Vol. 2 No. 2 (June 2003)
The Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute
www.commonwealinstitute.org
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of
those who have much;
it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
--
It's becoming clearer every day that moderates and progressives need a more
effective way to get their message out. The reason the Right has been so
effective at getting their message out, and getting their politicians
elected, and getting their policies enacted, is that they've established an
extremely well-funded idea-development and communications infrastructure that
has been called "The Mighty Wurlitzer."
This infrastructure consists of think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and
the American Enterprise Institute; radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh; TV
pundits on Fox News; newspapers like the Washington Times and New
York Post, publishing houses like Regnery; and a
variety of other organizations.
All of this constitutes an "infrastructure" because it is already set
up and in place, ready to amplify and disseminate any message that the
conservative movement's ideological leaders feed into it. Moderates and
progressives, meanwhile, don't have anything comparable in place. That has to
change!
Politicians respond to the public - that's their job. So: to change the
country's political climate, we need to change public attitudes, not
just rely on politicians. This is how the Right has accomplished so much. They
have pursued a decades-long strategy of using the media to inundate the public
with ideological messages, year by year nudging the public further to the right
- thus enabling their politicians to move in and harvest the results.
Consider the Right's efforts to undermine public education. For many years they
have been pumping out the message that "public schools are failing,"
and - lo and behold - a consensus forms that the public schools are failing. In
turn, since "failure" implies that there's nothing left to be done,
conservative politicians can more successfully promote school vouchers, rather
than seeking to improve public education through greater investments in
teachers, classroom materials, and physical facilities. Moreover, this is
taking place in the larger context of the conservative campaign to promote all
forms of privatization while demonizing government services - and thus the
specific policy of vouchers gets greater traction in a broader messaging
environment.
Now, compare that to, say, health care reform. Americans have not been widely
exposed, to say the least, to moderate and progressive critiques of the health
care system. Consequently, there is no widespread perception of a problem that
calls for progressive solutions. Those politicians who advocate health care
reform must - from scratch, during the election cycle - seek to explain the nature
of problem and then try to enlist public support for proposals. On the
center-Left, the burden rests with elected leaders because a broad base of
public support for their ideas has not already been developed by a comparable
communications infrastructure. It's like reinventing the wheel while swimming
upstream! And that's where the Commonweal Institute comes in....
The conservative movement infrastructure was set up by a core group of
right-wing activists - including Richard Mellon Scaife, Joseph Coors, and
Rupert Murdoch, among others - with a clear vision and tons of money. That
infrastructure now consists of hundreds of organizations, both large and small,
with some differences between them, but with a remarkable consistency of
strategy and message. These organizations all exist because of the fierce
determination and funding power of a relatively small number of people.
But you might be surprised to know that there's also plenty of moderate and
progressive money. Why, then, is the Right so much more effective? Because it
has focused its money on creating a network of advocacy organizations whose
shared goal is to develop public support for far-right ideology. An emphasis on
general operating funding, with the money flowing year after year,
ensures that these organizations can spend less time raising money and more
time pursuing their ideological agenda.
By contrast, moderate and progressive philanthropists traditionally fund
specific, narrowly-defined projects with limited objectives rather than the
general operations of organizations. This system of "program funding"
evolved as an efficient way to apply scarce resources to projects for which
there was a public consensus of support, such as helping the poor or protecting
the environment.
Times have changed, however. The Right's ideology machine has undermined that
public support, with the result that the program-funding system is becoming
less effective. For example, imagine a 10-year, $500,000-per-year program to
protect a redwood grove. Then a government official decides that the best way
to prevent forest fires is to remove the trees, and can rely on the
conservative infrastructure to get that message out to the public. Next thing
you know, the redwood grove is gone, and the $5,000,000 was spent in vain.
Meanwhile, local right-wing radio personalities mock the program's funders as
"environmental wackos" or
"eco-terrorists," and people picket the funders' offices carrying
signs saying they are "anti-capitalist" or even
"anti-American."
Traditional program funding was not designed to counter this sort of
coordinated assault from the Right, and the conservative movement, with its
allied politicians, is carrying out an agenda of
dismantling moderate and progressive policies and programs that have taken
decades to put into place. Moderates and progressives must build our
own idea-development and communications infrastructure that will move
public attitudes back toward the principles that are so important to all of us:
environmental protection, economic justice, separation of church and state,
accessible health care, excellent public education, a comprehensive approach to
national security.
As a multi-issue, strategic communications organization, the Commonweal
Institute will expand the underlying base of support for moderate and
progressive principles. We will reach the general public with messages and
information designed to move them back from the right. This will grow the base
of support for candidates and organizations that will protect the programs we
care about.
But we can't operate without funding. We need major funding from big donors. In
addition, to comply with IRS regulations, the Commonweal Institute needs many smaller
donations from individuals. So even a $10 contribution
can help a lot. Of course, $100 is that much better. And if you can send
$1,000 or more, it would be a tremendous help. Please write a check now, or donate
online using your credit card. If your employer matches charitable
contributions, please take advantage of that. The Commonweal Institute can
accept donations from outside the
This is your opportunity to help build an organization that will counter
the ideological propaganda of the Right, and defend the programs we all care so
much about. This is your opportunity to make a real difference at this turning
point in the history of American democracy - an opportunity to fight back
effectively against the Right.
Please send your check to: Commonweal Institute,
-- Dave Johnson
WIT AND WISDOM
"It's been reported that five young men in
DISPATCHES
This month, the Uncommon Denominator introduces
a new occasional section, "Dispatches," which features commentary on
politics and culture from correspondents abroad. The idea is to provide an
independent, street-level view of the major issues currently in the news. In
this first installment, Nathan Abrams, a young professor living in
We welcome contributions from people living overseas who can provide
information and/or perspectives on politics and progressive activities. If you
are interested, or know somebody who might be interested, please write the
editor at editor@commonwealinstitute.org.
Before the war in
That's partly because the United States, despite the assistance of prominent
British "neo-cons" (see the New Statesman, May 12, 2003),
presented its case for war so badly (not that the British government did a
sterling job either, having been caught plagiarizing a scholar's work off the
Internet). Indeed, the current U.S. Ambassador to
Britons do not generally disagree with the goals of current
Another argument gaining currency, and most notably forwarded by the editor of
the Sunday weekly The Observer, is that Blair should be pushing the United
Kingdom closer to Europe, towards the European model of social democracy, and
away from the American one of free-market capitalism. Siding with the
Once the war began, however, that opposition melted away - motivated, it was
said, by the feeling that "once our boys are in the field we back
them." But during the war,
When Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad was toppled, few people did not feel a
sense of exhilaration at the end of that regime, and the Blair administration
managed to come through the war largely unscathed (despite the resignations of
Clare Short, the Secretary for International Development, and Robin Cook, the
leader of the House of Commons). Some commentators believe that the recent
mid-term elections in
In any case, the focus in
Meanwhile, it's hard to tell how aware the British public is of Bush's domestic
agenda. But there are suspicions that Bush and Blair are alike in many ways,
both political and personal, including a shared religious faith. This, however,
is played down in the
It's not just the American government that could better present its case to the
British public. Britons who are worried by the Bush administration's policies
need to be reassured that there is an active progressive movement in the
-- Nathan Abrams
QUOTED!
"We are trying to change the tone in state capitals, and turn them toward
bitter nastiness and partisanship. . . . Bipartisanship is another name for
date rapet." -- Grover Norquist,
conservative lobbyist and president of Americans for Tax Reform, quoted in the Denver
Post. Norquist later "clarified" his
comments by arguing that partisanship helps prevent tax increases, and by
attributing the "date rape" comment to former Representative Dick
Armey (R-Tex.), when he was frustrated by minority status in the House.
Norquist, it should be pointed out, is not a
maverick, but one of the central players in the conservative movement. As Media
Transparency notes, he "has close ties to the Republican Party, large
U.S. business interests, and both the subsidized and regular U.S. media. He
truly represents the nexus of politics, business and media."
CHECK IT OUT
Food seems awfully complicated nowadays. Lurking in it might be mad cow
disease, E-coli, botulism, Salmonella, pesticides, and God knows what else.
Genetically modified meats and vegetables are gobbled up every day, but nobody
really seems to understand their long-term effects. The World Trade
Organization and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture are at odds over the rules
governing food importation. Even SARS, we learn, may have crossed into the
human population from the eating of civets, a delicacy in China, although that
is still speculative - like so much else!
National boundaries, species barriers, and biotechnological borders are all
crumbling when it comes to food production. Not even our stomachs, evidently,
are out of reach of the forces of globalization and human ingenuity.
Americans now routinely eat foods shipped in from other countries and climates,
since this is often the cheapest way, or the only way, to get the items we
want. Need a tomato in winter? No problem. Need Chilean sea bass rather than
catfish? Chicken with lots of white meat? Fungi-resistant
melon? No problem.
Meanwhile, new data cited by the International Society for Ecology and Culture
show that one in five American meals are consumed in the family car. Not
Chilean sea bass and melons, certainly, but probably cheeseburgers with ingredients
hailing from at least 3 regional climates and assembled somewhere in the
industrial Midwest. Can this be the best way we have evolved to nourish
ourselves?
