Why do Republicans get so much mileage out of ANWAR? Because...

[AP]

... of the message it sends: in times of trouble, Republicans will do everything in their powers to encourage commerce and create wealth.

I think the Democrats are running a risk by casting themselves as the party who will put the environment before creating wealth and encouraging industry.

In Alaska, I understand that there was a proposal to build a pipeline to an existing oil field which would have been cheaper than drilling in ANWAR and would have increased the amount of oil that could come out of the existing field by much more than ANWAR would ever produce. The Democrats tried to push this as an alternative to drilling in ANWAR, but didn't get much traction (I suspect the media wasn't interested in helping Democrats tell people about this alternative).

Guess what? Bush opposed federal funding for that pipeline. Why? Because the Republicans are, in fact, not all about creating as much productive industry as possible and they're not about increasing the amount of oil coming out of Alaska; it is because they can get way more mileage out of the ANWAR debate -- by forcing the Democrats into looking like they put the environment before the economic health of the country and making the Republicans look like they're willing to make a few sacrifices in order to ensure that people can work and make money.

I know the issue is way way more complicated, but this is what it comes down to, I suspect.

[TheDonkey]

1. Kerry attacked this well today

I didn't see his entire floor speech but he was speaking of the oil business. Mention how you can talk to any economist, trader, etc and they will tell you ANWAR will do NOTHING to bring oil prices down or help Americans get rich.

It is only a symbolic gesture that this administration has an energy policy... which it doesn't.

[AP]

3. I think it's a much more powerful symbol: Republicans put economy

and jobs and wealth creation before protecting the environment, and I think that's going to win them many many votes.

I think that if the Democrats say they put the environment before the economic health of the country, even in very close calls (which I presume many Americans believe this is), they run the risk of losing votes.

Democrats can only win this debate in the eyes of people whose votes they don't already have by arguing that they want to increase oil production (and reduce oil dependency) and then by doing a cost benefit analysis of where the government is investing its resources and explaining how this one does nothing when there are other actions they could take which would do something. They have to talk about what they would do, and not about what they wouldn't do.

Saying, "we can't do this" without saying what they would do is worth zero in terms of giving voters an idea of what Democrats stand for.

If Democrats are only interesting in polarizing the voters by reassuring environmentalists their interests will always come first, I think Democrats are not going to win as much as they think they're going to win with this issue.

[TheDonkey]

4. True, but if Dems go on the offensive

because Energy Independence will help the economy A LOT more than a dependence on oil.

We need to frame the message better. Republicans are not good for wealth creation, rather wealth segregation imo.

[AP]

7. Republicans are good for defining Democrats into a hole.

And to repeat for emphasis, if Democrats use this issue in a way that helps label them as the party that puts the environment before even marginal improvements in the nation's economy, then we're going to have a hard time winning in the red states and might even lose votes in some of the blue states.

[sandnsea]

12. Once again, they did

I swear to god if John Kerry has to say energy independence, alternative energy, renewable energy, CAFE standards, ONE MORE GODDAMNED TIME my head is going to pop. Solar, wind, ethanol, hydrogen, hybrid.

It takes every single Democrat repeating the message instead of pretending it doesn't exist because it came out of the mouth of the wrong Democrat.

[AP]

19. If you read post 14 (and my response) I think you see an example of the

proper framework not really sinking in effectively.

[sandnsea]

29. Do you want to pay for the consequences?

Of everything listed in #14? Because that's the real frame.

Still, saying that there's no alternative energy policy is just as ineffective as saying it's only about the pretty trees and animals.

That's what I object to. Neither one of them are helpful and if I had to choose your complaining or protect the wildlife, I'd go with protect the wildlife because at least its proactive. People do care about the environment, by the way. I read an article about frog mutations in Alaska too. That would probably have been a more effective environmental frame than polar bears and caribou.

[AP]

32. But if that were the most important issue, why don't progressives complain

...that Chávez is no progressive because he's not ending oil production in Venezuela?

The fuel of economic development is fuel -- it's petroleum. The enviromental damage is a cost we all endure in the short term until we develop alternatives over the long term.

Just because we haven't created alternatives yet is not a good enough explanation to your average voter who cares about the economy and her job and the cost of consumer goods for why you're not looking everywhere for oil.

I don't think voters would be impressed with Democrats denying the marketplace ANWAR just because it would be a punishment for not having an alternative energy policy.

As for your last paragraph, I have to reiterate something I said above: I think people do, in the abstract, want to protect the environment. But I think when you put the environment in the context of a list of priorities, not many people put the environment at the very top of the list.

Above, you compare it to "your complaining," which I suspect was a sentence construction that either consciously or unconsciously helped you avoid having to place another issue next to "protecting the environment" that many people would actually consider a higher priority.

