Chris Bowers: The Progressive Failure To Engage The Grassroots on Climate Change
Chris Bowers: The Progressive Failure To Engage The Grassroots on Climate Change
Our guest blogger is Open Left’s Chris Bowers.
In explaining why he voted against climate change legislation in the House, freshman Democratic Representative Eric Massa said Monday that calls to his office against the bill outnumbered calls in favor of the bill by 19-1:
My final reason for opposing this bill was you, the constituents of New York’s 29th Congressional District. In the week leading up to the vote, our offices received hundreds of phone calls urging a ‘no’ vote. In fact, after we tallied the responses, the “vote no” calls outnumbered the “vote yes” calls by a ratio of 19 to 1. My job is to represent you, and that’s exactly what I did in casting my vote.
Even though conservatives pretty much always win the congressional office phone call battle through their enormous lobbying operations, a 19-1 margin is still pretty shocking. The margin is even more shocking considering that the vast majority of green groups in the United States put out high level action alerts to their membership urging them to call members of Congress in support of climate change legislation.
How could the progressive grassroots get so utterly trounced in activism on the climate change bill? One solid bet is because the messaging from those supporting the bill was patronizing, not entirely forthcoming, and full of cognitive dissonance. Supporters of the bill consistently had the following four activism-depressing messages:
- The climate change bill sucks, but we should pass it anyway;
- We are probably lying to you about actually trying to strengthen the bill;
- Strengthening the bill is not possible because it will probably lead to the defeat of the bill. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naïve.
- It is your fault that the climate change bill sucks.
Man, I want to get up off my ass and work hard based on that message. And this really was the message. Take self-styled climate change expert Thomas Friedman:
There is much in the House cap-and-trade energy bill that just passed that I absolutely hate. It is too weak in key areas and way too complicated in others. A simple, straightforward carbon tax would have made much more sense than this Rube Goldberg contraption. It is pathetic that we couldn’t do better. It is appalling that so much had to be given away to polluters. It stinks. It’s a mess. I detest it.
Now let’s get it passed in the Senate and make it law.
Yep, the bill sucks, but let’s do everything we can to pass this sucky bill. That sounds like a sucktastic way to spend my day, especially since Exodus Earth is free in the On Demand section now.
While not as explicit as Freidman, virtually every green group gave the same implied message to their membership. The consistent mantra was “strengthen and pass” the climate change bill. The first problem with this is that it tells people immediately that the bill is inadequate. The second problem is that very few green groups sent out any action alerts asking their members to take action on strengthening the bill, or even coherent public statements explaining how the bill could be strengthened. Worst of all, many of those groups seemed to be actively working against any attempts to strengthen the bill:
A good number of people have told me in the past few days that a major environmental organization is actively working against strengthening amendments to the bill, stating that those groups are fearful that any actual strengthening will keep the bill from being passed.
So, on top of being told that the bill sucked, there was also the uneasy feeling that the progressive grassroots were being lied to about attempts to strengthen the bill. While everyone kept saying that we needed to strengthen this sucky bill, very few green groups told us how that was even possible and some were even actively working against strengthening the bill.
When people complained about this, the general response was to be told that nothing better could even be accomplished. Bill Scher summed up that position:
There is zero reason to believe that the coalition could hold if any changes were made to the bill at this point. (Or to be more direct, there is zero reason to believe any amendment that would strengthen the bill would pass in the first place.)
So, the bill sucks, green groups might be lying to us, and there is no hope of strengthening the bill whatsoever. Now I am really feeling this call to action picking up the remote.
But wait, the genius messaging isn’t done. Thomas Friedman offers up the final coup de grace. This entire problem is actually the fault of the grassroots:
Attention all young Americans: your climate future is being decided right now in the cloakrooms of the Capitol, where the coal lobby holds huge sway. You want to make a difference? Then get out of Facebook and into somebody’s face. Get a million people on the Washington Mall calling for a price on carbon. That will get the Senate’s attention. Play hardball or don’t play at all.
