Vol. 3 No. 5 (September 2004)

Uncommon Denominator

The Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute
www.commonwealinstitute.org

"While the people retain their virtue, and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government, in the short space of four years."
-- Abraham Lincoln

Talking Points: The art of persuasion
Wit and Wisdom: Ralph Nader's power base?
Eye on the Right: Metastasizing preemption
Check It Out: 50 years of campaign ads
Featured Article: Ex-pats and the vote
Quoted! George W. Bush on the obstetric profession
Happenings: September grab-bag
Endorsements: Robert Reich
Get Involved: Spread the word; become a contributor

TALKING POINTS

We've all probably had the experience of debating politics with someone and feeling that the whole thing is pretty useless -- that nobody's going to change or even reevaluate their position. That doesn't have to be the case, however. Understanding some of the common stages in how political views evolve, and knowing how to converse effectively about politics, can greatly help you in bringing people around to your point of view and in motivating them to action. You might never convince old Uncle Frank that his favorite talk show host is an idiot, but you'd be surprised at the success you can have with those who are not fiercely committed to their position or who are on the fence.

This is the gist of a new Commonweal Institute initiative titled "Talking Politics with People Unlike Ourselves," a series of progressive workshops that has gained national attention. We recognize that you might not be able to make it to one of these workshops, so here's a synopsis of the material covered, explaining some of the techniques that you can use now -- as the election looms ever nearer -- to:

* Get more people to vote your way
* Move fence-sitters to action
* Increase your influence and persuasiveness
* Motivate people who are on your side philosophically
* Recognize and take advantage of unexpected opportunities for political influence
* Avoid alienating those who are unready to change
* Not waste time on people who are not good prospects for action

The first thing to do is: Figure out the other person. Who are they? What are they thinking about? Are they ready to change or take action? The most important rules to keep in mind are: Ask Questions. Listen Carefully. Be Patient. Also, the more a political issue can be personalized for someone, the closer it comes to something that matters deeply to them, the better chance you'll have of capturing their interest and getting them to move. Ask questions like:

* Are you planning to vote in November?
* Who are you thinking of voting for?
* Is your mind pretty well made up, or are you still undecided or wavering?
* What are the things you like about the candidate? What do you dislike?
* As far as you're concerned, what is the most important political issue this year?
* Why is it important to you? Have you or others you know been personally affected by it?
* How much do you know about the candidates' positions on that issue?

If your conversation partner seems like a good prospect for change, the key thing is to appeal to their feelings rather than just analyzing the facts. Affirm the person's emotional discomfort with the "wrong" candidate or position, and reinforce their attraction to your own candidate or position. Let them know they are not alone in those feelings. Convey that you understand them, are like them, and share their values and concerns. You can talk about your own feelings, why this election matters to you, why you've decided to do what you're doing now. If you used to think more like the person you're talking with and have changed, let them know-your experience can serve as a model for their change.

If the person you're talking with is actively thinking of changing in a direction you like (deciding to vote, change political party, support your preferred candidate), they need reinforcement and social support. They also need a concrete plan of action. What would you like them to do? Let's say you want them to register to vote, and they're thinking about doing so. That means the person has to get a form for the right voting district, fill it out correctly, sign it, and send it in (or have someone else send it in) by a certain date. Suggest several sources for voting forms-e.g., public library, local registrar of voters, online. If they have more than one option, they're more likely to succeed. Help the person prepare for potential obstacles: What if there's a snowstorm on election day? What if they can't find a babysitter? What can they do so they'll still be able to make it to the polls?

Encourage your conversation partner to make some kind of commitment. This makes it much more likely that they will follow through. You can ask them to make a promise, or to declare their intentions out loud. If a swing state voter says she'll vote for your candidate, let her know that you'll tell the local party folks about that, and that people will be counting on her vote. This principle of commitment is also a good reason to ask people to sign petitions or write letters-because they'll then be more likely to take other actions to express their support for the same issue.

Finally, ask for more. This is not the year to be shy. Ask your progressive friends to make donations, to go to events with you, to help out with voter registration. Even if they're already planning to vote "the right way," there's probably a bit more they can do, and every little bit will help.

And what about old Uncle Frank and his stubborn belief that Sean Hannity is a journalist? Well, the Uncle Franks of the world may be a lost cause. Remember, there's not much time left before the election, so don't waste it on pointless arguments -- and sometimes these argument will even reinforce your opponent's views as they get fired up. Better to concentrate your time and energy on the battles you can win.

WIT AND WISDOM

"According to a global poll, if the world could vote for president of the United States, they would choose John Kerry over President Bush. However, when the poll includes the federation of planets, then Ralph Nader wins." -- Jay Leno

EYE ON THE RIGHT

In April, 2003, as "major combat" in Iraq was winding down, the Uncommon Denominator offered a number of observations and predictions about the war. Now, as the U.S. body count has surpassed 1,000, and as untold numbers of Iraqis continue to die in the grinding conflict, it seems fitting to revisit those earlier predictions and see where we stand. The first three, in order, were:

"Most Desirable Outcomes. A better life for the Iraqi people. A revitalized country that ably balances pluralism, self-determination, and civil liberties. Harmonious relationships with Iraq's neighbors and the world community. A world in which the threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are diminished. An American administration and public that are humbled rather than inflated by our display of military power.