I think many voters are more than happy to make compromises where jobs and accumulating wealth trump the environment (that's sort of the history of humankind), and they only way to make them to consider environmental issues is to show them how they might actually be counterproductive to wealth creation.

I think Democrats should think twice about whether they want voters to percieve them as the party that puts the environment above everything else.

[sandnsea]

45. Ask Montana voters

They just put the environment over mining jobs. You're wrong. People do put the environment over jobs, all the time. And if people understood that alternative energy would actually create more jobs, it would be even easier to make the transition. It never ceases to amaze me how many supposed Democrats buy right into the Republican propaganda, on issue after issue. Shows how effective it is. Still doesn't make any of it right.

[AP]

47. They put the environment first when they realize the economic costs exceed

the economic benefits, which really isn't sacrificing economics for the environment. It's just, basically, doing a different economic analysis.

Look, I polute and consume as little as possible. This isn't about me buying into any Republican anything.

This is about voters perceptions of the parties. Since 1973 Republicans have been playing environmentalists off of labor, and a lot of Democrats have been more than happy to engage in a debate which polarizes two members of the progressive coalition which should be on the same side. It disturbs me to see so many Democrats not appreciate that that has been happening.

[sandnsea]

49. Repeat Republican shit

You're buying into it. Repeat the correct frame, you're helping make the necessary change to the perception of the party.

I am really tired, disgusted and discouraged today. I worked hard to get the correct frame on ANWR out there. I heard Democrats in the Senate speak to alternative energy, the resulting jobs, security, etc. To hear you act as if none of that happened is just exasperating. I don't know how we're ever going to win back a Dem seat in rural areas when we've got Dems who don't help spread the truth about what our Dem leaders are actually saying.

You'll never change the fringe left. Ever seen people hold a candlelight vigil over 10 oak trees being cut own to build a parking garage? You don't need to tell me about the kind of lunacy that hurts the Dem party.

I feel like a yo-yo. Trying to pull the pure environmentalist in to thinking about rational economic frames; then turning around and having to get people like you to stop perpetuating the myth that all Dems are that left fringe; it drives me wild. For some reason it always surprises me when this stuff comes from you.

[AP]

52. What do you think I'm doing? I'm not sure you're reading my posts.

What I'm saying is basically, since 1973 Republicans have very effectively broken down coalitiions on the left by playing them off against each other. One, in particular is labor vs environmentalits.

I'm saying that Democrats should make sure that, in stating their criticism of ANWAR, they don't fall into the trap of sounding like they're against economic development no matter what.

Other than using the term "ANWAR" I haven't discussed specifically anything either side has said about ANWAR. I'm trying to both historicize this and to talk about it in terms of what message Republcans are trying to convey about themselves. And to understand that is to be better prepared to fight it.

[Lindacooks]

53. I just don't understand that.

The economy is just plain shit under Repukes - there is no job creation, we have huge deficits, the stock market has been flat for 4 years, there's wealth creation for the very rich, but everybody else is suffering.

WHY is there such a misconception? Repukes do NOT do the economy well, at all.

[AP]

61. Yes. Republicans use power to transfer wealth to and concentrate it in the

hands of the very wealthy.

Democrats try to spread wealth broadly (and especially to the people who work to create it) which always creates more wealth (as proven by FDR and by Europe's transition away from monarchy and to democracy).

Why don't Democrats do a better job of explaining this to voters?

[Lindacooks]

67. I don't know, but we certainly have to start NOW.

I'm so sick of hearing that Repukes are better with the economy - there are so many, many charts proving the exact opposite. Of course, I'm sure this is at least partly the MSM's fault.

[DancingBear]

2. An interesting concept, to be sure

There is much in your post to think about, but we can not discount the fact that 55-60% of the populace did not want to see ANWR opened up.

While your post explains the Republican strategy, it does not address the Dems who voted in favor, nor does it address the Repubs who broke ranks.

How would you explain these folks? I would argue that the Repubs saw through the bullshit (realizing that it would do almost nothing to alleviate importation of foreign oil) and/or listened to the majority will.

I have no explanation (save for self-interest) for the Dems.

[AP]

6. I'm not sure if I trust that 55%-60% number.

If they just asked people in the abstract, whether they want to drill in a national refuge (using the word "refuge") I guess I wouldn't be surprise if you got that number.

But if you did a two-part question, (1) "do you believe that America is facing an engery crisis?" and (2) Do you favor drilling in parts of AK where drilling is currently prevented by federal law?, I think even if you didn't get 50% on question 1, you could still get close to 50% on question two -- and, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you go 55% and 65% if you asked those questions. That's what I think Republicans are counting on. (I think they're also making sure no Democrat wins in Alaska for a while.)

