Category: Politics

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Advertising, Business Ethics, Consumer Issues, Democracy, Ethics in Government, Ethics: General, General Commentary, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Media Ethics, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , ,

In Part 1 of this post, I shared a video of a dolphin rescuing a dog, asked whether you thought it was real or fake, and then told you my answer, with seven reasons why. If you missed it, please click on this paragraph to read it.

Why This Matters: A Metaphor for Something Much Deeper

Why am I going on about this? Why does it matter? Isn’t it just some people having fun making a feel-good film?

Answer: I do marketing and strategic profitability consulting for green and social change organizations, as well as for authors and publishers–and I’m also a lifelong activist. This combination of activism and marketing gives me another set of lenses to filter things, as well as a magnificent toolkit to make the world better. My activism also brings a strong sense of ethics into the marketing side.

Both as a marketer and an activist, I pay careful attention to how we motivate people to take action–to the psychology of messaging, One category for this post is psychology; click on that category to get posts going back many years. I worry deeply about our tendency as a society to crowd out facts with emotions. (I also worry about another tendency, to crowd out emotions with facts, but that’s a different post.)

And this is an example of crowding out facts with emotion. While this particular instance is innocuous as far as I can tell, we see examples of overreach on both the left and right, and they work to push us apart from each other, talk at each other instead of seeking common ground, and push real solutions farther and farther out of reach.

My inbox is full of scare-tactic emails from progressive, environmental, or Democratic Party organizations. Because I’m in the biz and understand what they’re doing, I leave most of them unopened. I just searched my unread emails for subject lines that contain the word “Breaking” and came with hundreds, including this one from a group called Win Without War:

Subject: Breaking: Trump ordered tanks in D.C.

From this subject line, you’d expect some horror story about peaceful protestors facing American military might. It could happen. It has happened in the past–for example, the 1970 Kent State massacre that left four Vietnam War protesters dead and nine more injured by Ohio National Guard  soldiers’ bullets. (The shootings at Jackson State College in Mississippi 11 days later were committed by police, not soldiers.) And protestors in countries with totalitarian governments have often faced tanks; if you want to see courage, watch the video of a man stopping tanks with only a flag, in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in 1989–WOW!)

An unarmed man with a small flag stops four Chinese tanks in Tiannanmen Square, Beijing,
An unarmed man with a small flag stops four Chinese tanks in Tiannanmen Square, Beijing,

It’s a clear attempt to generate hysteria, to have people perceiving tanks in the streets with their guns pointed at dissenters.

Only in the body of the email do we find out what’s really going on:

Shel —

Last night, the Washington Post broke the story that Donald Trump has ordered a giant military parade with tanks, guns, and troops taking over the streets of our nation’s capital. [1] This is the kind of parade that dictators around the world use to intimidate their enemies and, more importantly, their own citizens.

This is what authoritarian dictatorships look like.

But Trump can’t change the fact that we still live in a democracy — which means Washington, D.C.’s local government gets to have a say before Donald Trump’s tanks roll down its streets.

Note the use of mail merge software to appear personal. Does that really fool anybody anymore? But OK, even when you know it’s a mail merge, it still generates at least a small warm fuzzy.

More importantly, note that the actual content is totally different from the expectation in the headline. We can argue the foolishness of Trump wanting a military parade (I think it’s foolish, and an expensive attempt to stroke his ego)–but in no way is this the same as attacking demonstrators in the streets of Washington, DC.

The right wing is at least as bad. I don’t subscribe to their e-blasts, but I found this juicy example (with an introduction and then a rebuttal by the site hosting this post) in about ten seconds of searching.

And then there are DT’s own Tweets, news conferences, and speeches, both during the campaign and since he took the oath to uphold the constitution as President of the United States (an oath he has been in violation of every single day of his term). They are full of lies, misrepresentations, name-calling, bullying, and fear-mongering. They are hate speech. I will not give them legitimacy by quoting them here; they’re easy enough to find.

As a country, we are better than this..

