Vol. 2 No. 9 (January 2004)
The Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute
www.commonwealinstitute.org
"No protracted
war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country .... War does not
always give over democratic communities to military government, but it must
invariably and immeasurably increase the power of civil government; it must
almost compulsorily concentrate the direction of all men and the management of
all things in the hands of the administration. If it does not lead to despotism
by sudden violence, it prepares men for it more gently by their habits."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville
Talking
Points: Reframing terrorism
Wit and Wisdom: Drilling on Mars
Around the Corner: Surveilling
surveillance technologies
Quoted! O'Neal Dozier on God-fearing judges
Check It Out: R.I.P. for S.U.V.'s
Happenings: Speaking out on voting machines
and tort reform
Endorsements: Anne Firth
Get Involved: Spread the word; become a
contributor
TALKING POINTS
In the wake of 9/11, ultraconservatives have used the concept of a War on
Terrorism (WOT) - a "war" with no foreseeable end and hidden enemies
lurking everywhere - to tighten control over the American public, undermine
civil liberties, advance their own foreign policy agenda, distract attention
from their own controversial domestic agenda, and intimidate the opposition.
We can expect terrorism to remain a dominant media story throughout 2004, and
terrorism-related media-worthy events to be used in service of the political
goals of the far right.
In the face of the media-dramatized WOT,
it has been hard for dissenting voices to be heard. Opposition to conservative
policies and actions, and to Republican candidates, is met by accusations that
the opponents are unpatriotic or seek to put Americans at risk.
Unless moderates and progressives find ways of dealing effectively with the
terrorism issue, they will continue to be disadvantaged in the political arena.
Unfortunately, their efforts to deal with the topic in the media often
inadvertently end up reinforcing the importance of the issue and the
conservatives' ways of talking and thinking about it. A key concept here is
that of framing.
What is framing? The following explanation is excerpted from the website of the
FrameWorks
Institute in
With regard to terrorism, a frame that portrays the efforts against terrorism
as a war, with terrorists as individual enemies and tightly-knit groups of
plotters, evokes images of heroic action figures who
single-handedly take on and vanquish the menacing foe. This leads naturally to
images of war, heroic soldiers,
Repetition of a frame reinforces it. Every mention of terrorism that uses
language or images that reinforce the WOT frame strengthens the political
position of the Bush administration. Each reference to the "war on
terror" evokes a response that is favorable to leaders and an
administration that are seen as decisive and action-oriented. This is true
whether the speaker who says the word "war" is a conservative or a
progressive. It is true even when one refers to a "war of ideas" or a
"war of values."
Terrorism and national security are issues that need reframing from a
perspective that will benefit moderates and progressives, and weaken the
potency of terrorism for those who are using it as a political tool. There
is an urgent need, therefore, for moderates and progressives to pay attention
to the framing of terrorism and the role of language and metaphor in supporting
the present frame, which works to their disadvantage.
The new frame may address the nature of terrorism - what it is like - as well
as its origins. It should encompass the role of government and leaders both in
protecting the country from possible consequences of terrorist impulses
(domestic and foreign), and in decreasing the probability of terrorist attacks
in the future. Reframing could also help decrease the general level of anxiety
about terrorism. Further, for those who do not want to see our country locked
into the perpetual "war" posited by those now in
power, reframing will be needed to support a different image of
leadership - a leader or leaders who are appropriate for carrying out a
protective, nonmilitary campaign.
Unfortunately, at this point almost all of us have incorporated quite a bit of
the conservative frame into our mental constructs-our ways of thinking about
terrorism-so changing the frame will be a challenge.
Developing alternative framing is the first step, a step that requires
understanding and thought. Research is crucial - research into how the issue is
being framed now, how the public thinks about the general subject, and testing
of possible alternative frames and wording to make sure they evoke the desired
response. The right wing does this all the time. Moderates and progressives
could, too, if they recognized the importance of framing and language, and put
the appropriate resources into mastering these communication tools. The
development of new framing has to start now, not in some indefinite future, and
it will not happen unless resources are committed to making it happen.
Finally, it will not be enough simply to have a new frame "on the
books." If the new frame is to be truly effective, it will have to be used
consistently and by many separate voices, with the appropriate language and
images, until public attitudes fundamentally change. Moderate and progressive
leaders, spokespersons, candidates, writers-and many members of the public-will
need to adopt and consistently use the new framing in talking about terrorism,
framing that will NOT evoke the conservative model. They will need to use the
words and metaphors that will work to their advantage, rather than those that
reinforce the conservative position. They will need to use the words and
metaphors for which a measured, cooperative, and statesmanlike leadership style
will seem necessary and appropriate, rather than inadequate and ineffective.
The task of reframing terrorism thus belongs to the whole moderate-progressive
community, not just to individual candidates, the
Democratic party, or Moveon.org. We must work together if we are going to
regain our ability to define the world and the terms on which
WIT AND WISDOM
"President Bush announced a billion-dollar mission to the moon and Mars.
He came up with a snappy new slogan: To drill where no man has drilled
before." -- Craig Kilborn.
AROUND THE CORNER
"The progress of science is not likely to stop with wiretapping,"
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in 1928, recognizing then
that the telephone -- still a relatively new technology -- enabled new forms of
"trespass" beyond any contemplated by the framers of the
Constitution. Yet Brandeis's prescience was not reflected in law until 1967,
when the Supreme Court ruled in Katz v. United States that
electronic surveillance fell under the "search and seizure"
limitations of the Fourth Amendment. The following year, the U.S. Congress
enacted the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which included
the first codified guidelines for electronic surveillance: namely, that the
content of wire communications could be seized only in criminal cases, with a
court order and probable cause, and that wiretapping could be used only as a
"last resort" for the most serious crimes, and carried out so as to
minimize inte! rception
of innocent conversations.
Yet as Brandeis predicted, the "science" of surveillance has not
stopped evolving, and some of its technological innovations now make wiretaps
seem positively quaint.
Newer "packet-switched" telecommunication technologies merge voice,
data and video. Open and networked, they are capable of cheaply storing and
widely distributing huge quantities of personal information, and, in the case
of wireless phones, can provide real-time location tracking. At the same time,
the refinement of digital video technology, with its superior picture quality,
means the cheaper transmission of far-flung video feeds and the cheaper storage,
retrieval, and distribution of high-resolution images. Indeed, it will soon be
technically and economically feasible to deploy cameras -- linked by via
wireless data networks to a centralized database -- throughout every
metropolitan area in the
Meanwhile, several other new surveillance technologies are moving beyond the
R&D stage into practicability: video surveillance by drones on unmanned
aircraft, night-time sky surveillance over
Individually and in tandem, these technologies have radically expanded the
means by which authorities can monitor citizens -- much faster than the legal
system has been able to adapt. As of early 2003, for example, no comprehensive
regulation of the acceptable parameters of video surveillance of public areas
by government or private organizations exists. At the same time, as attorney James
X. Dempsey has demonstrated in "Communications
Privacy in the Digital Age", the strict guidelines for government
surveillance established by the 1968 Omnibus Crime Act have been steadily
relaxed in regard to newer technologies. To take just one example, the FBI has
used the 1994 Community Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) to require
wireless phone companies to collect location-signaling information on network
users, and to allow the interception of packet-data communications without
probable cause or a se! arch warrant.
Predictably, such encroachment on the Fourth Amendment has accelerated since
9/11. The USA
Patriot Act allows federal authorities to monitor Internet activity such as
web browsing and e-mail without establishing probable cause -- even if the
person monitored is not a criminal suspect (see Section 216). (The Homeland Security Act
of 2002 extends this power to state and local police.) In addition, the
Patriot Act expands the scope of information that law enforcement can subpoena
from Internet Service Providers, including records of session times and
duration, temporary network addresses, and means and source of payment (see
Sections 210 and 212). The "Roving Wiretap" provision of The Patriot
Act gives investigators the right to expand wiretaps to include unspecified
third parties, potentially undermining the letter and spirit of the
"minimization" requirement of traditional law (see Section 217).