What I'm trying to say is that ANWAR has the capacity to reveal a great deal about the parties' priorities, just like Iraq. A majority of Americans did not like the Iraq war on Nov 2, 2004, but Bush still won because people felt that he was willing to do anything to protect America in times of trouble. ANWAR is the same thing: people might not like tearing up the environment for low profit-margin economic activity, but if we're headed towards economic crisis, maybe we should be doing shit like that?

The way for Democrats to deal with Iraq and ANWAR is to make sure that Democrats aren't letting Republicans define and rank Democratic priorities.

Democrats are every bit as interested in national security, but believe in a progressive prioritization of values: America is not safe and strong unless Americans are safe and strong at home (and we have a healthy, happy, wealth-producing working class), and Democrats will not jeopardize the economy in order to protect the environment, but they do have different ideas about what constitutes productive industrial and economic strategy (ie, they don't push the cost of environmental damage on to the next generation, and they believe that we need to stop beating the dying horse of the internal combustion engine).

[Carolab]

9. No. Not right.

"ANWAR is the same thing: people might not like tearing up the environment for low profit-margin economic activity, but if we're headed towards economic crisis, maybe we should be doing shit like that?

The way for Democrats to deal with Iraq and ANWAR is to make sure that Democrats aren't letting Republicans define and rank Democratic priorities."

This is NOT how this "casts Democrats" nor is that the reason the Republicans wanted to score ANWR. They wanted to score it so they can do anything, anywhere and anytime to resources without ANY opposition.

They are not framing Dems as people who would put the environment FIRST over the economy. They are casting themselves as LIARS and OPPORTUNISTS because the Dems and the Republicans who voted WITH THEM did a good job of pointing out that the amount of oil that could be extracted from ANWR and the time frame that it would require meant it was a BAD IDEA. They instead offered a sensible alternative and Bush's rejection of it exposed the Republican administration for the stupid idealogues they are, not as sensible capitalists who are thinking about some "small sacrifices to the environment in order to create wealth".

You are wrong about this.

[w4rma]

5. Well, the anti-ANWAR bill has passed, now. So, the GOP can't blame Dems

anymore on ANYTHING related to the rising prices of oil. And this bill won't do *anything* to bring those prices down, either.

[AP]

8. I don't think that's the case. The Republicans will win even if oil prices

go up.

They'll say it would have been worse if they hadn't drilled in ANWAR, and they'll remind people that Democrats put the environment ahead of wealth creation for American industry (and wealth retention for consumers).

The Republicans will win so long as they can tell people the Democrats care more about trees and tundra than about people.

[Carolab]

10. No they won't, because the Democrats can counter it.

They already explained it and they'll explain it again if needed.

The ANWR decision was a bad one, bad because it costs too much, takes too long and does not solve the problem.

The Dems and the Republicans who sided with them NEVER said "we put the environment first over economic wealth". (Even though MOST people in this country care about the environment GREATLY and didn't approve of opening ANWR, so even if they did that would not be seen as a "bad thing").

Don't put words in their mouths. We have enough lying media to do that already.

[MisterLiberal]

35. Wow

I'd like to join that party, whatever it is.

Think about it! The party actually explaining policy instead of trying to "compromise"!

[Carolab]

58. Howard Dean will say it, if no one else will. n/t

[doodadem]

14. You say that like its a bad thing!

What's wrong with putting the environment before creating more wealth for corporations? How stinking rich do they have to be? I'll take a polar bear over a CEO any day!
Using that same argument, it's more economically beneficial for corporations to spew carbon dioxide, mercury, perchlorate, whatever into the environment. That doesn't mean they get to do it. Well, it didn't mean that before George Bush came along.
I think that's how this needs to be put to people: their own self interest. Do you want to keep breathing? Do you want to have decent water to drink? Uncontaminated food? Do you like to live in an ecologically diverse world, or do you want to harpoon baby seals?

[AP]

16. Because that's a framework that helps Repubicans get elected.

One of the projects that Republicans embarked on in 1973 was to balkanize all the left single-interest groups so they fought amongst themselves.

They used to all work within a progressive framework where women, racial minorities, environmentalists, gay rights groups were all about the same thing: flowing the political, cultural and economic power down to the people who create it.

But after '73, they got labor fighting with the environmentalists, blacks fighting women, blacks fighting gays, etc. How'd they do that? By getting them to think things like, that putting a pristine environment ahead of economic development that would create jobs and keep costs of everything down for working people is a helpful goal to aspire to for progressives.

It isn't a helpful to think that way. There will always be tradeoffs, and the bottom line should be making sure that the compromises work best for the majority of people, and not for the bottom lines of the corporate profit ledgers.

