Vol. 2 No. 11 (March 2004)
The Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute
www.commonwealinstitute.org
"The basic tool
for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can
control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the
words."
-- Philip K. Dick
Eye on the
Right: Talking the talk....
Talking
Points: Reform the presidential nominating process
Wit and Wisdom:
"Paramount Options Book of Job"
Check It
Out: The evils of agriculture
Featured
Article: "The New Pentagon Papers"
Quoted!
Steven Moore on the federal budget deficit
Happenings
Talking politics workshop; PFAW on board
Endorsements:
Anne Firth
Get
Involved: Spread the word; become a contributor
EYE ON THE RIGHT
If you've noticed conservative politicians sounding strangely pro-environment
lately, it's not a coincidence. Rather, it's a campaign designed to reduce
the political liability of right-wing candidates on environmental issues.
Unfortunately, the campaign is strictly rhetorical -- it's not about changing
policies but about changing language.
And that's where Frank Luntz comes in. Luntz, the boyish Svengali of
conservative politics, and the kind of person Philip Dick was talking about
(see above), made his name as a pollster who concentrated on identifying the
words that would prove most resonant with the American public. Now, in his
message book "Straight Talk," Luntz brings his dark arts to the task
of helping Republicans package themselves as concerned about the environment
without actually having to be concerned.
The basic Luntzian strategies are the following. First, use words and
phrases that are proven crowd-pleasers, rather than those that express the
truth. He recommends the term "climate change," for instance, because
it is "less frightening" than "global warming." Second, assure
the public that you really do care, by framing all your comments on
environmental policy with a green-sounding principle, such as "The
environment is precious to all of us." Third, portray government as the
real problem, since it hinders a "sensible" approach to
"managing" the environment, and hold up technological and corporate
"solutions" to environmental problems. Fourth, stick to your guns:
deregulation, devolution, deforestation.
A good example of the Luntz approach: "You must explain how it is possible
to pursue a common sense or sensible environmental policy that 'preserves all
the gains of the past two decades' without going to extremes, and allows for
new science and technologies to carry us even further. Give citizens the idea
that progress is being frustrated by over-reaching Government, and you will hit
a very strong strain in the American psyche." (For a serio-comic send-up
of the whole Luntz operation, go to luntzspeak.com.)
Now, the Uncommon Denominator does not pretend to be shocked that a
political consultant would advocate particular kinds of language use and
political marketing. What distinguishes the "Luntz memo," however, is
the depth of cynicism it reveals, particularly on an issue of such vital
importance to so many people.
Consider. In discussing global warming and the Kyoto Treaty, Luntz admits that
"the scientific debate is closing against us, but not yet closed. There is
still a window of opportunity to challenge the science." Then, lower on
the page, he offers the following "Language That Works": "We
must not rush to judgment before all the facts are in. We need to ask more
questions. We deserve more answers. And until we learn more, we should not
commit
Such perverse disregard for an issue where millions of lives are involved is
truly malignant. To dispute the science sincerely is one thing. But to
acknowledge the science and then suggest ways of talking around it plumbs the
depths of self-interested opportunism.
Luntz makes another telling admission: "When we talk about 'rolling back
regulations' involving the environment, we are sending a signal Americans don't
support. If we suggest that the choice is between environmental protection and
deregulation, the environment will win consistently."
There's a reason for that, Frank. And let's hope the environment continues to
win consistently!
TALKING POINTS
The recent Democratic primary, in which John Kerry first won in
In some regards, it works well. There is a meaningful range of views that
showcase real diversity of opinion, in sharp contrast to our many elections
that feature lopsided runaways or cagey candidates muddying their positions.
The intense focus on
But we can do better. Here's our wish list of reforms for future primaries:
* Rotate opening states:
* Start later: Some misguided party leaders may want an early nominee,
but hardly anyone else yearns for a nine-month general election campaign of
sniping and personal attacks. Primaries should run from March to June.
* An inclusive schedule: Republicans in 2000 nearly adopted the "
* Require full representation: In Democratic primaries and caucuses,
candidates win a fair share of convention delegates through full
representation, where winning 25 percent of the vote earns at least 25 percent
of delegates. Republicans mostly use winner-take-all primaries, where the
first-place finisher receives all delegates even if winning far less than a
majority. Winner-take-all distorts results and can allow an unrepresentative
candidate to win big when the opposition vote is split among several
candidates. Both parties should require full representation and consider
lowering the 15% threshold of support now necessary for Democrats to win
delegates.