No wonder people wonder about what they are feeding their children. And no
wonder that the interest in "organic foods" is rising. But
there's a lot of confusion about what "organic" means. What's a
concerned consumer to do?
First, what is organic food? Well, that depends on who you talk to. Here's how
the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture defines it:
"Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled "organic," a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too."
That sounds pretty
straightforward, but there are a couple of wrinkles. First, the new USDA
Organic seal may be displayed only on products that contain at least 95 percent
organic ingredients by weight - which means that up to 5 percent of the product
can be "non-organic." Only products labeled "100% Organic"
are 100% organic. Products labeled "Made with Organic Ingredients,"
must contain at least 70% organic ingredients by weight. Also, the terms
"natural," "free range," and
"hormone free" are not certified organic by the USDA seal - so
the phrase "all natural" might not quite meet your expectations.
Moreover, some companies try to make certain products appear less
artificial or less processed. This is a type of "greenwashing,"
or the effort (by certain corporations and their political allies) to come
across as more environmentally friendly than they actually are. For example,
two different boxes of rice pilaf sit on the shelf; one manufacturer doesn't
use MSG (which has a bad reputation), but triples the amount of sodium to get
the same taste and preservative effect. Which box is better? At the moment, the
answer is largely up to you, your personal health priorities and philosophy. So
it is still caveat emptor! Buyer beware!
Fortunately, two recent developments signal that changes are coming to help
make these choices easier. First, in April the Senate repealed an anti-organic
rider passed in February which was designed to undermine the six-month-old
national organic standards and labeling program administered by the Dept. of
Agriculture.
Secondly, new research released on April 1 shows that consumers are willing to
"put their money where their mouths are," especially concerning
global food safety, food supply, and the effect farming has on the environment.
(See the complete study, "Food
from our Changing World," or a brief summary.)
Given sufficient pressure, the food industry giants who have opposed
transparency and national standards can't ignore public demand forever.
Therefore, while food producers complain about the supposed burdens of labeling
and other regulations designed to serve the public good, concerned consumers
should make sure to ask questions at the point of purchase. Try to shop at a
farmer's market, join a local food co-op or farmer's association, or just
become a familiar face to the clerks in your supermarket. Ask lots of questions;
they will take notice. If they don't or can't answer your questions to your
satisfaction, you can always take your business elsewhere. For business to change, there has to be feedback from the customer. Your
fussy shopping habits can help ensure a better food supply for yourself and
your community. Finally, you can simply grow your own food - herbs and
vegetables from your back-yard garden can go much further than you might think.
(OrganicGardening.com has lots of
information about this).
If you're interested in reading more about organic foods and food politics,
check out the following sources:
Earthbound Farm, a
national supplier of organic foods based in
The Rodale Institute, which "works
with people worldwide to achieve a regenerative food system that renews and
improves environmental and human health, working with the philosophy that
"Healthy Soil = Healthy Food = Healthy People."
The Center for Rural Affairs,
"a private, non-profit organization . . . working to strengthen small
businesses, family farms and ranches, and rural communities."
The Whole Earth Policy Institute,
"dedicated to providing a vision of what an environmentally sustainable
economy - an eco-economy - looks like, as well as a roadmap of how to get from
here to there."
Julia A. Moore's "Food
Fights", an online review of Mark L. Winston's Travels in the
Genetically Modified Zone (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2002)
Erik Millstone and Tim Lang's The Penguin Atlas of Food: Who Eats What,
Where and Why (New York: Penguin, 2003)
Marion Nestle's Safe Food: Bacteria,
Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2003).
The more that we as consumers know, and the more noise we make about safety and transparency, the better chance we have of making a difference. The giants of the food industry might want us to believe that their way is the only way - but that's only true if they get their way.
-- Karen Watters Cole
HAPPENINGS
The Commonweal Institute is proud to announce the addition of two new members
to its advisory board. Paul Sheldon is a private development consultant
specializing in non-profit fund-raising, board development, and philanthropic
advising. He helped to organize the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Los
Angeles-based TreePeople, Friends of the
The Uncommon Denominator would like to welcome aboard two new
contributors. Karen Watters Cole, who describes herself as a
"political junkie traditional mom," has done much volunteer work for
women's groups, schools, and the arts. Nathan Abrams, who teaches U.S.
History and Film at the University of London, is co-editor of Containing
Culture (Birmingham University Press, 2000) and co-author of Studying
Film (Arnold, 2001), and is currently working on a book about Commentary
magazine.
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, Democratic Leader 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
© 2003 The Commonweal Institute
To subscribe to this free e-newsletter, send an email to:
subscribe-news@commonwealinstitute.org.
If you no longer wish to receive the Uncommon Denominator, send an email
to: unsubscribe-news@commonwealinstitute.org.