Peter's blog

In what passes for a lull between this year’s Democratic and Republican conventions I pass along the following, via Street Sense, a newspaper largely written and sold by Washington, DC area homeless men and women.

From the Democratic Party platform of 1968:
“Since 1961, we have seen…an increase of nearly 40 percent in real wages and salaries…”

From the Republican Party platform of 1968:
“We pledge…vigorous federal support to innovative state programs, using new policy techniques such as urban development corporations, to help rebuild our cities…
“We will modify the rigid welfare requirements that stifle work motivation and support locally operated children’s day care centers to free the parents to accept work.”
“We will encourage extension of private health insurance to cover mental illness.”
“The entire nation has been profoundly concerned by hastily extemporized, undeclared wars which embroil massive U.S. armed forces thousands of miles from our shores…At home, the [Johnson] Administration has failed to share with the people the full implication of our challenge and of our commitments…We will return to one of the cardinal principals of the last Republican Administration: that American interests are best served by cooperative multilateral action with our allies rather than by unilateral U.S. action.”

Street Sense cites The American Presidency Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Just noting.

In A Grammar of Motives the late poet and rhetorical scholar Kenneth Burke wrote, “there is implicit in the quality of a scene the quality of the action that is to take place within it. This would be another way of saying that the act will be consistent with the scene.” The scene speaks, just as the speech does.

An example of the scene “speaking” the speech is President Bush’s address to the nation after 9/11. The New York Times Magazine reported that aides considered three venues for the address: the Army War College, the Oval Office and the House of Representatives. Each location would convey a different message, regardless of what was said. In the end they chose Congress which demonstrated a united country coming together (rather than being on war footing or the sole burden falling to one man alone).

Which brings us to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and his speech tonight at Invesco Field – Mile High Stadium – in Denver. As reported in The Note and elsewhere, there is a potential disconnect between the location – the scene – and the message that Obama wants to convey – the act. An outdoor stadium with 70,000+ screaming fans, with a stage of Greek columns and a backdrop of the Rockies says “Massive Event.” The scene, like the Lincoln Memorial 45 years ago today, says “Historic.” The rhetoric must be soaring, the act must match the scene, the scene “contains the act” (Burke). If it does not the speech doesn’t work, it sends mixed messages and fails.

But here’s the tricky bit – Obama is trying to connect with regular voters in non-soaring ways. If pundits like George Will, and Ruth Marcus right, Obama needs, as Marcus put it, “to seem more familiar and approachable to voters, yes, but he also needs to convey -- to use President Clinton's famous phrasing -- that he feels their pain.” Unfortunately that act does not fit the chosen scene. It’s hard to demonstrate a personal connection in a football stadium. Anything done on a 50-yard line is a show, not a conversation. Obama needs to have a conversation with the American people. He needs a different scene like a kitchen table (he can use one of McCain’s – the man can’t use all of them once).

It’s way too late for this to happen, but one option that does what Obama needs to do, while also letting Obama do what he does best (and what his supporters need him to do), would be to accept the nomination in someone’s home, or in an abandoned factory. Have a very, very small gathering – a couple dozen people standing around someplace that demonstrates that things are tough but that people want the chance to succeed again. Then, with these folks, ride a charter bus to Invesco and give the soaring speech of his life. The scenes and acts would align, and the rhetoric would work.

As part of my ongoing effort to provide unsolicited advice to people I don’t know, I am going to talk about Head Start.

Head Start helps kids get and stay healthy and prepares to succeed in school. Or, as the government puts it in more than twice as many words, “Head Start is a national program that promotes school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development of children through the provision of educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to enrolled children and families.”

I’m not sure all that the program does, but it seems like one of those Good Things we ought to have and support. But according to some reports Head Start is under- funded. That’s not a huge surprise. A lot of federal programs are easy to talk about supporting and then letting wither on the vine.