* Adopt
* Remember the youth: While their turnout remains low, young voters are
participating in greater numbers in 2004.
* Fix the financing: When most leading candidates opt out of public financing,
the system is broken. We should provide a four-to-one public match for small
donations and give participating candidates additional funds when opponents opt
out.
We deserve elections in which more of us can make a difference, where choices are meaningful, and where our votes count. Political parties can adopt most of these changes on their own without waiting for Congress to pass new legislation. Let's push for reform before 2008.
-- Rob Richie and Steven Hill
PARAMOUNT OPTIONS BOOK OF JOB
Bible Pic to Star Adam Sandler
"In the wake of Mel Gibson's smash hit 'The Passion of the Christ,'
Paramount Pictures today announced that it had optioned the exclusive motion
picture rights to The Book of Job as a vehicle for comedy superstar Adam
Sandler.
-- from the Borowitz Report. Read more.
CHECK IT OUT
In this day and age, littered as it is with the discarded shibboleths and
certainties of a more complacent time, it has been nice to imagine agriculture
as a bulwark against the disorienting changes of our modernity. Agriculture
feeds people. The farm nourishes virtue and undergirds our national
independence and integrity. Agriculture links old civilizations and new with a
bracing sense of historical continuity….
Alas - here comes Richard Manning to deprive us of even these few comforting
beliefs. In Against the Grain: How Agriculture Has Hijacked Civilization
(North Point Press, 2004), Manning sees the history of agriculture as a story
of ever-increasing damage both to ecosystems and to the psychological and social
health of human beings. Observing that agriculture arose as a result of the
understandable desire of people to stay well-fed, Manning demonstrates that it
then came to distort or dominate the major political economies, from European
colonialism and
Not only has Manning put in an impressive amount of research, he draws
creatively on insights from evolutionary science, archaeology, philosophy,
anthrpology, and other disciplines that can shed light on the history of
agriculture. The book is definitely a gripping read, if not a cheery one. Check
it out.
FEATURED ARTICLE
The following is an excerpt from "The New Pentagon Papers," by
Karen Kwiatkowski, a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force who worked
in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans during the lead-up to the war in
Iraq. Her account of the Pentagon's use of intelligence to support the war
appeared in the March 10, 2004, edition of Salon magazine.
"From May 2002 until February 2003, I observed firsthand the formation of
the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the
neoconservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the
invasion of Iraq. This seizure of the reins of U.S. Middle East policy was
directly visible to many of us working in the Near East South Asia policy
office, and yet there seemed to be little any of us could do about it.
I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy favored by some executive appointees in
the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship
between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies. . . .
At the time, I didn't realize that the expertise on Middle East policy was not
only being removed, but was also being exchanged for that from various
agenda-bearing think tanks, including the Middle East Media Research Institute,
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the Jewish Institute for
National Security Affairs. Interestingly, the office director billet stayed
vacant the whole time I was there. That vacancy and the long-term absence of
real regional understanding to inform defense policymakers in the Pentagon
explains a great deal about the neoconservative approach on the Middle East and
the disastrous mistakes made in Washington and in Iraq in the past two
years."
Click
here to read the whole article.
QUOTED!
"Adding unnecessary and wasteful spending to the budget when we already
have a half-trillion dollars of deficit spending is a form of fiscal child
abuse." -- Steven Moore, president of the ultra-conservative Club
for Growth, as quoted in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, January 23, 2004
HAPPENINGS
On March 21, the Commonweal Institute sponsored a workshop, "Talking
Politics with People Not Like You," with Dr. Katherine Forrest as
trainer. The attendees were a diverse group of activists affiliated with a
variety of Silicon Valley organizations. They shared practical experience and
learned how to apply lessons from social psychology in discussing politics with
strangers and relatives of differing ages and backgrounds. Dr. Forrest is
available to deliver similar workshops to other groups. To make arrangements,
contact her at kforrest@commonwealinstitute.org
or 650-854-9796.
In November, 2003, Leonard Salle and Katherine Forrest met with Peter
Montgomery, Vice President of Communications at People for the American Way, to
request PFAW's active involvement with the issues of election security
surrounding electronic voting machines. Further conversations and internal
deliberations at PFAW resulted in that organization issuing an official policy statement.
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 Muray (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. Or call 650-854-9796. Your support is essential.
© 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.