[Dialogue] THE ENERGY MANDATE?

[FacilitationFla at aol.com]

Golly I hope Obama and Hilary read this.  Could this be the  answer to 
getting progressives/democrats elected?  Or is "the economy  stupid" still better?  
But I sure wish those GAS prices would stay up to  keep Americans really 
thinking!
 
 
October 13, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
The Energy Mandate 
By _THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN_ 
(http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/thomaslfriedman/index.html?inline=nyt-per) 
 
James Carville, the legendary Clinton campaign adviser who coined the slogan, 
 “It’s the economy, stupid,” knows a gut issue when he sees one. So when Mr. 
 Carville contacted me the other day to tell me about the newest gut issue 
his  polling was turning up for candidates in the 2006 elections, I was all 
ears.  
“Energy independence,” he said. “It’s now the No. 1  national security 
issue. ... It’s become kind of a joke with us, because no  matter how we ask the 
question, that’s what comes up.” 
So, for instance, the Democracy Corps, a Democratic strategy group  
spearheaded by Mr. Carville and the former Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg,  asked the 
following question in an Aug. 27 survey of likely voters: “Which of  the 
following would you say should be the two most important national security  
priorities for the administration and Congress over the next few years?”  
Coming in No. 1, with 42 percent, was “reducing dependence on foreign oil.”  
Coming in a distant second at 26 percent was “combating terrorism.” Coming 
in  third at 25 percent was “the war in Iraq,” and tied at 21 percent were “
securing  our ports, nuclear plants and chemical factories” and “addressing 
dangerous  countries like Iran and North Korea.” “Strengthening America’s 
military” drew 12  percent. Mr. Carville also noted that because their polls are of “
likely  voters,” they have a slight Republican bias — i.e., they aren’t just 
polling a  bunch of liberal greens. 
“When we lay out different plans for how to deal with Iraq, any plan that  
also includes energy independence tops any other plan that doesn’t,” said Mr.  
Greenberg, who added that people are not expressing this view because they are 
 worried about price, but because they are starting to understand that our 
oil  dependence is fueling a host of really bad national security problems. “
There is  frustration that leaders have not taken it up,” he added. “There is a 
sense that  the public is ahead of the leaders, and there is actually a sense 
of relief when  anyone talks about [energy independence] with any seriousness.”
 
Mr. Greenberg said he started noticing this during this year’s re-election  
campaign by Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania. When his Republican  
challenger, Lynn Swann, first jumped into the race, public polls showed the two  
candidates in a dead heat. Governor Rendell eventually pulled far ahead in the  
polls, though, and among the key issues that helped to separate him, said Mr. 
 Greenberg, was the governor’s stressing of alternative energy, and his  “
PennSecurity Fuels Initiative” to lessen dependence on foreign oil and grow the  
state’s clean energy market.  
What this means for Democratic Party candidates, argues Mr. Carville, is that 
 it’s no longer enough to have “energy security” as part of a 12-step plan 
for  American renewal. No, it needs to become a defining issue of what 
Democrats are  all about. 
It should “not be part of an expanding litany, but rather a contracting  
narrative,” explained Mr. Carville. “It can’t just be that we are for a woman’s  
right to choose, and education and energy independence. This is the thing we  
need to get done above and beyond everything else.” People should associate  “
energy security” with Democrats the way they associate “tax cuts” with  
Republicans, he argued. “This is not something to add to the stew — this is the  
stock.” 
The best way for a party that is often viewed as weak on national security to 
 overcome that deficit is to be for energy independence, he noted. Indeed,  
nothing would be more potent for Democrats now than to capture energy security  
and all the issues that surround it — from improving our trade deficit by not 
 importing more oil to improving the climate to improving U.S. 
competitiveness by  making us leaders in alternative fuels.  
So does this mean the public would accept a gasoline or B.T.U. tax? No, said  
Mr. Greenberg. The public wants government to impose much higher auto mileage 
 standards on Detroit and much more stringent energy codes on buildings and  
appliances. People want a tough regulatory response, à la California. 
Remember, Mr. Carville and Mr. Greenberg are professional campaign advisers.  
They get paid to get people elected — not to offer feel-good nostrums. So 
when  they tell you that their polling and focus groups around the country show 
that  “reducing dependence on foreign oil” is voters’ top national security 
priority,  you know that this issue has finally arrived. The party that captures 
it most  credibly will be rewarded.  
Hello? Anybody listening? 

Cynthia N.  Vance
Strategics International Inc.
8245 SW 116 Terrace
Miami, Florida,  33156
305-378-1327; fax 305-378-9178
_http://members.aol.com/facilitationfla_ 
(http://members.aol.com/facilitationfla) 

Want  to build your own facilitation skills? 
Want to meet facilitators from around  the world and in your own backyard? 
Mark your calendar for the International  Assoc. of Facilitators Conference 
2007 
Portland, Oregon -- March 8-10, 2007.  See _www.iaf-world.org_ 
(http://www.iaf-world.org/) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20061017/70b38260/attachment.html