Given that the bill sucks, that green groups might be lying to me, that there is no hope of strengthening the bill, that billionaire old dudes are telling me that this is all actually my own fault, and the Exodus Earth is really frakking awesome (except for the comic book parts), it isn’t hard to see how a lot of grassroots progressives ended up leaning toward “don’t play at all.”
This patronizing, conflicting, accusatory and even mendacious messaging surely played a role in why industry astroturf groups won the grassroots activism war by margins like 19-1. In some congressional offices, I heard the margin was much worse, and that making outgoing calls was difficult because so many people were calling in to oppose the bill.
I’m not saying that I could have done a better job, and if anything my work on climate change has simply helped reinforce this negative messaging rubric. At the very least, however, I would like to turn the blame away from the progressive grassroots, and toward green groups and progressive media figures like myself. The lack of grassroots excitement for the climate change bill is the fault of the people and organizations pushing the bill, not the grassroots themselves. It is their job to activate the grassroots on this issue, and they completely failed. Either pre-emptively or as a result of this failure, they opted instead to pursue a deal-making process with conservative Democrats which has now resulted in an almost inexorable trend of weakening the climate change legislation.
If we are ever going to turn this around, we need the advocates of the legislation, not to mention the legislation itself, to start giving people a reason to get involved.
9 Responses to “Chris Bowers: The Progressive Failure To Engage The Grassroots on Climate Change”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Maybe the problem is that it really was a sucky bill.
The problem as I see it with environmental legislation, with health care and other important issues is that we start off with the crappy, watered-down compromise of a bill and negotiate from there.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:14 pmEnviro groups and activists have worked hard for the last decade to get us to this point, and it’s not as if we have nothing to show for it. The starting point in 1998 was a 95-0 sense of the Senate resolution against ratifying the Kyoto treaty.
A decade later, in spite of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS spent by big polluters and right wing idealogues so far this year alone, we passed a decent bill out of the House and stand at least a 50-50 chance of moving a bill out of the Senate.
We need everyone who cares about this issue to get on board and focus on establishing the framework of a strong carbon cap. This is a critical step if we are to show the world the U.S. means business in Copenhagen later this year. We may not get another chance to get this right. Let’s pull ourselves together and get the Senate to pass a strong bill.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:45 pmIn the same way that Global Climatic Catastrophe (more accurate than ‘global warming’) is difficult for most people to wrap their heads around, this bill was difficult for anyone up to date on the science to be excited about. That’s not so much a messaging problem as much as a factor of the recent science suggesting we need 20-40% reductions from 1990 levels, and we’re given… 17% from 2005 levels.
That being said, if you want to play a game a la Climate Progress, with the passage of this bill we have a 20% chance of mitigating Climate Catastrophe. We have a 0% chance without it. This is depressing in and of itself, but we’re basically at the point where we need to deny the truth (that the bill is inadequate) in order to message the thing right (which is necessary if it’s going to be passed and strengthened.) I’m not saying message-makers didn’t make mistakes. They did, and they continue to fail to understand that climate scare-tactics are not going to inspire most people. But they inherited a difficult message to pull off.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:59 pmOn what issues or bills, if any, have progressive phone calls made a difference?
If members are perfectly happy to cite astroturf calls to justify their votes, would any amount of real calls have made a difference this time?
I’d like for Gore, green groups, progressive orgs, bloggers, Congress critters who get it, to call on Americans to do something different, not to call (other) rep’s offices, not to go to a concert, or turn down or up the thermostat, not to change a light bulb, or sign a petition, or make a pledge or forward an action alert, but, at a given time on a given day (soon!) to grab a bat and a ball, or a glove, and to sing our national anthem and to have a friendly pick-up game or just a fun catch among cubicles for a couple of minutes, to send a symbolic message to Washington and the whole world, that Americans care, Americans know, Americans get it, and that bold action fits with, is part of, the American Spirit and Story. What’s American about sitting on the bench?