How You Can “Vaccinate” Yourself Against Sensationalist Fear-mongering

Before sharing any news story or meme, run through a series of questions to help you identify if it’s real.And if it passes that test, pop on rumor-checking site Snopes and check its status. For that matter, go through a similar questions for advertising claims.

The questions will vary by the situation. Here are a few to get you started:

  • Does the post link to documentation? Are most of the linked sites reputable? If they advance a specific agenda, does the post disclose this? (Note that THIS post links to several reputable sites, including NPR, New York Times, history.com, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google, CNN, Snopes, and my own goingbeyondsustainability.com and greenandprofitable.com. Yes, I am aware of the issues in using Wikipedia or Youtube as the only source. I am also aware that Google gives them a tremendous amount of “link juice” because on the whole, they are considered authoritative. For both those citations, I had plenty of documentation from major news sites.) Strong documentation linking to known and respected sources is a sign to take the post seriously.
  • Does the post name-drop without specifics? See how the Win Without War letter mentions the Washington Post but leaves out the link? Remember that ancient email hoax citing longtime NPR reporter Nina Totenberg? Name-dropping to buy unsusbstantiated respect is not a good sign.
  • Are the language and tone calm and rational, or screaming and sensationalist or even salacious?
  • Is the post attributed? Can you easily contact the creator?
  • And last but far from least, the most important question: Who benefits from the post’s point of view ? What are their relationships to the post’s creator? (Hello, Russian trollbots!). Don’t just follow the money. Follow the power dynamics, too.

I could go on but you get the idea. Please share your reactions in the comments.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, General Commentary, Marketing Trends/News, media-general, People Helping People, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

I posted a petition on Facebook, and someone commented, “Like this would make a difference?”

But here’s the thing: You never know what makes a difference. It was a pleasant shock to discover years later that Nixon was actually paying attention to the peace protests. I think the protests after the first Muslim ban and over the tearing of children from parents seeking asylum certainly made a difference. Amnesty International has made a demonstrable difference in the lives of thousands of political prisoners around the world. And I know that my participation in certain other actions, especially the Seabrook occupation of 1977, made a difference.

Nonviolent occupiers approach the construction site of the Seabrook nuclear plant, April 30, 1977. Unattributed photo found at https://josna.wordpress.com/tag/anti-nuclear-movement/
Nonviolent occupiers approach the construction site of the Seabrook nuclear plant, April 30, 1977. Unattributed photo found at https://josna.wordpress.com/tag/anti-nuclear-movement/

So we keep working and maybe sometimes we have far, far more impact than we thought we would. Who would have predicted how much traction the Arab Spring, or Tiannanmen Square, or Occupy would have gained, how much impact they had?

Who could have imagined in 1948 that all the Jim Crow segregation laws would come tumbling down, not only in the US but even in South Africa and Zimbabwe (then called Rhodesia)? Who could have predicted as recently as 2000 that same-sex marriage would be a legal right in all 50 US states and many other countries around the world? All of these victories are anchored in activism, sometimes decades of activism.

Who would have guessed that the incredible kids who survived the Parkland shooting on Valentine’s Day 2018 (toddlers when Massachusetts became the first state with marriage equality) would channel their angst into a movement that brought millions into the streets, tens of thousands to their voter registrars to register for the first time? Who knows which ones will grow up to be world leaders, and which long-time elected officials will be displaced by a wave of change?

In recent months, we’ve seen the cycle of impact quicken. Movements and memes that had been kicking around for years suddenly reach critical mass. Who would have expected the flowering of older and dormant movements such as #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter?

As an activist for more than 48 years, I remain optimistic, even in the face of so many defeats—because I also see these and many other victories. I see hope in so many people’s movements in the US, and in the complete change within two generations from a Europe ruled by power-mad fear-mongering dictators to one whose purpose actually seems to create a better world for the planet and its residents.

So yes, it makes a difference. Ordinary people can make a difference. Ordinary people make a difference constantly in fact: when I give my “Impossible is a Dare” talk, I cite examples like a seamstress (Rosa Parks) and a shipyard electrician (Lech Walesa) who changed their entire society.

What are you doing currently to make a difference? Please share in the comments.