All those things you say above about polution are good and true. But you must understand how they don't work just to explain ANWAR. According to that logic, we shouldn't drill anywhere. Venezuela is developing oil fields left and right (and using the money they make to build hospitals and schools for the poor). I presume it's not the abstract notion of drilling for oil to which you object, right? See, you make compromises, and the real issue is how those compromises work to deliver wealth and power to the people, and not to a few corporations at the top.

I'd be happy to write more about this if you don't see where I'm going with this, but I hope that you do understand what I'm saying.

Do you?

[flpoljunkie]

11. Sounds like you may be in agreement with the rethugs, AP.

ANWR will not solve our dependence on foreign oil. If the Democrats cannot frame this issue, they deserve to lose. OIl from ANWR will not be available until 2025 and it will reduce our dependence on foreign by a whopping 3%--from 68% to 65%--and that is a best case scenario.

Depending on the kindness of Saudi sheiks and OPEC is not an energy policy. It is suicide.

[AP]

13. Then you don't understand what I'm saying.

I definitely do not think ANWAR is a good idea economically or environmentally.

But I see how it can work really well politically speaking for Republicans unless Democrats do a better job explaining why it wasn't a good idea.

This all comes back to Lakoff. Democrats need to put ANWAR into a framework that doesn't help Republicans.

The Republicans would love to have voters think Democrats care more about caribou than about people or about creating wealth. If the Democrats' retort is, "yes, we do care more about caribou in this case" then Democrats lose.

Then need to explain why caring about creating wealth and caring about people would lead one to conclude that ANWAR is a bad idea. I don't see that in the way that DU'ers are talking about this.

[flpoljunkie]

15. Dems must frame the issue. Another special interest giveaway.

But will they is the question? If not, they deserve to lose.

[MisterLiberal]

38. Hey

Why don't we, the DU find candidates who stand up on issues and frame them and then support them?

Anyone know of a DU Friendly out there planning to run in 06? I don't mean someone who TALKS but who will Wellstone his way through the House and Senate.

You get about a dozen Wellstones in there and things will change, believe me!!!!!!

[Jesus Saves]

17. Instead of playing their game, smash the frame

What about the outdoor industries (fishing, hunting, eco tourism) that depend on that wilderness area?

What about the economic value of preserving one of the last great unspoiled wilderness areas in America, if not the planet?

One thing's for sure, they aren't making anymore wilderness, as time goes on such places will become more valuable.

[AP]

18. Since most Alaskans want to drill in ANWAR...

...I don't think that arguing that local industry is going to suffer is very productive.

As I said in my OP, I think that it helps to point out that Republicans don't care about increasing oil output from Alaska since they won't fund a pipeline that runs from existing, productive fields. Also, it helps to point out that Democrats did favor that pipeline because they do, in fact, care about encouraging productive economic development.

I think it also helps to say that the only reason Republicans want to do this is because they think it tells the world that Republicans care about people and Democrats care about birds more than they do about people. But, returning to number one, if the Repubicans cared more about people, they'd be supporting the pipeline instead, and they'd be pursuing other avenues long before they pursued this no-profit boondoggle.

[Jesus Saves]

20. I think you're right

on that point about them killing the pipeline. It's kinda odd, cuz I hadn't even heard about it, and I pay pretty close attention to these things.

I think it's also good to keep arguing that wilderness has value, both economic and aesthetic, etc. I do believe that a lot of people out there, in the lower 48 (not the AK citizens on the oil teat), swing voter types, are either against this thing, or right on the edge of being against it.

[Joey Liberal]

23. Alaskans Do Not Own ANWR

The citizens of this country own ANWR. It's not a state park.

[AP]

25. I know. I was merely commenting on the argument that...

...local economic interets (tourism) trump national economic interests (more oil in a Peak Oil world).

Since the locals actually want ANWAR drilled, I don't think anyone would get much mileage out of the argument that we're not drilling ANWAR for the sake of the economic interets of people who are begging that it get drilled because they see it as being in their best economic interests.

[coloradodem2005]

21. I really liked Barbara Boxer's email on the topic.

I think it outlined the reasons not to do ANWAR well.

[Joey Liberal]

22. Republicans vs Mother Earth

I think the Democrats are running a risk by casting themselves as the party who will put the environment before creating wealth and encouraging industry.
-------
I am proud to feel this way! What can be more important than the very environment that sustains us?

[Jesus Saves]

24. It's like I say

I'm pretty conservative on the environment.

I want us to conserve what we have left.

[AP]

26. I totally accept the fact that there are some progressives who entirely

define themselves according to this value.

But I will also say that life is made up of compromises, and for Democrats not to fall into traps set for them by Republicans, progressives have got to appreciate that, for example, preferring a pristine environment at all costs creates a political divide between environmentalists and labor.

One reason Democrats don't do well with blue collar workers is because many think Democrats would sacrifice jobs and low-cost consumer goods to protect a few trees.