July 8th, 2009 at 8:22 pmChris, the mendacity lies in the post. You are misrepresenting my analysis (which was strategic advice on how best to STRENGTHEN THE BILL in the Senate), you are accusing me of blaming the progressive grassroots which I never did, and you are falsely using my lone blog post to characterize the messaging of the environmental groups actively supporting the House bill.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:55 amBill – you’re overreacting. Chris used the quotes from your piece to establish one point; the grassroots bit he mostly argued from Thomas Friedman’s article. It’s not all your fault Bill, it’s pretty much everyone in the green groups’ fault.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:20 pmYou Self serving egomaniacs just cannot except the reality of the failure of your THEORY, not fact, not science, THEORY! Get over your pathetic attempts to control the masses through your GREEN SOLUTIONS, Socialism and Communism masked as the Progressive Movement. I am sure if the energy bill went as far as you wanted it, it would include population control, forced abortion if the allowed number of problems, excuse me children per family allowed were exceeded, no AC or comfort for anyone and of course, killing off the human race as the ultimate solution, except, of course, for the few who are enlightened as yourselves. The word is out and We The People, the majority of Americans who have been living our lives, paying our taxes, conserving in our communities and doing our part to protect the environment blindly have allowed a bunch of LEFT WING NUTS to take over our national policy. GUESS WHAT,are not buying your BS anymore, we are watching and WE ARE FIGHTING BACK!!!!!
July 9th, 2009 at 5:38 pmCindy Cindy Cindy – ru serious? Why do you feel it necessary to accuse people who disagree with you about a WELL ESTABLISHED theory of wanting to abort your children. Or of being a bunch of wing nuts. You’ve probably been called the same, given your tenor, but that doesn’t give you the right to pass it on, and yelling doesn’t substitute for a well-framed argument. Some of us like to THINK about these issues, are open to ideas from the right AND left, and are more interested in solving problems than demonizing people. Lighten up. (And, the correct spelling is “accept”)
July 10th, 2009 at 3:48 amThere are other reasons that a bill can generate opposition phone calls with a 19-to-1 ratio. Let’s pretend for a moment that the Cap and Trade bill represented perfect science, so that you and I are not arguing about the science. What else might cause people to be horrified enough to phone in droves?. (And with a 19:1 ratio, the reaction was extreme, I think we can agree.)
Here were some of the very key problems ASIDE FROM WHETHER PEOPLE AGREE ON THE SCIENCE: 302 pages were added to the bill in the middle of the night before the congressmen were expected to vote. That just reeks of sneakiness, and I think you can agree that if the Republicans had done that to a bill when they had a majority to pass the bill, you would recognize it as sneakiness. So that was a huge red flag, and it was highly publicized all morning to the public.
Another massive problem was the projected household expense increases per family after the bill gets enacted. There were enough varied study groups reporting on the expenses associated with the bill, that it was reasonable for the general public to believe that their annual expenses would increase a minimum of $2000-$3000 per year. (That doesn’t include pass through costs–just energy cost increases.) I don’t have a big extended family, but off the top of my head, that would really harm both my brothers’ families and one brother-in-law’s family. Other relatives and I could cover the increase. Many seniors in America live on a tight fixed income, and many people who made those phone calls were doing so on behalf of the seniors whom they know and love. (Face it, when Grandma and Grandpa can’t make ends meet anymore, we DEFINITELY hear about it, and often step in to assist them financially. When my mother ran out of money, we paid all her expenses except food and medical until she died, including hospice care.)
Based on the financial issues and the last minute 302 page bill addendum ALONE, there were people making those phones calls, again, REGARDLESS of the merits of the science. Lots of ideas sound good, but people managing household budgets need to feel confident that they can both afford the costs AND trust the people behind the legislation. I wouldn’t trust anybody from either party who threw in a 302 page addendum. (Plus I was privy to much of the content of the addendum, and that’s a whole ‘nother discussion.)
That’s about it. I’m sorry the bill didn’t go your way. These pieces of legislation need to be brief and concise, and especially without all kinds of extra topics thrown in, such as housing mandates and charity mandates and ACORN mandates, etc. It’s so much easier to support brief, clear, concise legislation, whether it’s about energy efficiency or roads & bridges. If we fight the status quo hard enough, we can make inroads. I work full-time, for free, fighting for change. Progress is slow, but it’s there.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:27 am