOYOs, and Why Americans Don’t Go Green”, Joel Makower described the implications of market research about why it’s hard to get Americans to listen to talk about environmental problems, let alone to take appropriate action. Sponsored by ecoAmerica, a group which, from its minimal-information website, appears to comprise SRI International Business Intelligence, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and Campus Climate Challenge, this

[…] extensive study of Americans' environmental attitudes…points up the serious obstacles faced by activists -- as well as green marketers in the private sector -- in getting Americans to align their actions with their innate desire to make the world a better place. […T]he big-picture takeaways are: • There is no common agreement on what environmental concern means or what to do about it. • Libertarian values are gaining over communal ones. • Environmental complexity is paralyzing. • Pocketbook environmentalism is powerful. […]The…research found that even the most environmentally sympathetic Americans have competing priorities; that environmentalism is hampered by anti-science and anti-intellectual attitudes; and that men and women have very different environmental concerns…. […]The millions of Security Moms and NASCAR Dads who haven't yet tuned into how climate change and fisheries loss might mess with their kids' future aren't about to be beaten into submission by the latest arguments or evidence. They're not about to make purchase decisions based on a maybe-someday rationale for stemming environmental problems. They want to know: what's in it for me, today? So, big news: Americans are shallow, misinformed, self-interested, and unsophisticated. But they're our neighbors, our colleagues, and our relatives. And they're likely your clients, customers, or constituents. If you want to move them toward greener behavior and actions, you'll need to deal -- carefully and creatively -- with all of these sobering realities.

Think of the environmental communication problem as the canary in the progressive coal mine. ecoAmerica's research shines a light on what is making the canary sick. ecoAmerica took the canary in for an MRI—market research investigation—and came up with a grave diagnosis. But they also got a better idea of what will be needed to cure the poor bird.

As we listen to the current flock of feebly chirping progressive politicos and spokespersons, we can tell that there’s something wrong. They sure don’t seem to be singing a coherent song that the public hums under its breath (despite current public revulsion against the conservatives in power).

The message here for progressives (and moderates, liberals, etc.) is: It’s about the marketing, stupid! Marketing is how everything is sold in America, from products to services to political ideas.

Marketing, based on underlying market research, is how the conservative movement has succeeded in developing support for their ideas and values. It’s how they prepare the ground for conservative candidates and policies. And it’s how they’ve been promoting the values—libertarian, pocketbook, anti-intellectual—that have been making it hard to have a broad-based, meaningful dialogue about America’s future.

To date, marketing capacity has been sadly lacking on the progressive side. Until moderates and progressives invest serious money in infrastructure functions like market research, language testing, narrative development, and strategic marketing services for the progressive movement as a whole, we’re not going to make progress.

Research is an essential ingredient of this mix—research to find out what matters to different sectors of the public, and how large sectors of the public can be persuaded to support progressive values and ideas. Linguistic analysis alone isn’t sufficient. Good policy ideas aren’t sufficient. Clever phrases or narratives aren’t sufficient. Single-issue efforts aren’t sufficient. Political polls about candidates and ballot measures aren’t sufficient. All of those things—language, ideas, phrases, narratives—should be tested to identify the ones that will work. Testing isn’t cheap, but it’s worth the investment if we want to be successful.

It’s time we deal -- carefully and creatively -- with these sobering realities.

Ira Chernus has rightly identified the need for progressives to an alternative narrative if we are to extricate ourselves expeditiously from the ongoing mess in Iraq. As he describes our present drifting predicament:

[…T]he story of the 2006 election isn't over yet. It's like one of those movies on DVD with several alternative endings. You get to choose the one you want. [….Bush] seemed to confirm the media's story of the election as a negative verdict on "staying the course" in Iraq….Of course, that narrative does have a good dose of truth in it. Most Americans do now oppose Bush's Iraq policy and particularly its implementation. But the Democratic win does not mean that voters simply saw through the administration's lies and now demand the true story. They just want a new story. [….]But the Democrats as a party have not yet come close to agreeing on a single, clear alternative policy -- no less a story to tell about it. They've merely played on our cognitive dissonance about the Bush administration's losing war by telling us what they are against. [….]