Both sides in that debate have to find a compromise if Democrats are going to win elections. Before 1973, both sides understood the bigger goal a little better than they do now.

[Joey Liberal]

36. Republicans Hate Trees

One reason Democrats don't do well with blue collar workers is because many think Democrats would sacrifice jobs and low-cost consumer goods to protect a few trees.
========
The problem with that short sighted point of view is that we have already depleted most of our forests. Unless the republicans want to cut down every single tree in the remaining forest lands, I suggest that they start thinking about conservation for once. If a person can't make a living without cutting down trees, that's not my fault.

We have already given up most of our forests to the timber industry. It has to stop somewhere.

[MisterLiberal]

39. Compromise

Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise! Compromise!

I think my head's gonna explode next time I hear a Democrat telling DEMOCRATS to compromise!

Yeah, let's "soften" our stance on abortion while we're at it, and give every toddler an AK-47, too! Oh yeah, lets lock up the gays.

Sorry, but my soul is not for sale and no one respects a dish towel.

STOP THE COMPROMISING!!!!

[AP]

42. A compromise between jobs/wealth creation and protecting the environment

is a totally legitimate compromise.

It's a compromise between two things Democrats believe in.

It's NOT a compromise between something they believe in and something they don't believe in.

It's so troubling to me that environmentalists wouldn't appreciate the concerns of labor (and it would also concern me if labor didn't appreciate the interests of environmentalists, but that's not what I'm seeing on DU).

[JHBowden]

27. We have 3% of reserves, use 25% of oil

We cannot drill ourselves out of dependency upon foreign oil. In addition China and India have economies that are growing at light speed, so the price of oil has no where to go but up.

Conservation, efficiency standards, and renewable energy is our best strategy for the future. To deny this because one doesn't want to labelled "anti-industry" is irresponsible.

[AP]

28. If there were a national park in Venezuela and Chávez declared that PDVSA

was going to drill there because the revenue it generated was going to build schools and hospitals for the poor, would any progressive complain?

Yes, conservation should be encouraged, and no single oil field is going to solve all the problems the US has with their energy policy.

However, I think many working class voters think of Bush as their Chávez -- he's promissing them jobs, wealth and opportunity by making a stand on this issue.

To fight things like ANWAR, I think Democrats need to avoid this sort of frame for thinking about this, and I think many of the arguments DU'ers use to criticize this vote play right into a mood Republicans are more than happy to see hover over this debate.

[sandnsea]

30. yes, look at the rainforest

Progressives complain about the annhilation of the rainforest all the time. Even though it provides jobs for the poor.

If we give up environmental protection altogether, we may as well not even have a party. Did you miss the picture of Kilimanjaro? Somebody should have showed that on the floor of the Senate. That's what continued dependence on fossil fuels is doing. It matters.

The environment is the issue people depend on Dems to be on top of. It's one that gets swing voters.

All we have to do is focus on environmental solutions instead of only saying no, no, no.

[AP]

33. Some progressives look at the rainforests and say that western countries

don't want them converting rain forest to farmland because if Brazil did, they'd be less dependent on western agricultural companies. They say it's US and Canadian timber companies that don't want them to cut down trees. They remind the US that nobody in Brazil ever told America what they could and couldn't do with their land, so they'd appreciate it if the US doesn't tell Brazil how they should create wealth (or "not create wealth," as it were).

And I'm, by no means, advocating cutting down the rainforests. However, I am pointing out how these issues are much more complicated and compromises are inevitable, and doing the most progressive thing often does NOT involve keeping the environment pristine at all costs.

And, yes indeed, the internal combustion engine is doing a ton of damage to the environment and it is probably very close to being counterproductive in terms of it being a wealth consumer rather than wealth creator.

But, as I said above, I don't think that alone is a sufficiently compelling reason for not drilling in ANWAR to most voters. If you're saying don't drill in ANWAR because we must make a stand SOMEWHERE against feeding the internal combustion beast, I think you're not going to win many hearts. People would say, well, let's drill now as a short-term solution, and let's make killing the beat a medium-term goal.

[sandnsea]

46. And that's why Republicans win

Like I said before, too many Democrats who buy into their crap instead of looking at the evidence right in front of their faces. Just because people are misinformed about the choices facing us is no reason to support doing the wrong thing. Not when the choice is as critical as the environment and energy policy. How many people do you support killing for oil anyway?

[AP]

48. Republicans win by playing off labor vs environmentalists which breaks

down the left coalition into groups working at cross-purposes.

Look what is happening in this thread. I simply point out that this has been happening for 30 years, and look how I get treated.

The kind of things you're doing to me are probably the kinds of things that resulted in so many registered Democrats voting for Bush in 2000.

