| Hi folks. A theme that is raised regularly here, on mydd in the past, and throughout the progressive blogosphere is the notion that Democratic leadership ineptitude, and Democratic electoral and policy failures, are tied not to a lack of IDEAS, but to a lack of easily-articulated foundational principles (or values, a la Lakoff) that can tie them all together. Why do progressives tend to believe in, say, universal health care, unions, gender rights, and environmental protections? Democrats have often failed to answer using pithy principles, instead resorting to an explanation of each policy and the "good" it will do.
I've taken the following from an excessively long comment I worked on earlier this week, in response to Matt Stoller's post about what's wrong with the party, and whether we might need a more fundamental "radical cultural argument," not just a better strategy, to correct these problems.
My "cultural argument" is that the discourse of SUSTAINABILITY offers the very best possible approach to uniting the progressive platform and solving these problems. |
| We've tossed around ideas like reclaiming the language of "family" or "Christian" values for the progressive agenda; we've heard about "ethics of care" and "justice" and "fairness" as possible foundational, linguistic, and policy principles.
I want to make the case that the growing international and local melange of people, organizations and values that collectively fall under the heading of "sustainability" offer us the BEST possible foundational principle with which to articulate a progressive platform.
In the past, I've drafted dkos posts on Ten Reasons the Netroots Should Reach Out to Environmentalists (http://www.dailykos....), and how sustainability issues are fueling potential for a Democratic "Western Strategy" (http://www.dailykos....). Both of these hint at the idea that sustainability offers a unique set of values - values which can get progressives elected, and then facilitate driving an actual progressive legislative and executive agenda.
Sustainability can be summed up, I think, by drawing upon three basic concepts: first, that social, environmental and economic considerations are intrinsically intertwined, and that all three must be considered in a Triple Bottom Line to ensure mid- or long-term prosperity for each. Second and related, is the notion that decisions must be judged according to their impacts on future generations, not only based on those alive to day; it's the idea of inter- and intra-generational equity, or environmental justice. Third, that the Earth is a place of physical limits, in terms of energy and resources at least, and that these limits must be respected - or even embraced - to ensure human and ecological well-being, as well as ingenuity and innovation.
It should be pretty easy to imagine how the sustainability meme/frame/value can help Democrats end the Iraq war, or argue for universal health care, or the assistance of unions, or the rights of religious, ethnic, racial and gender minorities, or the need for better-funded educational opportunities, or... I could go on!
Here are a couple of advantages along these lines:
1) Multi-issue legislative outreach. The environment is a topic that tangentially interfaces with every other progressive issue. The environment is about politics and economics. It's about social justice (feminist, Latino, African-American) issues. It's about morality (and yes, Matt - religion, including Christianity as you suggested). And you better believe that it ought to be about good old-fashioned self-preservationist survival!
I would go so far as to say that environmental sustainability could become a guiding principle of progressivism, along the lines of Chris Bowers' ongoing consideration of the principle of pluralism. It has this strength as a foundational value precisely because of its multidisciplinary, multi-issue nature. It is the kind of vision that could form the backbone of a strong, flexible, dynamic party platform.
2) Ignoring the environment is self-deceptive, if not impossible. Along related lines to #1: I've been writing for a long time about the mistake (made both by self-identified environmentalists and by others) of conceiving of these concerns as "special interests." Environmental concerns are EVERYONE'S concerns, and at its core, the environment is, quite simply, EVERYTHING. Our surroundings, our passions, and our own bodies will always and forever be a part of it. We cannot, and indeed, should not, seek to escape it. It is ours- not in terms of ownership, but in terms of identity.
3) Long-term coalition building. The netroots is a diverse group of progressives that have come together in recognition of the power of partnership and community, as a means of achieving long-term goals. In 2005, significant controversy erupted over a provocative paper proclaiming "The Death of Environmentalism". Authors Shellenberger and Nordhaus called for the "death" of the current environmental movement, so that another (more effective) one might "rise from the ashes." One of the ways in which the current movement is cited as ineffectual was that it has built "tactical, not strategic" alliances with other progressives- that these have been temporary at best. This new movement might already be forming, under the mantle of "sustainability." Many environmentalists have since arrived at similar conclusions, deciding they won't simply "work with" unions, or feminists, or government reformers (or Democrats!) when it's convenient, but must instead be in it for the long haul. This community is ready for our message of partnership.
4) Win-win scenarios abound. It's pretty tough to attack "supporting the environment and sustainability" - which is why everyone says they do, including our president. In fact, in some surveys, more than 70% Americans self-identify as environmentalists, even if they don't always rank the environment as high on their priority lists as I might hope. Environmentalists have lost so many battles largely because of a failure to engage in effective framing.
Thanks for reading, and let me know what you think! |