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Diversity, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, General Commentary, language, People Helping People, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , ,
Marchers at a rally for racial justice and immigrant rights, Holyoke, MA. Photo by Shel Horowitz.
Marchers at a rally for racial justice and immigrant rights, Holyoke, MA. Photo by Shel Horowitz.

For more than a year and a half, the current administration has been mired in constant scandals of corruption/self-dealing, incompetence, vindictiveness, attacks on his opponents and on minorities, attacks on the environment, bullying, broken promises, well more than 2000 lies from the man himself, and even broken treaties…the list, unfortunately, goes on and on and on. The sorry chronicle started well before his inauguration and continues through the present.

Perhaps you didn’t think it could get worse But in the past six weeks, this vile administration has reached a new low. The decision to wrench 1995 helpless children from the arms of their loving parents and put them in cages is not only inexcusable on moral and humanitarian grounds, it’s also a long-term disaster for the safety and security of the United States. Yes, it puts every American at risk.

Here’s a quick description of the legal issues and a good list of organizations fighting this outrage that need our help.

Let’s look at both the moral and practical reasons why this must stop.

 

The Moral Issues

Many figures in this administration have been long-time champions of self-described “family values.” In other words, they say they are in favor of keeping families together, as long as those families are heterosexual. They talk earnestly about the importance of having a child grow up in a home with both parents. Yet, when mothers take their children and flee gang violence, domestic abuse, and other genuine evils, the US incarcerates them at the border and takes their children away. The parents treated like violent criminals. Their children put in cages.

Attorney General Sessions quotes one verse in the Bible to justify this barbarism: a verse that was used in the 19th century to justify the worst aspects of slavery.

Last I checked, the Attorney General is one of the people charged to protect the separation of church and state (as well as freedom of speech AND assembly) enshrined in the First Amendment. But even granting that the Bible can be a moral compass for a sitting Attorney General, Mr. Sessions’s interpretation is highly selective. Consider a few of the other things the Bible says. I’ve posted a whole bunch of them at the end of this blog post—but first, let’s talk about the practical impact.

 

The Practical Case

As taxpayers and citizens, we should be deeply concerned about what’s being done in our names. The consequences to the US could be deep, severe, and very negative. A few examples:

This policy creates an entire class of enemies—creates potential terrorists

Deliberately adding trauma creates maladjusted human beings: PTSD and other diseases. Any child ripped away from his or her family and put in a cage is going to be hostile to the government that did this. Family members will also be hostile. Taken to the extreme, you create something that looks entirely too much like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where hurts lead to rage, rage leads to violence, and violence leads to even more abrogation of rights. Once this cycle of violence gets established, it’s really hard to break (though, of course, lots of people are trying, including my colleague Andrea Ayvazian. Do we really want to create a whole new class of enemies who will feel justified in attacking US-related sites around the world? Hasn’t the US been fighting terrorism as its major foreign policy stance since 2001? This policy could create a whole new generation of terrorists.

Also, do we really want to attempt to repair avoidable psychological damage that prevents people from functioning effectively and finding gainful employment? Many of these folks will end up in the US eventually. By making it harder to function, we turn them into social burdens. Our tax dollars will have to cover the survival mechanisms for those not resilient enough to recover on their own.

It’s fiscally unsound and wrecking the economy

Jailing immigrants seeking asylum is expensive, with taxpayer costs of up to $585 per family per night. It is far cheaper to provide humane living conditions, assist in finding job and housing, and create a new and grateful productive class of future citizens.

Also, the many industries that rely on immigrant labor are at risk. Agriculture has been particularly hard hit, with crops rotting in the fields because workers are not available to harvest them. If we want food to eat, we have to stop terrorizing immigrant farmworkers.

It puts the US in violation of international law as well as our own constitution

The path the US is taking is in gross violation of various human rights charters, UN regulations, and our own constitutional requirements for due process. Imagine the consequences to business, for instance, if organizations in other firms because the US is guilty of crimes against humanity. It has happened to other countries and it could happen to us. There should be a massive outcry from business about the risks of this policy.