[sandnsea]

51. You're an Edwards Democrat dammit

I'm not supposed to have to even have this debate with you. I'm supposed to have to have this fight with some Naderite. Trying to get them to see how to add economic and cost analysis to the debate. How to be solution oriented instead of just saying "save the pretty trees".

What I object to, and the only thing I object to, is the argument that there is nothing we can do about those who think the only choice is environment or jobs.

The solution is to frame it right. You do that BY FRAMING IT RIGHT. Not supporting the Republican talking points.

[AP]

54. I'm not sure you're reading my posts.

Reread everything I've written start to finish, please.

I do not say there's nothing we can do about people who think the only choice is between environment and jobs.

I say, "don't fall into the trap of saying that you put environment first no matter what, even if it costs jobs" because the Republicans will turn that on Democrats as they've done effectively for the past 30 years -- and that's not a misplaced concern, judging from the responses in this thread.

[sandnsea]

55. That IS the Republican frame

1. That the choice is jobs or environment
2. That Democrats are throwing people out of work.

STOP repeating it. STOP IT.

Clean renewable energy = jobs.
Environmental pollution costs citizens real money in increased health costs and clean up costs. We're paying corporate business costs.

Repeat THAT. Beat that into the heads of every lefty who only repeats the save the owls kind of stuff. Educate.

We agree. It is just the approach that we differ on. I hate when I hear Democrats repeat Republican propaganda for any reason.

[AP]

63. Tell how my thinking is wrong about this:

Setting aside ANWAR for a moment...

In NC, there's an airport for which democrats and republicans have approved federal funding so that it can expand. If it's expanded, it will be able to serve as a Fed Ex hub, which will bring jobs to the the area.

Because of population growth in NC, the airport is too small for the community it serves anyway.

Environmentalists don't want the airport runways lengthened because they want to protect the wetlands around the airport and they consider Democrats who support expansion traitors to the progressive cause.

Now, if I point out that NC is growing in population, and will need bigger airports to serve the people who are already there, and if they don't expand this airport, they're probably going to have to build a brand new airport somewhere else nearby, which would be a waste of resources, and that FedEx jobs are decent jobs, and commerce that creates wealth for people who work for a living isn't a bad thing, and having better FedEx service might be an OK thing, and that some of the cots of all this might be worth the benefits...now does all that say that I'm working within a RW framework?

[sandnsea]

65. First

It depends on the group of environmentalists, whether it's an organized coalition or just loopy protestors. Second it depends on whether an alternative has been proposed.

In Montana, yes Montana again, when we found out that some of the land that was designated for the school was actually wetlands, we stopped. I honestly don't remember exactly what the solution was, we may have traded some land, but we found it.

You tell me what alternatives have been proposed, and then I can answer your question. There are almost always alternatives, if you ask the right people.

If you haven't, then you've bought into the RW frame.

[AP]

69. If I haven't what, then I've bought into the RW frame?

There are not alternatives. The environmentalists don't want the runways expanded. If they're not, then they can't land the jets FedEx flies & the airport doesn't get the hub. If someone builds a bigger airport nearby, they get the hub. The land is not protected waterlands according to whatever state or federal rules would apply. It seems the only wepaon the group has is taking down the Democrats who support it -- ie, exploiting the framework Republicans have set up which breaks down the left coalitions.

So, how am I buying into the RW frame by recognizing this RW frame?

[sandnsea]

71. Took me 2 minutes

Scroll down to Technical Research Park and click the banner. If there's a more appropriate place in the state for the hub, that's where it should go. There's other ideas for job creation with businesses that would benefit from being near the current airport. Explore them.

http://www.boycottfedex.com/

The reality is every large construction project has to go through an environmental process. If it doesn't, then the citizens pay real money costs years later. Those costs aren't part of the frame (and the very real debate) because too many Democrats are scared to death of the pro-growth people.

Irresponsible growth costs people money in health care and cleanup costs, at the very least. It should be part of business cost, just like Black Lung Disease benefits are part of mining costs.

We don't have to sacrifice our health for corporate profits. That thinking is part of what contributes to the two Americas. Your arguments are helping create the sub-standard lives you claim to be fighting to make better.

[AP]

50. In the archives here at DU is a post from a WV'ian who...

...was friends with the head of the WV Dem Party or of some big union there. He described an event that this guy held every four years which Democratic presidential candidates had attended for decades (since Truman, IIRC). He said that in 2000, Al Gore sent Tipper to this labor event, while Al went to an environmentalist event somewhere else.

Now, this union guy doesn't live to polute the environment. He lives to make sure that the people who are the footsoldiers in capitalism's army get a fair percentage of the wealth they create for the owners of capital. He also hopes that when economic power accumulates in their hands that people, and not capital, they will get to have some control over the political direction America takes. If these people are getting sick from their jobs, they will vote for cleaner methods to do their jobs. If they see that coal isn't sustainable, they'll vote for job training programs. They won't vote for candidates who close their access to the courts. Ideally, they'll be able to put their kids through good public schools so they can grow up to invent alternative fuel sources so their generation doesn't die from black lung or cancer. And so their parents vote for good public schools.