Least Desirable Outcomes. The radicalization of large numbers of young Arab and Muslim men. Breakup of Iraq into warring fiefdoms. The acceleration of an informal diplomatic partnership among European and Asian nations designed to counterbalance American power. Proliferation of nuclear armaments. A successful effort by the American right to identify love of country with political conservatism, further stifling open debate.

Most Dangerous Prospect for the Iraqi People. That their country becomes the next Lebanon. Look at what happened the Beirut, the erstwhile cultural jewel of the Middle East, which was destroyed by internal factionalism and external opportunism. The risk to Iraq is that the U.S. will not fully commit to its reconstruction, which will require great patience and attention, an openness to other viewpoints and to methods of compromise, and a willingness to spend billions of dollars on other people's welfare. Unfortunately, our track record in such places as Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Haiti is not so good. But the stakes are higher this time."

How distant the desirable outcomes seem! How horribly real seem the undesirable ones! How did we get to this pass, and how will we find our way out?

There is no end of commentary to the effect that the war in Iraq is failing, or at least costing much more in blood and treasure than we had a right to expect, because it was poorly planned and has been poorly executed. What's less remarked is how the mindset that got us into the war is beginning to show up in other areas as well.

In the summer of 2002, we started hearing a lot about "preemption," and about the supposed right of the U.S. to engage in "preemptive" war against states that might, at some point, threaten us. What's interesting, in a dismaying sort of way, is to consider how the doctrine of preemption is not just military, but part of a larger approach to policy and people.

In narrow terms, preemption means taking action before somebody else does something to you. But we can, and should, define it more broadly. Preemption can also be seen as acting before you should act, or have the right to act, or have the knowledge to act sensibly. In these senses, it's very similar to acting prematurely. And it doesn't have to be military in nature.

Troublingly, the doctrine of preemption is asserting itself in other forms than warfare, and other locations than Iraq. The FBI, it was recently reported, has been questioning political dissenters not just before they've done anything, but even before there's evidence that they might do something. The Justice Department defends this "investigative" practice on the grounds that they need to know -- in advance -- about potential terrorist threats to political figures. The problem is that the only basis on which they decide whom to investigate is political speech, and there's no apparent limit to how long-lived or how widespread these question-and-answer sessions might run.

Times, "students at the predominantly black Prairie View A&M University were threatened with arrest by the local district attorney, a Republican, who suggested they were not eligible to vote in the county in which the school was located."

And it goes on. The U.S. has prematurely and dangerously abandoned its full commitment to the reconstruction of Afghanistan -- perhaps in order to "preempt" the possibility that it might end up costing too much in blood and treasure. In Iraq, after preemptively invading, the U.S. prematurely disempowered former Baath party members; prematurely launched an assault against Fallujah and then prematurely called it off; prematurely granted reconstruction contracts to the profiteering Halliburton; prematurely safeguarded the Ministry of Oil while allowing libraries and museums to be looted; and is prematurely supporting an Iraqi prime minister, Ayad Allawi, whose commitment to democracy is deeply questionable.

The lesson of all of this is not only that acting preemptively is a recipe for disaster, but that we should be alert to the various forms that preemption can take. It's bad militarily, it's bad politically, it's bad constitutionally, it's bad ethically, and these drawbacks cannot be disentangled from one another. Anticipating problems down the road, and taking the long view, is certainly a good thing -- which is exactly where preemption fails.

CHECK IT OUT

Given the dismal sniping and insulting distortions characteristic of most political TV ads, it's perhaps hard to imagine why a person would want to watch more of them, voluntarily. But taken together, and abstracted from their immediate context, they actually form a surprisingly entertaining genre -- especially when we can view them at our pleasure, rather than gritting our teeth or simply leaving the room while we wait for The Game to come back on. They can also reveal more than they were originally intended to.

That seems to be the premise behind "The Living Room Candidate," a project of the American Museum of the Moving Image, which has collected more than 250 presidential campaign commercials, dating from 1952 all the way through 2004, and made them available online. Taken together, they form a pretty good picture of the political soul of the country for the last half-century -- or at least of how presidential campaigns have imagined that soul. Watch Eisenhower's wholesome "The Man from Abilene," aired during his 1952 campaign against Adlai Stevenson. Watch Lyndon Johnson's supremely potent "Daisy" ad from 1962, from which Barry Goldwater never recovered. Watch a helmeted Michael Dukakis roll around in a tank as if he were in league with the George Bush, Sr., communications team. Watch as many as you want!

In addition to the TV clips themselves, "The Living Room Candidate" provides historical overviews of each campaign, information on modern political advertising on the Web, and good searchability.

And if you burn out on politics, the American Museum of the Moving Image has created other online exhibitions, including:

"Pinewood Dialogues Online" -- "in-depth conversations with innovative and influential creative figures in film, television, and digital media."

"Computer Space" -- "provides a tour of some of the classic video arcade games in the Museum's collection. The exhibition includes information on the history of the games, and provides links to downloadable versions of some of the games discussed."