It positions the US as an unworthy partner for joint projects with other governments and businesses

The US has become a rogue state, blowing away trust on a host of issues, from the Paris Accord to the G7 Agreement. Now, other governments may face pressure from their own constituents not to do business with abusive governments, just as economically and organizationally isolating South Africa forced that country to get rid of apartheid.

A Few More Bible Quotes Mr. Sessions May Want to Study

On the importance of family:

8 Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
—1 Timothy 5:8
3 Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him. 
4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. 
5 Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court.
—Psalm 127:3-5
15 She gets up while it is still night; she provides food for her family and portions for her female servants. 
16 She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. 
17 She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.
—Proverbs 31:15-17

On immigrants’ place in society

21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
—Exodus 22:21
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
—Matthew 25:35
32 but no stranger had to spend the night in the street, for my door was always open to the traveler
—Job 31:32
35 “ ‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you.
—Leviticus 25:35

On justice in the face of oppression

Numerous quotes—see https://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?s=bibles&q=oppressed&t=niv&c=all and https://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?s=bibles&q=justice%2C+justice&t=niv&c=all

On human dignity

Numerous quotes at https://www.openbible.info/topics/human_dignity

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Democracy, Energy & Sustainability, Environment, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, People Helping People, Politics, poverty, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , ,

A remarkable document came out of the G7 summit. It’s a blueprint for creating a just, fair, and environmentally viable world. Leaders of the world’s most powerful industrial economies are coming together in unity and releasing a document that I agree with almost all of. Among other things, the G7 Charlevoix  Declaration:

  • Affirms the rights of minorities (including indigenous people) and women
  • Positively addresses the conflict between Israel and Palestine, tension around Korea and Iran, Russian power grabs, and even the misery inflicted by Daesh (a/k/a the Islamic State)
  • Calls for worker protections
  • Promotes sustainable and democratic health care, economic growth, and even tax structures that benefit all
  • Has strong language urging protection of the earth and its resources

Really, the only place where I have concerns is in the endorsement of “WTO-consistent” trade policies. My understanding is that some of the World Trade Organization’s policies abrogate citizens’ and countries’ rights, including the right to enforce strict environmental and labor laws, allowing companies to sue if they find these laws burdensome. However, the citation above is almost 20 years old, and more recent documents from the WTO itself deny that claim.

With nearly 50 years as an activist, I find it utterly amazing that the “Leaders of the Free World” can agree on a document of such scope. We could actually call it revolutionary. The leaders of nations–and, in other forums, many leaders of major corporations–are agreeing to a manifesto of people’s and planetary rights. I’m not really used to having them on my side.

This photo released by the German government sums up the US president's attitude.
This photo released by the German government sums up the US president’s attitude.

And of course, the fly in the ointment was the disgraceful behavior of the “world leader” who happens to be in charge of my own country right now. The barrage of in-person pouts and Twitter nastygrams including repudiating the statement he signed make me embarrassed once again that this cruel, mean-spirited, and incompetent person supposedly represents me. Sigh!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Peace and War, Politics, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , , ,

I am one who thinks Donald Trump is the worst thing to happen to the United States of America in my lifetime, maybe in history. He has wrapped his presidency in–and pushed the country’s culture toward–bullying, bigotry, broken promises, and baksheesh (money corruption). He has no grasp of policy and seems to be governed (and governing) by whim. He takes a scary number of memes from the Nazis. He appoints people who are ruthless, openly corrupt, and bent on sabotaging all the progress of the past 80+ years. I’ve marched in the streets opposing his policies dozens of times since he was elected.

Climate marchers in front of Trump Hotel, Washington DC 4-29-17 (photo by Shel Horowitz)
Climate marchers in front of Trump Hotel, Washington DC 4-29-17 (Clamshell Alliance’s spiritual heirs)

Yet, unlike some Democrats–it’s not just Republicans who can put building their party ahead of building their country and their planet–I publicly congratulate him for agreeing to the summit with Kim Jong Un, and I pledge to publicly congratulate him if some genuine good comes out of it. We have to talk with our enemies to make peace with them. I’d like to see a similar summit with the Iranians.