This WVian labor guy worked hard for Al Gore even though he didn't bother showing up in WV to show his support for labor, but it was hard for him to convince his union members that Al Gore cared about them, especially since that very night he was getting publicity putting trees first a couple states away. And of course, Republicans are ready to pounce once democrats step into these traps which Al walked right into, because they've been creating and laying them since 1973.

[sandnsea]

56. And yet

Kerry is beat over the head because he didn't make the environment a central part of his campaign. Because everybody knows that is one area that we can actually make headway with swing voters.

Still, my argument was that the environmentalists should have been able to handle that part of the campaign on their own, quite easily with someone like Kerry as a candidate. As women should have been able to handle the Supreme Court justices on their own, again, quite easily with someone like Kerry as a candidate.

John Kerry had the endorsement of every union. He sat down with them and talked about labor and environment issues. He came up with an agreement where we would increase CAFE standards and build the energy efficient cars of the future. Yet, where the hell were they? Did we even see the firefighters, cops, and EMTs? Who knew they actually supported Kerry?

Republicans repeated their propaganda. Democrats helped.

[AP]

59. The unions turned up this year. AFAICT, it was much better than 2000

They put a lot of money and people into the race, and it's part of the reason Kerry got the second largest number of votes of any candidate ever.

My understanding is that it was suburban women who jumped ship because of the fear mongering. (Incidentally, I read that RW fear-mongering propaganda was very effective in Chile with women. Republicans used a strategy against Kerry that was similar to the strategy fascits used against Allende.)

I'm not so much criticizing Kerry's campaign as I am trying to predict the consequences of playing into divisions Republicans encourage on the left.

Remember, we believe Earth is in the Balance, and we care because we Put People First.

[sandnsea]

60. I can't follow

In my mind, you are playing into the divisions Republicans encourage.

Who got what vote isn't my point.

My point was that he, and any Democrat, get criticized no matter what they do. Whether they go with the unions, or go with the environment.

It would be so easy for everybody to be on the same page. A person may well think saving the environment is worth it, but there are valid economic arguments that people will listen to, so they ought to make them. There are those who worry about their jobs, so the solution is to explain the new jobs that will be created with a new energy industry.

We don't have to use the arguments of the far left and we certainly don't have to repeat the frame of the right.

And we could all be saying the same thing, and meaning it.

I swear I don't know why it's so difficult to get that point across.

[AP]

62. Before '73, people were all on the same page.

What do you think changed?

[sandnsea]

64. The fucking Cuyahoga River

Remember?

[AP]

66. According to Lisa Duggan, it's because big business got organized...

...and figured out how to play each group off the other.

Corporations get their people on the boards of NGOs and charities and then used their influence to tweak messages so that they were mutually incompatible, or so that they distracted people from the real issues (like when those whales got caught in the ice and some corporate ice cutter freed them, but meanwhile there was some serious shit going down with foreign policy which the media conveniently avoided while spending most of their coverage on the trapped whales).

So, tell me more about why you think the fucking Cuyahoga River catching on fire should have marked the break-down of the progressive coalition of labor, environmentalists, et al? Do you think labor wanted that river to burn? Do you think that environmentalits couldn't have pushed for any set of policies that wouldn't have freaked out labor? Did that even happen? I think it might have marked a moment when big business realized they needed to get better control over people's perception of reality since reality wasn't looking so good for them.

[sandnsea]

68. So keep helping them

The corporations decided to fuel the environmental movement to create a split between labor and environmentalists? Is that what you're saying? And you're taking labor's side to keep the corporations from using the environmentalists against labor? Is that it?

[AP]

70. Tell me if this sounds familiar:

I'm not taking labor's side against environmentalists. I'm saying that the left has to figure out how to mesh the interets of labor and environmentalits -- they have to figure out what the bigger picture is that they're both fighting for and they have to figure out how their projects work within that bigger framework. If they're message is not compatible, then how can they even consider themselves on the same side of the political spectrum?

Environmentalists aren't anti-development, are they? They don't believe that there shouldn't be good, healthy, safe well-paying jobs for people who work for living, do they?

I believe that what environmentalists really want is that individuals have the power to negotiate with captial and industry on a level playing field about what sort of polution they'll tolearate and what sort of encroachment on their living space they'll allow. They want individuals to have the political, economic and cultural power so that they can fend of evil profit-motivated actions by very wealthy corporations regarding what can be done to the natural environment (but not so they can stonewall legitimate, necessary economic activity), right?