Chernus is right about the need for a new story in order to move forward:

[...T]he election results hint at a public hungry for a new story about the war. And George Bush's day-after response -- sacking Rumsfeld -- shows that, however reluctantly, he will change his story in response to voter disaffection. The public may be able to force policy change too, but only if there is a compelling new story that demands a new policy.

He doesn’t hold out hope for this new story emanating from either of the major political parties. Instead, he has dropped it in the lap of an unlikely savior:

This is a job for the peace movement, whose role has always been to articulate alternatives. Now is the time to offer a new narrative using an alternative recipe, the same one that the peace movement has always used: Take big dollops of truth and moral compassion in equal measure and stir.

The peace movement as a force has been marginalized by the media (despite its many sincere adherents) and by all the powers that be in Washington. The purity of the positions that traditional peace lovers tend to embrace might rightly be resisted by many of good will who see the complexity of the situation, which mixes the occupation of Iraq with nuclear weapons posturing in surrounding countries, China’s hunger for energy sources, Peak Oil, the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, Osama bin Laden, Islamic and Christian fundamentalism, etc., etc., etc. In this situation, pure peace-people will find it hard to be true to their traditional values and come up with a viable alternative and, if they do, the source of the message will unfortunately be discredited.

However, the need for a new narrative is a great opportunity for the progressive movement as a whole. This is the time that progressive voices representing multiple perspectives, not just peace, need to articulate and advance an alternative narrative. We need a narrative that represents the values of environmentalists, women’s rights advocates, those who oppose corruption in government and overweaning corporate power, labor, and civil rights advocates, all of whom have a stake in what’s happening in Iraq. We need a narrative that not only can gain more supporters right away for a new direction, but one that can strengthen a progressive vision that can serve as a foundation for preventing future conflicts of this type and for opening doors to solving related social problems.

The task of coming up with a creative alternative narrative should rest with a progressive infrastructure organization, not limited to a single issue, that is willing and able to develop various narrative options and and test them for effectiveness before widespread promulgation.

This is not the time for hunches or multiple competing stories—it’s the time for a disciplined, professional approach. And the sooner that process can start, the better.

You might have heard that progressive organizations are starved for funds, while the hundreds of right-wing organizations like The Heritage Foundation that pound us with the right-wing message every day are all flush with corporate and wealthy-donor money. You might have heard that people who work for right-wing organizations are well-paid, well-trained and have access to the latest technology and resources, while people who fight for OUR values have to work for a pittance and barely get by, use ancient technology, etc.

It's true. Progressive organizations ARE starved for funds, and as a result many of them primarily reach out to their membership lists - to appeal for funds - instead of reaching out to the public to broaden the progressive base. Meanwhile the conservative organizations are always out there making the case for conservative ideology and candidates. So the public - and resulting government policy - understandably leans right.

Because of this lack of funds many progressive organizations depend on a select few donors and have to be cautiously "centrist," moderating their message and mission rather than risk giving offense by reaching out with a message that would resonate with more people - and grow the base.

Here's a thought. If everyone who reads DailyKos, Huffington Post, Eschaton, Common Dreams, AlterNet, BuzzFlash, Smirking Chimp and all the other online progressive sites and blogs each gave at least $100 to a progressive organization - ANY progressive organization - it would end the dominance of the corporations and the conservative movement once and for all. There would be enough money for good jobs and internships for anyone interested in working to support progressive activities and candidates and policies.

Every time you turn on the radio or a cable news show you hear one form or another of the same old message, “conservatives and their ideas are good and liberals and their ideas are bad.” Think about how often you hear one or another variation of that theme.