Much as I’d be thrilled if it happens, my expectations of something great occurring at this meeting are low. I’m expecting these two dangerous madmen to shout and grandstand and at best not accomplish anything, at worst, push us closer to nuclear war. Go ahead, Donald, make my day: prove me wrong!

[Postscript, June 12, 2018]. I have just seen the declaration issued by the US and North Korea following the summit. While the accord is very weak on specifics, I think it’s a strong first step. It might even be the first actual good thing of the DT presidency. As a statement of intent, it is eloquent. Now of course we have to see how it’s implemented and whether it’s more than hollow rhetoric. Anyway, I am keeping my promise and praising this agreement. It’s more than any other president has accomplished on North Korea. But it’s only the first step in a long process.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Ethics in Government, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

As early as March 9, 2017, former US Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich has been making a consistent case for impeachment, laying out five different legal grounds to impeach DT.

Andrew Johnson impeachment trial, 1860s (via Wikipedia)
Andrew Johnson impeachment trial, 1860s (via Wikipedia)

I’ve got a few to add to his list.

  1. Let’s not forget that the GOP considered lying an impeachable offense and stated proceedings against Bill Clinton on those grounds. DT lies constantly. It’s one thing he’s consistent about. The Washington Post documented more than 2000 in his first year in office.
  2. Then there’s slander and libel, other things he’s consistent about. Every time he called one of his opponents adjectives like “Lyin'” or “Crooked,” that is actionable—slander if spoken, libel if written. Every time he smears entire classes of people, from those with disabilities to Mexicans to Muslims to, most recently, people from Haiti and Africa, he commits defamation anew.
  3. There’s his own admission that he’s a serial sexual predator, an admission that corroborates the accounts of at least 20 accusers (having multiple accusers of sexual assault is something he has in common with Mr. Clinton, of whom I’m not a great fan). And his subsequent behavior: first apology, then, despite a tape and a previous acknowledgement, denial that he even said it.
  4. There’s his open racism and discrimination against many protected groups, which is a violation of the oath he took to uphold laws that include the Americans with Disabilities Act and the various civil rights and free association laws. This has been a hallmark of his entire public career, and even earlier when he first went to work for his father—a man so known for his discriminatory renting policies that Fred T.’s tenant Woody Guthrie wrote songs condemning his landlord’s racism.

And then there’s the general question of DT competence, and whether we need to work a removal under the 25th Amendment (probably a good deal easier than impeachment). I consider him a sociopath and I worry that he and North Korea’s equally sociopathic Kim will get into a nuclear pissing contest. Oh yes, and the irregularities around voter disenfranchisement and ballot counting probably contain the seeds of impeachable offenses too.

Of course, I recognize the near-impossibility of winning a vote to impeach when both houses are controlled by people willing to accept the devil if the devil is a Republican. And I agree the prospect of a Pence presidency is scary. He’s smarter, far more stable, and well to the right of DT, plus he understands the game of politics.

But these are NOT reasons not to go forward. There comes a time when you have to say, “this behavior is unacceptable.” Otherwise we are a 3rd-rate banana republic with a strongman dictator—and the laughingstock/”scaringstock” of the world.

We said it to Nixon, who was far less appalling (and we got him out). We should have said it to George W. when he started a war against people who were not our enemy and destabilized the entire Middle East while also waging war on the freedom of Americans at home. We said it to Clinton for lying about his relationship with Monica, which had no impact on policy and just reinforced that he’s not a great human being.

I also believe that if DT is impeached, Pence will have limited ability to do harm. Among several possible scenarios:

  1. Pence will go down with DT because DT takes him down
  2. Pence will be implicated by others and not take power
  3. He will assume the presidency but be seen as “damaged goods” and a lightweight, a short-term straw man like Gerald Ford, not worth giving much attention to
  4. Pence will be much more circumspect, recognizing that his power has limits. A far worse scenario would be Pence becoming president after DT dies in office, and then he would not be in any way limited by the fate of his predecessor.