One might imagine that after Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg mentioned Head Start in introducing her uncle at the Democratic National Convention, the program’s advocates would have written blog posts, email alerts, statements leading web sites, all sorts of mayhem. If not then, certainly after Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s speech at the convention in which he called for full funding of the program.

Or not.

Of the first 20 results in a Google search, most are state programs, a couple are The National Head Start Association, and the bulk of the rest are general information sites. One link is to Save Head Start. None of the sites mention the convention or the speeches. The most recent news update on the Save Head Start site is a press release from June. The California Head Start Association has a link labeled “Learn More About the Presidential Election which takes users to Every Child Matters. No mention there. There is a blog from the Democratic convention, but Head Start isn’t mentioned in what amounts to a travelogue. Another missed opportunity for advocacy.

Not a lot of federal programs get plugged in prime time, internationally televised speeches. That Head Start was mentioned (twice) is a big deal. Advocates should be taking immediate advantage of this moment to secure full funding for the program. As a start, advocates should:

Put the quotes from the Kennedy-Schlossberg and Patrick speeches on their web sites;

There should be an online petition circulating calling for Congress to commit to full funding as soon as they return in September (I know we’re out of the appropriations cycle, but get them on the record now so you can go back to them next spring when it counts);

Every House and Senate candidate should be asked to sign a pledge card committing them to fully funding the program should they be elected (and those who sign should be highlighted on web pages and in emails);

Local Head Start leaders and advocates should be writing letters to the editor, opeds and blog posts thanking Ms. Kennedy-Schlossberg and Gov. Patrick for their support and talking about the need to fully fund the program; and

Fact sheets consisting primarily of the convention quotes and media clips talking about head start should be the basis of lobbying visits to Congressional offices in September – those sheets should accompany a “Dear Colleague”, sign on letter or other document committing Congress to fully funding Head Start.

And then advocates should start to make some noise.

There are probably good reasons why some of these actions cannot easily be done (one has to walk a fine line on lobbying), but if Head Start is that important and that much at risk, it seems worth finding the ideas that are legal and that can work. And then start working them.

It’s the Narrative, Stupid

Both the McCain and Obama campaigns understand, in ways that no campaigns since Reagan’s have, that elections are about narrative. Campaigns are stories. As I have written in this space before, the classic story is boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl in end (something I learned from Michael Goldman at Emerson College 20+years ago). In other words, hope, loss and redemption. Through these stories the candidates are able to demonstrate they are heroes and in so doing remind us all that this American story continues to be true.

This is a story America has heard from McCain and Obama for eight and four years respectively, and it is a story Americans will hear every night from Denver – and probably every night in Minneapolis, and every night until November.

A few days ago we started hearing this story about Obama’s running-mate, Joe Biden. We’ve learned that he is a working class kid from the hardscrabble streets of Scranton, PA who faced adversity and through diligence and hard work has achieved success. We know his first wife was killed in a car accident while shopping for a Christmas tree when Biden was in Washington right after his first election. We learned that Biden was persuaded to stay in the Senate and took the oath of office from his son’s hospital room. We know that after a failed run at the White House in 1988 he rededicated himself to working values he believes in, and has become a senior statesman.

Tonight we will hear the story from Michelle Obama, a working class kid whose parents wanted something more for her, and who went on to Harvard. According to an Obama campaign press release, “[Tonight] Michelle will also talk about her upbringing on the South Side of Chicago. Her story is a great American story: modest means but big dreams—and encouragement from loving parents that she and her brother could accomplish whatever they put their minds to if they worked hard.”

Tomorrow we will (hopefully) hear this from Senator Clinton. On Wednesday we’ll hear the story again about, and from, Biden. Hopefully we will also hear it from President Clinton whose story of a belief in a place called hope helped elect him 16 years ago.

And on Thursday night we will again hear the story about a skinny kid with a funny name, with white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, whose story is only possible in America.

Through these stories we will be reminded that America was born to greatness (boy meets girl, hope), that we are in a mess not of our own making (boy loses girl, loss) and that by electing Obama and Biden we be great again (boy gets girl, redemption). By reminding us of this story Obama and Biden are not only telling us their story, they are telling us our story. We know this story. We like it and believe it. And if told well, we will vote for it.

As promised, here is the interview I did with Scott Walterman on XM Radio's P.O.T.U.S '08 station.

It's a long clip (about 25 minutes) - I reccomend bringing a bottle of wine and a date.

At the end of Episode One: A Plug and a Whack I promised to offer unsolicited advice and solutions to The Concord Coalition, a force behind (and focus of) the debt doc I.O.U.S.A.

It’s compelling and entertaining film that explains the history of our federal debt and deficits, the problems they create and what the future could look like of we don’t act a.s.a.p.

Unfortunately after 90 minutes of explaining why we’re doomed the audience isn’t given anything meaningful to do about it.

Before seeing the movie my wife and I had dinner at Meiwah and my fortune said something like it’s easier to be a critic than to solve problems. With that in mind, here are some specific steps that Concord can take, or could have taken:

Tell people to pull out their Blackberrys and immediately sign up for I.O.U.S.A. online campaign. Oh, create an online campaign to which people can sign up.

Tell people how to order the film. Make the film available on iTunes and other online movie outlets.

Tell people how to contact Concord to organize screenings at house parties, civic groups, in schools, at churches, etc.

Bring back and promote Concord’s “Hard Choices” game, and develop an interactive online version. This was (and may still be, no one mentioned it last night) a terrific exercise that makes small groups of people balance the federal budget using government numbers and government descriptions of programs.

Tell people to increase their own savings, and give them easy ways to do that. A major point of the film is that low personal savings rates contribute to the problem, and that if the government goes broke we’ll all need to rely on our personal savings to finance our futures. So how about a palm card or magnet or something with tips like, “pack a lunch” “make coffee at home” “insulate your home” etc. Create a website with these ideas and drive traffic to it in film screenings.

Give viewers specific input to give to legislators: Keep Pay-Go Rules, No New Tax Cuts, Raise the Social Security Eligibility Age Faster, and so forth. This is tricky for a lot of reasons, but if budget hawks can’t make hard choices about legislation, how can we expect Congress to?

Give viewers a list of questions they can ask legislators and candidates – and a list of what good answers are. Concord has done this in the past and should be doing so around the film.

In the film we’re told that cutting all pork, ending the war in Iraq and letting the Bust tax cuts expire will only solve 13% of the problem. That’s 13% better than where we are now. We have a spending habit, we should get a savings habit. Voters should applaud every step to save money.

There are lots of other steps Concord, and all of us can take. And as the movie points out, the stakes are too high to not to act.

Last night my wife and I saw I.O.U.S.A., a documentary that wants to be the Inconvenient Truth of the federal deficit. The event was a nationally syndicated showing of the film followed by a town hall style meeting (meaning a bunch of folks in an Omaha auditorium got to ask questions of Warren Buffett, Pete Peterson, Bill Novelli, William Niskanen, and Dave Walker while people in movie theatres around America watched). I was there because back in the day I was a regional field director for The Concord Coalition which was a focus of the film, and the federal budget deficit remains one of the issues about which I am most passionate.

The film is compelling and entertaining, mostly because the two people who get the most screen time – the Concord Coalition’s Bob Bixby and former U.S. Comptroller Dave Walker – are a fun team. I.O.U.S.A. explains the history, impact and threats posed by chronic deficits and federal debt. It makes a pretty compelling case that we’re pretty screwed if we don’t fix this thing.

But.