But how often do you hear that liberals and progressives are good? How often do you hear that liberal/progressive ideas are better for people than a conservative approach? And if you are reading this you're looking for progressive ideas. So how often do you think the general public is hearing that progressives and their values and ideas are good?

The public does not hear our side of the story very often – if ever.

Why is that? Maybe it’s because we aren’t telling people our side of the story!

There are literally hundreds of conservative organizations that primarily exist to persuade the public to support conservative ideas (and, therefore, conservative candidates.) The people you see on TV or hear on the radio or who write op-eds in newspapers are paid by, or at the very least draw upon resources provided by these organizations. You might or might not have heard of the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute or Americans for Tax Reform or the This Institute or the That Foundation or the Government-and-Taxes-Are-Bad Association – but there really is a network of well-funded conservative organizations marketing the conservatives-are-good-and-liberals-and-government-and-democracy-are-bad propaganda every hour of every day and they have been doing so for decades.

Click this link to visit a collection of links to articles, studies, reports and other resources for learning about the right-wing movement, its history, how it is funded and how it operates.

Now, can you think of any organizations that exist to tell the public that progressive values and ideas and policies and candidates are good? Do you know about any organized effort to persuade people to support progressive values and ideas?

In Paying the New Politics, Stirling Newberry writes about how "the well oiled parts of the establishment are busy not funding the progressive space known as the blogosphere."

He's writing about how bloggers can survive to continue doing the work they do. But he is also talking about "Progressive Infrastructure" -- building up a power base outside of any political parties. The infrastructure would consist of organizations that support the activities of progressives, that reach the pubic to inform them about issues and ideas, that provide the foot soldiers for campaigns and initiatives.

And he writes,

Many people will take this as a threat, in a sense, it is history's threat: when a new body of people emerge, either the established means fund them, and thus bring them in - or those new people establish new institutions, ones which are not beholden to the old world. Being a student of history, I could rattle off a dozen examples beyond the conservative movement. But realize that the liberal blogosphere is a couple of ticked off billionaires away from not needing the inside.

And there are a growing number of progressive billionaires or hectamillionaires, who are less than impressed with how the liberal establishment and Democratic Party have run things. One of them could be the Scaife of the progressive movement, and one of them will be.

The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism: Who Really Cares, by Professor Arthur Brooks. Brooks, who confesses that he is a long-time liberal, purports to be an in depth analysis of charitable giving in the US. The picture that emerges from his statistical analysis of existing and some new national tax data, surveys, and interviews is not pretty for progressives. Bluntly, Brooks’ findings are that conservatives give more – a lot more – than liberals. He found that the best predictors of contributing to charity, volunteering, working in political campaigns - even giving blood - are: a conservative outlook and political beliefs, belonging to a church, frequent church attendance, having a strong family, earned income as opposed to inherited income or welfare, and belief that self-reliance and individuals, not government, are the best solution to society’s ills.

What do people "know?" If you are reading this you are probably a hyper-informed citizen. But what about the rest of us? What information reaches the public?

Progressive blogs reach progressives. Right-wing blogs are part of a noise machine that is designed to reach and influence the general public.

Right-wing blogs are tied into the conservative movement's larger "noise machine" information apparatus. This is why we see very different results when the right launches an information campaign. They echo or are echoed through every channel through which the public receives information -- by Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge, and funded outreach into other channels, and their politicians are part of the coordinated process. So their message gets out there and the public "knows" what they want them to know. A very good example is what happened to Dan Rather. The public "knows" that Dan Rather "tried to smear President Bush" with "forged documents." In fact the origin of the documents is still unknown, and forged or not, the underlying story was factual.

It would benefit us to keep in mind that progressive blogs have a limited reach and that we need to keep looking to extend that reach. There is no progressive noise machine. There is no coordination. There is no funded outreach to the general public. Non-right-wing politicians likely as not fear blogs and tend not to join in a coordinated messaging efforts. Yes, progressive blogs are read by media figures, informed opinion leaders and public officials, and that is very important. But we have very little effect on what the general public "knows." Only after shrill repetition for several days or weeks across the entire blogosphere does an important story even begin to reach into the traditional corporate media.