Finally, impeachment allows the Dems to differentiate themselves, which they’re not very good at outside the Northeast and Left Coast. By moving impeachment forward, quixotic though that is while the GOP has their majority, they take a stand in favor of decency, in favor of inclusivity, in favor of good government, and against corruption, “otherism,” crony politics, and all the rest—all of which can become campaign issues both this year and in 2020.

In other words, though it will fail in 2018, the impeachment attempt is an opportunity for the Democrats to show themselves as a party of principle, as a party willing to take risks, and as something considerably different from today’s Republican Party (a party that Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and even Reagan would not be welcome in today).

And they need this cloak of respectability. The Democrats’ hands were not clean in the 2016 election. There is clear evidence that the party actively sabotaged the Bernie Sanders campaign and the progressive movement throughout the 2016 campaign, as well as pay-to-play shenanigans that sure sound like corruption to me. Note that the above link predates the late-in-the-campaign reports that made national news.

Needless to say, these kinds of behavior cause a great deal of skepticism about the virtue of supporting Democrats. Thus, mainstream Dems have to do something to win back the youth vote, the progressive vote, and those who just plain don’t like corruption and were left with no candidate they could support in November, 2016.

When Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer say impeachment is not an option to pursue, the implicit messages to these folks include “Democrats are like Republicans but with but a nice veneer of soft fur so it won’t hurt quite so much”, “Blatant corruption and lawbreaking are OK with me”, and “the Democratic Party doesn’t really stand for the ideals on which this country was founded and will do nothing to protect them.” And the youth, the progressives, and those who believe in good government will once again stay home, and this vile creature will (perhaps honestly this time) win a second term.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Environment, Ethics in Government, language, Marketing Trends/News, Politics, Psychology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Read this brief article. Then come back and let’s talk about it. This tab will still be open in your browser.

I found it a fascinating yet quick deep-dive into the liberal versus conservative mindset. Sharing this article on Facebook (where I happened to see it), Nathan Mackenzie Brown, founder of Really American  commented,

A must read if you care about politics. FYI, it’s also very short.

My take away from this is, if you are liberal, don’t fear monger, even about Trump.

The authors’ central point is that when we feel personally secure, we tilt more liberal, and when we feel, threatened we lurch rightward. Not exactly rocket science, I know. But what they bring to the table is the idea that if we address the security concerns, the political tilt is actually reversible.

This is something that DT innately understands—the power of fear. He built his base by demonizing various Others. My capitalized O is intentional; I’m talking about whole groups and classes of people (Mexicans, Muslims, the press, etc..

It’s very rare to run a successful US national campaign rooted in fear. Reagan (“morning in America”) and Obama (“hope” and “change”) both won on optimism. Laughable as it seemed at the time and even more so in retrospect, Bush II ran as a “compassionate conservative.” Even Nixon ran on his “secret plan to end the war.”

But DT mixed a very pessimistic worldview, based largely in “they’re out to get us” with a soaringly optimistic slogan (MAGA). His opponent was a centrist with close ties to the groups DT was calling out.

Hillary Clinton also failed to consistently express strong political views, and tried to harness competing slogans at cross purposes: the wimpy and ineffectual “I’m with her” and the arrogant “it’s her turn”/”it’s our turn” both reinforcing the perception that she was an in-group, establishment figure out of touch with the public, while “stronger together” was somewhat optimistic but not really rooted in vision, and seemed a reaction to DT’s divisiveness.

George Lakoff and others have written that conservative politics are often rooted in an authoritarian-father mindset, while liberals are the products of permissive-parenting thinking. I have a number of issues with Lakoff’s approach, though I see much truth in it.

Left and Right come together at both the Libertarian (Freedom) and Authoritarian (Control) ends of the spectrum
Left and Right come together at libertarian AND authoritarian (copyright 2018, Shel Horowitz, all rights reserved)

But let me add one of my own long-held theories: Beyond the Left-Right axis, we have to look at another set of operating principles: where someone stands on freedom vs. control. So at the top end of this graphic (which is copyright 2018 by Shel Horowitz, as is the entire post—please contact me if you’d like to reprint), progressive environmentalists and Tea Partiers concerned about wasteful government spending join together in the Green Scissors coalition.