"Shutters, Sprockets, and Tubes" -- "six animated interactive tutorials that explain the science and technology behind movies and television."

All in all, a good site. Check it out.

QUOTED!

"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of the business! Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their . . . their love with women all across this country!" -- President George W. Bush, at a campaign rally in Poplar Bluff, Missouri

FEATURED ARTICLE

Is the Pentagon, for partisan reasons, deliberately making it more difficult for American civilians overseas to register to vote? Salon magazine suggests that might be the case. Here's an excerpt from Farhad Manjoo's "The Pentagon Doesn't Want You To Vote Overseas," which appeared Sept. 21:

"On Monday, the International Herald Tribune reported that the Pentagon is restricting international access to the Web site for the Federal Voting Assistance Program, the official government agency that helps Americans living abroad register to vote in the November election....

"Over the past year, the Federal Voting Assistance Program Web site has been widely advertised all over the foreign press as the way for Americans to get help on how to vote in the upcoming election. The site, which is maintained by the Department of Defense, is a nonpartisan, comprehensive, and official clearinghouse for voting registration information. Now that it's been put off-limits to many Americans just before registration deadlines kick in, activists fear that Americans will be unfairly barred from voting this year."

Click here to read the whole article.

HAPPENINGS

Prolific CI Fellow Laurie Spivak has published two more article in AlterNet, an online progressive magazine. The first, titled "Republican Reality Check," explains one of the central conceptual dilemmas confronting modern conservatism. Here's an excerpt: "The problem for conservative politicians is that they have spent their lives in the airy-fairy realm of ideals and their careers demonizing the public sector and tearing down government institutions and programs for sport. As conservative commentator Tucker Carlson said, 'A basic tenet of conservatism is that it's much easier to destroy things than to create them.' He added, 'much easier, and more fun, too.' And that's exactly the point. Creating something in the public sector is enormously difficult. It requires vision, innovation, hard work, compromise and a fundamental belief in the potential of the public sector for good." Read the whole article here.

Laurie Spivak's other recent article, "Not On Our Side," discusses MoveOn's 10 Weeks political ad campaign: "While the jury is out as to whether celebrity endorsements have any impact on campaigns, what MoveOn PAC has done, by tapping into the creativity of the artistic community rather than simply trading on celebrity, is clearly groundbreaking&.In the long run, the real potential may be to use television and this creative energy&.to speak directly to the American public with a resonance that political ads have never before achieved. The challenge is not only to raise awareness and to speak the truth, but moreover to articulate, promote and bring to life the progressive values that unite us as a nation." Read "Not On Our Side" here.

Jeff Elder, a reporter at the Charlotte Observer, a Knight-Ridder paper, interviewed CI co-founder Katherine Forrest about the Commonweal Institute's "Talking Politics" initiative (see "Talking Points" above). His story ran on Sept. 12, and then went out on the Knight-Ridder wire. Read the original story online.

As part of its ongoing effort to help ensure that new electronic voting machines do not pose a threat to the integrity of the November elections, the Commonweal Institute has submitted commentary to the Secretary of State of Ohio. "There is no magic bullet," the CI memo noted. "However, there are a number of discrete pieces, each of which is necessary, but not sufficient when taken alone, to assure election integrity." It made specific recommendations for five separate phases in the election process that states adopting electronic voting technology should implement:

* Casting votes at the polling place
* Transferring the vote totals from the polling places to the central canvass location
* Counting the rest of the votes (absentee and mailed ballots, provisional ballots, write-ins)
* Making the results of the canvass public
* Manual auditing

The Commonweal Institute is sponsoring the Digital Polemics 2004 Film Festival, a film series showcasing independently-produced political documentaries in various venues throughout Austin, Texas, between September 27 and Election Day. The purpose of the Digital Polemics festival is to encourage political discourse, voter participation, education and registration; provide venues for new and established video documentarians from across the nation and abroad; and offer support for other community and cultural organizations through film programming. The series is being produced by Texas Black Magic Productions, an Austin-area production company headed by CI advisor Rudolph Malveaux. Click here for festival schedule and film titles.

The Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia this month will be publishing in their quarterly magazine, The Verdict, the introduction and first section of the CI report, "The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law," as well as an article by CI President Leonard M. Salle, titled "Responding to the Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law."

ENDORSEMENTS

"America needs a true marketplace of ideas, not a one-sided monologue by the right. At a time when airwaves and emails are filled with conservative voices, the Commonweal Institute is more important than ever." -- Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, professor at Brandeis University's Heller School for Social Policy and Management, and co-founder of The American Prospect magazine

GET INVOLVED

If you agree with Robert Reich (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.

To subscribe to this free e-newsletter, send a blank message to: ci-newsletter-subscribe@svpal.org.

-- or --

To subscribe from an email address other than your regular one, go to mailman.svpal.org/mailman/listinfo/ci-newsletter, and then enter your name and email address and click on "Subscribe."

Privacy Policy: The Commonweal Institute does not share subscriber information with any other organization or with individuals.

Uncommon Denominator

CONTENTS