Current example - the prosecutor scandal. On the Heading Left Blog Talk Radio Show last week Nate mentioned that there was wide coverage of the scandal over firing US Attorneys who wouldn't play ball and drop investigations of Republican corruption or wouldn't falsely accuse Democrats of crimes. But in my own local paper there was only a short article on page 6, and it repeated verbatim White House talking points that the firings were "handled badly," that the President "has the right to hire and fire prosecutors," and that "Clinton fired all 93 prosecutors while Bush fired only 8."

Older example: What is the current percentage of Americans who think Iraq attacked us n 9/11? It's probably still very high - considering that Iraq didn't. What is the percentage who think we found the WMD?

"We're All In This Together"
A talk by Commonweal Institute Fellow David C. Johnson to supporters of public education, presented March 7, 2007.

A couple of weeks ago I was thinking about how to start this talk, when I came across this video clip from the Sean Hannity show on Fox News:

Click to play video clip

[Clip of Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, with Neal Boortz saying that teachers unions are more dangerous to America than terrorists armed with nuclear weapons because a nuke could only wipe out 100,000 people but public schools are "destroying a generation."]

I’m showing you this because it illustrates something that we increasingly have to deal with. I’ll talk about how this uncivil hyperbole fits into the overall pattern of what we as supporters of public education are dealing with. Then I’ll talk about what we can do about it.

What you just saw was on the most-watched cable TV news network just two weeks ago.

Chris Bowers has written an interesting new piece about the progressive netroots:

As someone known not only as a prominent figure within the progressive netroots, but also as someone with a tendency to base much of my writing on quantitative research, I have often been asked to try and measure the positive impact of the netroots on the Democratic Party and the 2006 elections in order to counter these arguments. This is not an easy thing to do, but I believe there are a number of more or less objective ways in which the contribution of the progressive netroots to the Democratic victories in 2006 can be documented. Taken together, these contributions reveal just how mature a political force the progressive netroots have become, and how indispensable they are to continued Democratic success in the future.

The areas of netroots that Chris discusses are:
1. Closing the fundraising gap
2. Campaigning on Iraq
3. Keeping the base motivated
4. Influencing establishment media coverage
5. Stretching Republicans' resources thin
6. New infrastructure, new ideas

These are exciting times. Let's hope the major political donor community begins to recognize more generously the efforts of individual progressive bloggers, who are a not-insubstantial part of the netroots community. Many individual bloggers are living a hand-to-mouth existence. Think how much more these dedicated activists might be able to accomplish if they didn't have to worry about paying the rent and their lack of health insurance.

The contemporary progressive movement is evolving as a networked phenomenon, rather than a hierarchical stack of major institutions. Good ideas can originate anywhere within the matrix and be amplified by other parts. The netroots are a prime example of how effective this type of entity can be. Forward-thinking donors will recognize that support for the progressive network implies support for its component nodes, including small organizations and even individuals.

I hear lots of people express the sentiment, "If only Gore would enter the race (or if only Obama took the lead, etc.), everything would be OK and progressives would win again." This is what I call "Messiah-Candidate Thinking." The example that got me thinking about this was a DailyKos diary today: An Inconvenient Truth: Mr. Gore You HAVE to run in 2008,

Mr. Gore, you are the person best suited to rescue us from the assaults on reason, our Constitution, our environment, our security, and our domestic infrastructure perpetrated on us by the Busheviks and their allies.

Do the conservatives run great candidates? Is that what has worked for them? Was Bush a great candidate? Or was it something else?

At next week's Take Back America conference I will be doing a "self-organized" session, titled Reaching the Public.

Progressives need to promote the benefits of progressive values and ideas to the general public. This creates demand for progressive candidates and policy solutions.

The idea is simple - right-wingers are out there all day, every day, and through every possible channel, repeating various forms of the simple marketing message "Conservatives are good and liberals are bad." The conservatives get it: persuasion, marketing, talking to the public WORKS. Over time this has an effect.

Liberals and progressives are not responding by also talking to the general public and promoting the benefits of PROGRESSIVE values and issues. So after a few decades of this, the public has a negative view of liberals & progressives, and in surveys they say they are conservative - even though they line up with us on the facts and issues. All a conservative candidate has to do is point a finger and shout "liberal liberal" and this gives them a tremendous head start in a campaign.

Joining me will be Jeffery Feldman of Frameshop and Conor Kenny of SourceWatch.

If you are at Take Back America, please come to this session, at 4pm on Monday June 18.

I attended the Take Back America conference last week, and it was great. I am inspired, and you should be, too.

Two years ago I was at this same conference and it was a very different experience. I felt it was attending a tired, demoralized gathering of people associated with the older, Washington-based, established, celebrity-driven issue-organizations. I left discouraged, wondering when the liberal establishment would start to catch up with the ideas circulating around the blogosphere – especially with the ideas about building “progressive infrastructure” organizations for reaching out to the public and promoting core progressive values and ideas, instead of the focus on issues.

After that conference I wrote,

This post is a must-read: "THANK GOD FOR TALK RADIO!"

So: Politics 101. Stake out an ultra-extreme position so that when the rest of your party endorses a merely extreme position it looks like it's a moderate compromise.

Question: why don't liberals do this? The stock answer is that we're wimps, but I don't think that's it. At least, not always. I think the answer is talk radio. Our extremists don't succeed in redefining the playing field because there's no institutional infrastructure behind them that converts lunacy into political pressure.

Go read more about progressive infrastructure here and here. And here is Seeing the Forest's collection of posts on the subject of progressive infrastructure.

This post originally appeared at Speak Out California

On the same day that Barack Obama raised one million dollars in one minute for his campaign George Lakoff's Rockridge Institute announced that they will be closing their doors.

In the comments at the OpenLeft blog post, The Rockridge Era Ends, Paul Rosenberg wrote,

As If We Needed Any More Proof That Democrats STILL Don't Get It!
This is really terrible news--not just because of the loss of Rockridge, as if that wasn't bad enough, but because it shows so clearly that there is NO recognition of the need to build progressive infrastructure.

Just look at how many millions have been raised by the Presidential campaigns this cycle. And just a tiny fraction of it could have not just kept Rockridge afloat, but DOUBLED it in size. ...

Donating a dollar to a progressive infrastructure organization like Speak Out California and Commonweal Institute today is like giving ten dollars to EACH progressive candidate in every local, state and nation race this November, two years later, and every election following.

Let me explain what I mean. Progressive infrastructure organizations like Speak Out California and Commonweal Institute are working to help the public understand and appreciate what progressives are about. By explaining the benefits of a progressive approach they help build public acceptance of and demand for progressive policies and candidates -- across the board. As more people understand why progressive solutions benefit them more than conservative proposals, they develop a lasting positive identification with the progressive "brand." Then later, during the election cycle, they vote for progressive candidates -- across the board.

This is how the conservatives have been so successful. They work year-round to convince people to identify as conservatives. (You've probably complained or heard people complain that that have managed to turn "liberal" into a bad word in people's minds.) When election time comes around it's as though all that their candidates have to do is point at the opponent and shout "liberal" to win. They ride a wave of nationally-advanced propaganda convincing people to support "tort reform" or "tax relief." This has been going on for years, so at election time everything is laid out for them on a silver platter, with the public prepared and primed.

Progressive candidates, on the other hand, are generally on their own, starting from scratch for each election. Their general campaign begins in the late summer or fall, they have to decide what "issues" to run on, they have to develop a message from scratch, by themselves, and then they have to reach their voters from scratch. And they have to do all of this on their own in just a few months. No wonder conservatives, even with their awful "you're on your own" philosophy, have managed to do so well and gain so much traction.

This is why building up a national progressive advocacy infrastructure would leverage all of those campaign donations and help us build a sustainable progressive majority. A few dollars to progressive advocacy organizations on any given TODAY builds long-term support for every progressive candidate on any given TOMORROW. It provides leverage -- lowering the need for massive election-cycle funding.

The demise of Rockridge Institute demonstrates that the Democratic Party donor base hasn't yet gotten that message. Instead, masses of money have to be raised for candidates at the very last minute -- for example a million dollars in one minute, the day before the big Pennsylvania primary. And almost all of that money will just literally go up in the air to pay for TV ads that leave nothing behind to show for the money. They don't build the brand, they don't tell people about the benefits of progressive ideas, they don't help other candidates... But almost nothing for the Rockridges and Speak Out California's and Commonweal Institutes.

Please think about donating to help build a solid progressive infrastructure of organizations that will work year-round to help the public understand why progressive policies and candidate are better for them than the conservative solutions. This will help build a sustainable progressive majority in America. Please help these organizations grow. It's about building a progressive ecosystem that benefits all of us.

The Rockridge Institute wasn't the only progressive infrastructure organization that folded this spring. Another was the Center for Policy Alternatives , which shut down in April, 2008, after having been around for 32 years. CPA provided policy ideas for state governments, published an annual collection of policy recommendations, and trained future legislators. Like Rockridge, CPA’s executive director, Tim McFeeley, stated in his final e-mailed message that a main reason for CPA’s demise was the lack of support for infrastructure organizations among progressives.

Dealing with the need for ongoing support for their political movement's operations is a challenge that needs to be addressed successfully, regardless of whether modern "progressives" align themselves more closely with independents or liberals or any particular political party.

I know many people who call themselves progressive, and even more whose sentiments I would consider to be progressive. But VERY few recognize that ongoing support, year after year, not just at election time, will be needed to build and sustain a political movement that works for the things they care about. Fewer still act on that recognition.

This seems to be a blind spot for progressives. They exemplify two American traits--fixation on personality and lack of patience and perspective. Progressives keep looking for a messiah candidate who can lead them out of the wilderness, pumping their dollars into candidates and campaigns, while ignoring the need for continuing work on moving public opinion and building the progressive base between election cycles. Progressive funders, notably including many in large nonprofit foundations as well as individual political donors, tend to make grants for short-term efforts (seldom exceeding 2-3 years), after which they are eager to move on to some exciting new venture, rather than supporting long-term social change efforts that reasonably will take a decade or more to achieve.

Notably, some working with disadvantaged communities are talking about how to do fundraising to “resource the social justice movement.” We can only hope that movement awareness spreads to encompass other issue areas, instead of remaining limited to social justice. After all, we’re all in it together—across the board, people have economic, housing, legal, environmental, educational, medical, and transportation needs—and that list just scratches the surface.

A progressive movement is what we need, and that movement needs SUPPORT. Too bad it didn’t come in time to save Rockridge Institute and Center for Policy Alternatives.

Why does the public flock to conservative / corporate policies that generally run against their own interests? Take tax cuts for the rich, or the current offshore-drilling campaign as examples.

Here is my opinion of the reason: Conservatives have a huge outside-the-party infrastructure devoted to persuading the public to support their policies and progressives do not.

Conservatives recognize the value of movement-building and work steadily to create popular demand, which then gets their candidates elected. This is why so many terrible Republicans are able to get elected just by pointing their finger at their opponent and shouting, "Liberal, Liberal!"

Progressives instead for decades have believed that a candidate will come along who will be so popular that he or she will lead them out of the wilderness, and convince the publi of the rightness of all of their ideas. Therefore almost all of their money and effort goes into short-term election efforts, candidates and the party instead of to ongoing outside-the-party organizations that work over the long term to build lasting demand for their ideas.

Discuss.