At the bottom end, I don’t see a lot of difference between communists and fascists other than their idea of who should control the means of production. They are both totally willing to rough up or even (historically) mass-murder their opponents, seize or maintain power by force of arms, and crush dissent. Was Hitler really so different from Stalin?

Let’s get some good discussion going on this. Comment below.

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Branding, Copywriting, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Ethics in Government, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Marketing Trends/News, Politics, propaganda, Psychology Tagged with , , , ,

Guest post from former Florida Congressman Alan Grayson. This originally ran in his email newsletter. I’m including all his original links and reprinting with his permission. I especially love this quote: “if you are a useless lout who has done nothing good for The People, but you still aspire to public office, then negative ads really are your only alternative.”

It’s worth noting not only how badly negative ads position our perception of politics (“ah, they’re all crooks,” etc.)—but also the growth of some promising alternatives to the negativity. One great example is ranked choice voting. Experts including Voter Choice Massachusetts explain that ranked choice (also called instant runoff) provides incentives NOT to use negative ads.

—Shel Horowitz

Former Florida representative Alan Grayson
Former Florida representative Alan Grayson

My son is doing a science experiment on politics and negative advertising.  And the results are in.  But first, a few words on negative ads.

They are pervasive.  Back in 2012, virtually every dollar that the national parties spent on Congressional campaigns was spent on negative advertising.  (Expenditures for and against candidates are reported to the FEC separately, so you can look it up.)  It’s gotten a little better since then, but more than 90% of party and PAC advertising remains negative.
Belief in negative advertising is also pervasive.  I can’t think of a single political leader or political consultant who would tell you that “positives” are more effective than “negatives.”  We had an interesting example of this a few months ago.  When GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell tried to elevate Luther Strange above Roy Moore and Mo Brooks in the Alabama Senate GOP Primary, he didn’t say anything good about Strange (apparently, a hopeless task).  Instead, McConnell dumped $7 million of party money going negative on Moore and Brooks, which backfired when Moore got the GOP nomination.  (And the rest . . . is history.)
Which proves that if you are a useless lout who has done nothing good for The People, but you still aspire to public office, then negative ads really are your only alternative.
So anyway, my son Stone, a 7th grader, came up with the idea that for his science project, he would try to measure the effectiveness of positive and negative ads.  (He really came up with this himself.  Smart kid.)
He created four positive ad posters for candidate Johnson, with suitable imagery:
JOHNSON FOR CLEAN AIR AND WATER!
JOHNSON STANDS FOR EQUALITY!
JOHNSON WILL IMPROVE EDUCATION!
JOHNSON WILL RAISE YOUR SALARY!
Each ended with the tag line “Vote for Johnson.”
Then he came up with four negative ad posters for Johnson’s opponent, Smith.  They read this way:
JOHNSON IS A CROOK!
JOHNSON WILL RUIN THE ECONOMY!
JOHNSON WILL RAISE TAXES!
And the inevitable:
JOHNSON IS A COMMIE!  (featuring a picture of Marx, Lenin and Mao).
Each ended with the tag line “Vote for Smith.”
So the 7th graders saw the posters, and voted as follows:
Johnson 19
Smith 12
When my son told me the results, I felt an enormous sense of relief.  I really wanted Johnson to win, and not just because he’s a Commie.  No, I wanted Johnson to win because his positive ads are an effort to convey to the voters the enormous power that we all have.  What power?  The power to make the world a better place, by making better rules for everyone.
That’s why I do it, anyway.
You can look at these results and feel a renewed faith in humanity.  Or if not all humanity, at least seventh-graders.
Courage,
Alan Grayson
“I’ve got The Power.”
 – Snap!, “I’ve got The Power” (1990).
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, Ethics: General, Politics, Psychology Tagged with , , ,

 

The latest nonsense emanating from the keyboard of Our Shameless Tweeter

DT's Tweet on Democrats failing to pass gun control
DT’s Tweet on Democrats failing to pass gun control

is a good chance to parse out what he really means when he says or posts something. I’ve watched what he does pretty closely for the past 2+ years, and I’ve spotted some patterns worth sharing. Let’s start with five that show up in this Tweet:

  • He blames his failure to act on others
  • He deflects by bringing in unrelated issues (DACA, this time)
  • When he creates a mess, he blames others—and almost never accepts responsibility or offers a meaningful apology (DACA wasn’t a problem until HE yanked the rug out from under those kids—and oh yeah, it was none other than DT who revoked the Obama restrictions on people with mental illness acquiring guns))
  • If he feels criticized, he defaults to bullying or name-calling
  • He sees anything connected to Obama as hopelessly tainted

And plenty of others:

  • He takes credit when others accomplish something
  • He attacks randomly at the first whiff of criticism—lashing out even at those who’d thought of him as a friend or ally—and his wrath extends both to individuals and entire populations (women, people with disabilities, Mexicans, Muslims…)
  • Having lived his entire life in extreme monetary privilege, he has zero understanding of the hardships people at the bottom of the ladder endure, and zero empathy for those who endure them
  • He loves to waste taxpayer money on grandiose, useless (or even harmful) projects like the border wall , the politically suicidal move of the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, or the massive military parade he demanded recently
  • Driven by Id, he acts impulsively, often in direct opposition to the few of his advisors willing to risk giving him honest advice—and doesn’t mind risking a war or other extreme negative outcomes in the international arena
  • He acts in a vacuum, without studying trusted journalistic sources or even reading intelligence briefs
  • He appoints people with little or no relevant experience and charges them with destroying the agencies they are supposed to run
  • He shows no understanding of checks and balances, freedom of the press, the reasons why government officials aren’t allowed to take money from foreign governments, or of constitutional law generally; he seems to think he should have absolute power and that he can use the presidency to enrich his personal fortune
  • He has freely borrowed memes and slogans from the most tyrannical and murderous dictators in history (including Hitler)—and emulates Hitler’s rhetoric on issues like the role of the press and suppression of dissent
  • He has a long and sordid personal history. Here’s the tip of the iceberg:

In short, the man has a disgraceful personal reputation as a serial liar, molester, and fraud—before we even look at his terrible handling of domestic and foreign issues as president.

Will someone please write a guide for me now? Please explain how this backstabbing, hypocritical incompetent cheater can still find people who thinks he is doing a good job.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Arts & Entertainment, censorship, Customer Service as Marketing, Democracy, Environment, Ethics in Government, language, Media Ethics, Politics, propaganda, Publishing, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“The Post” lives up to the hype. It takes a very cerebral story and builds it into high drama, spurred by strong performances from Meryl Streep as publisher Katharine Graham) and Tom Hanks (editor Ben Bradlee).Trailers for "The Post are widely available

The overall message, about the power of the free press, and the need for the press to defend its Fist Amendment freedom, despite the whims of a paranoid and dictatorial president (Nixon, in this case—a different example today).

It tracks Daniel Ellsberg’s smuggling out massive quantities of classified documents from the Rand Corporation, where he worked, and releasing them first to the New York Times, and then to the Washington Post. The movie also dramatizes the frenetic effort throughout the newsroom to absorb the information and turn it into stories on very tight deadlines, not even knowing if the presses would run, while the Times suffered under the first pre-publication censorship of journalism in the history of the United States. Known as “The Pentagon Papers,” these documents proved that US high officials knew by the early 1960s that the war was unwinnable, and that presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all lied to the American people about it.

And it covers the legal battle: the government’s attempt to shut them down and the papers going all the way to the Supreme Court to secure their rights. The timing of these events happened to threaten The Post’s long-awaited IPO, which adds to the drama and the sense of what’s at stake for Graham, Bradlee, and their journalists.

BTW, just as the movie gives lessons on how to survive a paranoid, media-hating president facing serious doubts about his honesty, the Nixon link above focuses on some very interesting parallels between his presidency and that of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC. However, let’s remember the differences. Nixon had a very impressive record on the environment—I describe him as the president with America’s second-most environmentalist track record (behind Obama but ahead of both Jimmy Carter and Teddy Roosevelt) also, despite the Vietnam war, did much to break down the barriers between the US and both the Soviet Union and China.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail