Thinking Points Discussion: Epilogue and Assessment

Thanks for the heads-up to this site. Too bad this is my first time and I missed the rest of the discussion. Hope to take part more in the future!

I am a total convert to the concept of binconceptualism. There are very few Rockridge Nation ideas that I would resist, and this one I resisted at first. But I now very much see so-called moderates as people who have a mixed bag of views. I wonder if we can say they have inconsistent values, and/or have not thought all the issues through. If they are liberal on the environment and education--would it not make sense for them to also be liberal on taxes and finances?

I would now like us to see a focus on narratives. Conservatives have strong frames (i.e. tax relief) but also strong narratives (the govt is ineffecient, it is corrupt, people work hard, and can spend their money better than the govt).

An easy progressive version is-- the environment is a moral issue. People who value consumer choice over moral values are greedy and corrupt. An individual who buys an SUV pollutes the commons, causes health issues, adds to global warming. Therefore the commons moral values trumps the individuals' desire to purchase a particular car.

This would not ready made talking points, but thinking through ofthe narratives, stories, and reasons for our values and frames.

Thoughts?

This resonates for me too. I am part of a progressive community that values sustainability ("green" is the goal) and corporate responsibility, and yet the main instigator is still fairly stuck in the throes of free-market ideology.

I think I have finally gotten him to recognize that social norms have a large external effect on the market (as does public regulation, of course), and have been pushing back with the theory and evidence of market failure (externalities, public goods, irrational actors, imperfect information, dominant market power, barriers to entry).

He still wants to see green consultants as leading the way, and I am trying to show him how the market is not a leader but merely a mechanism for passing through the structures that create incentives of various sorts - and that that mechanism can be shaped by regulation (the Invisible Hand has Gloves, and we are collectively responsible for deciding how the Gloves should work, so that individual action is channeled in ways that benefit the commonwealth). The market follows, public policy leads, and social norms are in a mutually-influential dynamic with public regulation. Green consultants have a job because the environmental movement made progress over several decades of hard work on regulation and social norms (and evolving social norms are what is driving market demand for green goods these days - the consultants are helping companies understand that success means acknowledging this growing value for green goods by their customers - but the consultants follow, the advocates lead).

We agree on so many things, but this is a source of ongoing exchange between us (and it helps that we totally respect each other and have common goals for climate policy outcomes, and that he recognizes that the climate problem is genuine and critically important). He certainly thinks of himself as a "progressive" and seems to treat market theory as "neutral science" of a sort, though I have pointed him to "Heterodox Economics" recently and I hope that will begin to sink in with him over time.

But, this is clearly a long-term process! ;-)

Also, I often see people who have progressive political values but have a very stern approach to actual family dynamics, for example. They seem to differentiate between the nuclear family and the national family, and apply different paradigms to those contexts.

Reading Joe's analysis of Bush's apparent conversion on climate change, I couldn't help but think that framing the issue is not enough. Apparently a slick speechwriter can use a frame to advance the issue in any direction they want. It could be that a person's success in doing this depends on their credibility; I was reading the Conventional Wisdom Watch in the latest issue of Newsweek yesterday, and they gave a down arrow to Bush. They said: "Pretends to get it on climate change, but at G8, shoots down real remedies. He's not green, he's yellow." I quoted it as representative of a mainstream reaction to the things Joe analyzed, and it seems like it may not have worked, which could have to do with Bush's low approval ratings. So, I don't know if this fits into the scope of our discussions, but I think we can see that not only do progressives have to come up with good frames but that they also have to guard against those frames being twisted.

I wish I had discovered the Manual and this discussion chapter by chapter before now.

I haven't read through the material but I want to ask about coordinated contacts with candidates and elected officials.

Jim Wallis in "God's Politics" talks about "change the wind" in which he refers to a feedback process from supporters of the values he lists in the book (poverty relief (here and abroad), just war, tolerance of differences among persons of differing values, environmental protection, and so on) to elected officials and candidates... in order to let them know that there is support for those values among voters.

My impression is that progressives could be more effective if we could "find one another" in our states and districts and speak together to our elected officials... and if that communication could be coordinated in some way.

Is there some way to protect the integrety of contact information, and yet allow that to happen... could I somehow find others in my congressional district and state so that we could coordinate our contacts with members of congress... and do a similar thing with members of the state legislature?

The right does this pretty well, and we have a lot of catching up to do.

I've previously contacted left leaning organizations to ask that they consider some joint effort to enable progressives to "find one another" and there is just no interest in doing that, as best I can tell. Competition for funding for the variety of progressive causes might be the reason.

Any thoughts?