... and other tips from the Third Way. Columnist Jill Lawrence writes in Politics Daily that the words aren't working.
When voters hear "green jobs," they apparently think of recycling or
making herbal soaps. Global warming is not one of their pressing
concerns. And cap-and-trade – which involves "capping" overall carbon
dioxide levels and letting companies buy and sell emissions permits --
"pushes big negative buttons" for them.
Lawrence links to a memo from Third Way, which she calls a centrist group, and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a research firm. After an extensive look at swing voters and moderates in six states, the analysts think it's time to try some new words. (New policies don't enter into it.)
Specifically, the memo says Democrats should talk about clean
energy jobs instead of green jobs. It also says "cap-and-trade," as
ACES [American Clean Energy and Security Act] is often called, not only lacks meaning to voters, it also gives
them an impression of dead ends and Wall Street trading. A clean energy
incentives bill sounds much better.
"The name of major reform legislation should evoke the underlying
public policy purpose of the bill, not the mechanics of its
implementation," the memo says, and underscores the point by asking
Democrats to imagine what would have happened if the "No Child Left
Behind Act" had been called the "Mandatory Testing of Schoolchildren to
a Federal Standard Act."
Like so much else in Washington, the fate of ACES may come down to who is more convincing about how much it will cost
That's an argument proponents are losing. Read the column and the memo. Some good insight as to how the climate change debate may be shifting.
And, for more on words and how they matter, read Lawrence's earlier column on the health care debate, with sharp quotes from Republican strategist Frank Luntz and Democratic consultant Paul Begala.
There's a tendency to overstate the importance of the frame, but it can't be ignored.
Comments