So, to have power devolve to the communities in which people live, you actually need the people in those communities to have the sorts of jobs that allow wealth to accumulate in those communities. Therefore, it's every bit as importatnt for environmentalists to support the economic interets of people who work for a living as it is for them to support the biological interests of the flora and fauna they want to protect, right?

And for labor, well it's not fun to die of cancer, and if it stops you from working, that could really mess up your plans to amass political, cultural and economic power, so labor should be just as supportive of environmentalits' concerns about polution as envioronmentlats should be of the rights of the working person.

And everyone should be concerned with the costs of passign environmental damage to the next generation because not only will those people be supporting us in our retirement years, but it's also the moral and ethical thing to do. If you wouldn't murder a person today, you should be willing to murder them with your polution in the future.

[sandnsea]

72. So what's the problem?

Telling the truth about where the oil really goes and how easily we could reduce our consumption, that investing in alternative energy is the necessary path, and that drilling in ANWR does nothing to secure our energy needs; would seem the right approach. That's what was done. So I don't see where your problem lies.

[AP]

73. I have the same question.

[sandnsea]

74. I told you posts and posts ago

We basically agreed.

The only problem I had was that you were using right wing arguments to make the point that we needed to change the environmental frame.

Instead of just changing the frame, like you FINALLY did.

:D

[JHBowden]

31. When will the cowardly lion find his courage?

We can't drill our way out of energy dependence. That's a fact.

60% of Americans oppose ANWR drilling, and 80% prefer conservation, energy regulations, etc. to new drilling as a strategy for energy independence, so the voters are on our side. We are framing the issue fine.

[AP]

34. When will the Scarecrow find some brains?

All I'm saying is the democrats need a smart strategy for framing this issue.

I've heard about the polls, but I also supsect that Bush knows that no matter what the polls say today, the frame that will work for them is that Republicans put jobs and the economy first, and Democrats put the environment first.

I could be wrong. Those polls could reflect a solid understanding of the issues and the frame.

But if they did, I don't think Bush would have pushed this vote. I think they think they're going to get some mileage out of the way this polarizes Americans.

[MisterLiberal]

40. Yeah, we've heard ya; compromise, right?

Compromse is another word for suicide.

[AP]

43. A compromise between two things you beleive in (labor/environment) is

a legitimate compromise.

If single-interest groups within the left coalition can't figure out how to appreciate each other's interests, then we're really doomed.

[JHBowden]

41. Well, you *are* wrong.

You don't change the battlefield when it gives you and advantage. Our numbers on this issue are good, and our environmental numbers are *awesome*. It is disappointing to see Democrats unwilling to fight on their own turf.

That's all we have to do present our argument clearly and concisely, but instead we have all of this fuss about the proper nuance and the best pander. Want a clue? People don't trust that kind of talk -- nuancing and pandering has hurt us more than framing issues improperly.

[AP]

44. My argument is about HOW to fight, not whether to fight.

And I worry about any frame that makes it sound like Democrats put the environment ahead of their interest in a wealth-creating economy.

I think the Republicans are just absolutely preying that the Democrats step in that trap.

[doodadem]

76. I DO understand what you're saying

but to me, it sounds like the same premise that Democrats should move "more to the middle". The problem with that idea, is that the more Dems more right, the more Repugs move further right.
It's time to take a stand, and remember that we are supposed to be the Party of the People.
What you are proposing sounds like Reagan's "trickle down economics" to me: give all the breaks to the guys at the top, and they will create jobs, i.e., more wealth, for the little guys at the bottom. Well, that theory failed miserably. The guys at the top just took the money and ran.
Our argument needs to be framed in those terms. God knows we have plenty of ammunition these days, with all the corporate scandals, and CEO's being convicted/jailed.
There was a time when corporate America took care of their workers. You could go to work for a company, and count on retiring from there 40 years later, with a nice little pension. Those days died with the advent of bottom line mentality--must show increasing profits, if we have to lie, cheat, steal, and rape our employees to do it.

[blindpig]

37. environment, they're not making it anymore.

It's about more than intraspecific power games. The whole thing is shameful, humankind diminishes itself as it trashes the planet.When the shit comes down, we will deserve it, perhaps not as individuals(though there'll be plenty of that) but certainly as a society.

How depressing.

[leesa]

57. Nah. It's just because their control of the media controls the message

It's always the same thing. It will end up costing more than it produces...even the Republicans admit that.

[baldguy]

75. Caribou don't make campaign contributions.

Its all about money.

[FDU]

77. Organized Labor and ANWR

Doesn't Organized Labor stand to create a lot of high paying union jobs from drilling in ANWR? If I am recalling correctly, I believe the unions are in favor of ANWR drilling. I'll go look for a link on some info of their position, but if anyone has something please feel free to post it.

FDU