After nearly 90 minutes of doom I am convinced that the federal debt is a huge deal. But I am never given specific steps to solve the problem

A problem this big, second only in magnitude to Islamic extremists smuggling weapons of mass destruction into the U.S. (an argument made by a member of Congress in the film), surely has solutions that I can begin to implement. And indeed there are. I can “hold elected officials accountable.” The problem is I’m not sure what that means. If getting out of the Iraq, banning earmarks and rolling back the tax cuts only solves 13% of the problem (according to the film) then what will? You can’t tell legislators to “end bad stuff” and expect to by happy with the results. I am told I can learn about the problem; I just spent 90 minutes doing that, what more do I need to know? Several people in the film said solving the problem will take political leadership and a president willing to do what’s right even if it means losing an election – setting aside the political silliness of that assertion, if it’s up the president then why should I do anything? Other solutions include better energy policy – seems like a good idea, but the connection is never made in the film, and transitioning to a non-carbon economy will cost a lot up front which seems to run counter to the message of the film. Another solution is fixing health care – again, seems like a good idea that isn’t connected to anything in the film and that most folks agree will cost a ton.

So what do I do? Unfortunately I’m never told, and as such probably won’t do anything and the problem will continue to get worse.

Stay tuned for Episode Two: Unsolicited Advice and Solutions

The last several blog posts led to an interview on XM Radio’s POTUS 08 station – hopefully I’ll be able to post an audio file of the conversation soon.

Changing the subject, here’s an idea that’s bound to upset my friends in the media reform world: to advance net neutrality, support legislation banning the Fairness Doctrine from applying to the Internet.

This summer I oversaw an independent study with a graduate student at George Washington University. His final paper was an analysis of the network neutrality debate, drawing on work of people like Prof. Frank Buamgartner to explain where the debate is, how it got there and what happens next.

His analysis found that net neutrality has not been clearly defined and as such is stuck. There is no clear “about” or “abouts” over which people are arguing. Advocates on both sides claim to support freedom, innovation and openness and a number of policymakers on both sides have trouble articulating what net neutrality is and why it matters. Until those questions get resolved it is unlikely that net neutrality advocates will win.

Last week FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell argued that net neutrality mandates would lead to reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. This is, on its surface, absurd – the Fairness Doctrine mandates control of content while net neutrality prohibits control of content – yet absent clarity in the debate such claims can stand.

Here I should note that several Republican legislators are pushing legislation banning funding for any re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy rejected 20 years ago.

Bearing in mind my student’s observation, what if net neutrality advocates took McDowell seriously? What if they argued for legislation banning the imposition of the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet? Democrats would be promoting a “hands off” mandate, staking a claim that the Internet should be open and free for all. Net neutrality would be a provision in the legislation – if the government can’t play favorites, if the consumer should get to decide what a good argument is without artificial outside interference, shouldn’t the same rules apply to ISPs? Content providers should be allowed to produce content and get it to consumers, and consumers should be allowed to choose the content they like. Net neutrality would become a rejection of the Fairness Doctrine. Republicans would either have to vote for net neutrality or against banning the Fairness Doctrine – a tricky place to be.

The part my friends won’t like about this (one of the parts, I’m sure there are others) is that it puts Democrats in the position of voting against the Fairness Doctrine, a policy many of them support. But the Fairness Doctrine isn’t coming back. It won’t pass Congress, if it did and if McCain is elected president it would be vetoed, and if it did pass and if president Obama signed it into law, the Courts would reject it. The Fairness Doctrine is gone. So why not use it as a foil to help get net neutrality?

My past two posts have focused on the importance of the metaphors used to describe the Russia/Georgia conflict. In this post I look at the larger story that the metaphors help tell.

In “Framing the Wars in the Gulf and Bosnia: The Rhetorical Definitions of the Western Power Leaders in Action” in The Journal of Peace Research Riikka Kuusisto argues that a handful of stories explain and therefore determine U.S. foreign policy. These stories put the events into a context or narrative, explain the motives of the actors and ultimately determine the appropriate response.

Borrowing heavily from Hayward Alker, Kenneth Burke and others, Kuusisto writes that two common stories are heroic tales and tragic plots. A heroic tale has a white knight rushing in to rescue a maiden, while a tragic plot has inevitable demise to it, it is a nightmare from which the characters cannot escape. A heroic tale has a victim, a victor and a vanquished – there is a maiden who is pure, a dragon that is evil, a tower in which the maiden is kept, and a kingdom to which she can return. The motives are easily understood, the lines clear and action obvious. The first Gulf War provided an example of a heroic tale with Kuwait playing the role of the maiden and Hussein the role of the dragon. The U.S., of course, was the White Knight that drove the dragon back into its lair and then rode into the sunset. Conflicts in Eastern Europe often get defined as tragic plots. There are decades old – sometimes centuries old – ethnic and religious divisions, with countries cobbled together by various treaties pulling apart at their artificial seams. There may be evil-doers, but it is unclear who the good guys are and there is no clear order to restore.

Seen in this framework, the implications for the definition of the Georgia/Russia conflict are clear. (As an aside, does it matter if the conflict is Russia/Georgia or Georgia/Russia?) If this is Cold War II: Return of the Kremlin then Georgia is the innocent victim being mercilessly marauded by Moscow. We know the role the US and West play in this movie – we’re heroes protecting outposts of civilization. If on the other hand there are break-away republics, a Krazy Kremlin and a power hungry local leader in Georgia trying to cobble together his own kingdom by forcing innocent ethnic minorities to join his own little empire, then there is no clear role for the U.S. or other western powers, it is unclear who needs to be rescued from whom, and once rescued precisely where they should go. We’ve seen this movie as well, and it ends badly.

How Russia/Georgia conflict gets defined, the narrative into which it gets placed, will determine in large part how the presidential candidates talk about it and how Western leaders respond to it.

The Russia/Georgia conflict is quickly becoming characterized as a renewal of the Cold War. There is an airlift that The Wall Street Journal says “Echose of the Cold War” and "This does have echoes of the cold war," ABC's George Stephanopoulos reported on "Good Morning America" according to The Note.

Russia, readers are reminded, is the former hegemonic Soviet Union, as The New York Times writes: “The decision Wednesday to send the American military, even on a humanitarian mission, deepened the United States’ commitment to Georgia and America’s allies in the former Soviet sphere, just as Russia has been determined to reassert its control in the area.”

Russia is a post-Cold War nation, an important international player that deserves a seat at the global table. The Soviet Union is an expansionist empire that kills freedom and democracy.

If the dominant metaphor for the current conflict is the Cold War there are important implications for foreign policy, the Bush administration, Europe, and of course the current presidential campaign.

Senator McCain’s strengths are his clear vision, willingness to talk tough (or at least straight) and that he’s a war hero (which itself is a metaphor for strength and integrity). One of his biggest weaknesses is his age.

Senator Obama’s strengths are his optimism, his echoes of the young Kennedys and his “futureness.” One of his biggest weaknesses is his relative inexperience.

A Cold War metaphor is a double-edged sword for both candidates. McCain is a war hero because of the Cold War. He can say, “No one has to tell me about the importance of standing strong against communism, and what happens when politicians equivocate and negotiate with dictators. While some learned about the Cold War in university lecture halls I lived it. I know the stakes of failure.” His age becomes an asset, he demonstrates resolve, and he reminds Americans what it means to be strong against a foe, especially in tough times at home. The Cold War allows America to thrust out its chest even as things get worse domestically. Inflation may be up and employment down, but at least we’re a democracy with God on our side. The downside, of course, is that McCain risks letting people’s minds drift from McCain as POW to McCain as POW in Vietnam, a quagmire, American soldiers dying pointlessly in a war that isn’t winnable, and quickly to Iraq.

Obama is similarly in a tricky spot. If he is Kennedy-esque he would become a solid Cold Warrior, which would run counter to his anti-Iraq invasion message. If he does not come out strong, he risks being labeled Neville Chamberlain. A call for restraint and discussions would leave him open to accusations that he is young, naïve and not ready to lead in times of trouble.