In this ever-changing technological era, one of the most important progressive
political projects should be the campaign for a comprehensive (and ongoing)
renovation of surveillance law that balances legitimate security needs with
sacrosanct Constitutional protections. Among the critical components of such an "architecture of privacy":
Expansion of existing wiretap law to protect citizens
against the unreasonable search and seizure of wireless and packet-switched
data
Federal guidelines regarding video surveillance of public spaces, specifying
its legitimate uses in law enforcement and intelligence gathering
Regulation of video and Internet surveillance in the workplace, ensuring
standards for notice, access to information, and use limitations. (Former
Senator Paul Simon's "Privacy for Consumers and Workers Act," drafted
in 1993 and defeated in committee, would be a good place to start)
We at the Commonweal Institute recognize that the politics
of privacy are complicated, that privacy interests must be weighed against
other social needs, and that privacy means different things to different
people. But the kinds of changes Americans are now witnessing (or experiencing)
should not take place without full public awareness and a vigorous debate --
and perhaps not even then. The greatest strength of the
-- Philip Leggiere
QUOTED!
"This country is founded on the principles of Christianity, not the
principles of Buddhism, not the principles of Judaism...I don't believe the
developers of the Constitution would want us to compromise our Christian
values....I want to know the applicants' spiritual makeup....It tells me a lot
about a person. I think a judge should be God-fearing." -- O'Neal Dozier,
pastor of the fundamentalist Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach, and
one of Florida Governor Jeb Bush's appointees to the 15th Judicial Circuit
Judicial Nomination Commission, as quoted by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.
Read more
on how judicial appointees are questioned about their personal lives and
religious beliefs.
CHECK IT OUT
Do S.U.V.s outrage you? Do you resent not being able to see
traffic in front of them when you're caught behind them? Are you concerned by
the fact that their bumpers are at about the same height as your head? Perhaps
you have more philosophically or politically informed objections: they
contribute to global warming; they enthrall us to the
If not, please skip to the next section. If so, you might want to check out the
following:
Earth
on Empty. A guerrilla team that
"tickets" S.U.V.s. Their faux
"violation" notices, which resemble parking infractions, are intended
to open people's eyes to the destructiveness of these oversized vehicles. Many
of those ticketed react with anger, but some have responded positively -- and
the idea in either case is to stigmatize S.U.V. ownership as a morally questionable
behavior. You can order tickets
through their website, or write to Earth on Empty,
Friends of the Earth. They operate a site called
www.suv.org, where one can buy anti-S.U.V.
bumper-stickers (e.g., "Support OPEC. Buy an S.U.V."), or send a
ready-made postcard to automakers which reads: "Next time I shop for a
vehicle, I would like to buy a car with the lowest emissions, highest fuel
efficiency, and cleanest production processes technologically possible. Please
provide affordable clean green cars for consumers like me as soon as
possible."
Our
For the more serious-minded, a useful resource is the Green Book, a
publication of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy that
provides information about the energy consumption and exhaust output of a
variety of vehicles. Even if you're not in the market for a new car, pass it on
to people who are. Available
online.
HAPPENINGS
Presentation on Electronic Voting and Other Election Hazards -- On
January 12, Commonweal Institute co-founder Katherine Forrest and Advisory
Board member Dennis Paull spoke in San Mateo, California, at an event
hosted by Peace Action. Attendees hailed from a wide variety of communities,
reflecting widespread concern about the new voting machines currently being
adopted by a number of counties around the San Francisco Bay Area.
TRIAL Magazine Highlights CI's Report on Tort Reform -- David Casey,
President of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, has reviewed
"The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law" in the current edition. If
you haven't had a chance to read the report yet, click here to
download. N.B.: The full report runs approximately 1 megabyte.
ENDORSEMENTS
"The Commonweal Institute has taken on an ambitious set of tasks designed
to ensure that progressive and just perspectives will be heard on the issues of
the day. In a time when individual rights and basic democratic principles are
under threat, the work of the Commonweal Institute is particularly
important." -- Anne Firth Murray, Founder, Global Fund for Women
GET INVOLVED
If you agree with Anne Firth Murray (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.
© 2004 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.
Privacy Policy: The Commonweal Institute does not share subscriber email
addresses with any other organization or individuals.