Rebooting Democracy, Part Two: A Blueprint for Oregon

The second workshop I went to was presented by 1000 Friends of Oregon.

In the introduction, Bob Stacey (Executive Director of 1000 Friends) laid out the present situation. Though encouraged by the passage of Measure 49 and Portland's progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the state's carbon footprint is still growing and farms and forests remain under threat. 1000 Friends is focusing its energies on three ideas:

• We'll still need farmland in 2050. We should keep this farmland close in to help contain transportation costs. We'll also need forests for CO2 sequestration.
  
• We need to reduce carbon emissions. 38% come from tailpipes. We can fix how we get around by studying land use patterns (and influencing them) to decrease transportation distances.
  
• We need to expand transportation budgets. Balance needs to be reached in our transportation networks, with more dollars going to transit, walking and biking.

Protecting farmland
Presented by Greg Holmes

Oregon has some of the richest farmland in the country, even the world. The agricultural sector accounts for $5 billion annually and $12 billion when factoring in related industries (approximately 10% of Oregon's economy). A high percentage of this is from family farms, which are located all over the state, not just in the Willamette Valley.

In the mid-70s, Senate Bill 1000 created statewide land use planning, including agricultural zoning and Urban Growth Boundaries. Unfortunately, many provision have been weakened and population growth is on the rise, leading to global warming and potential fossil fuel shortages. It's becoming increasingly important to grow our food close to home.

In the next 18 months, the next phase of land use planning will begin with the establishment of "rural reserves." Where SB1000 helped establish when you can build, rural reserves will be set up to protect areas (like prime farmland) from future development.

How to reduce greenhouse emissions through land use planning and design
Presented by Dan Eisenbeis

Look around the streets of Portland. You still see the rings where people used to tie up their horses. Results of land use decisions are in place decades later, and can take just as long to change. The single biggest indicator of transportation sustainability is VMT, Vehicle Miles Travelled. In Portland, per capita VMT has gone down 15% since 1990. We have succeeded in attaining the goals set out by the Kyoto Protocols.

What we need to do now is apply lessons learned in Portland to the rest of the state. The legislature has succeeded in passing some "goals" but we need to make those mandatory. This can be done most effectively by adding fees to inefficient development and using the funds to pay for smart development.

Transportation networks—how we get around
Presented by Eric Stachon

First and foremost, our policies need to reflect transportation resources (funding and land) and accommodate environment impact.

Problems with the current system:

• Gas tax hasn't increased since 1993.
  
• Oregon has some of the lowest vehicle registration fees in the country.
  
• Our infrastructure is failing.
  
• Our failure to maintain our infrastructure is having an increasing economic impact on freight.

Some possible solutions (from proposals to the 2009 legislature):

• Fix roads before expanding them.
  
• Create real transportation options, particularly for the young and elderly.
  
• Make better use of our existing resources before expanding them.
  
• All transportation proposals need to be looked at through the frame of what their effect on our carbon footprint will be.

---

Well, that pretty well sums up my notes from the session. I wish I'd written this sooner so I'd be better able to flesh out some of the sections from my memory. Still, this outlines the basics of what was discussed.

Rebooting Democracy, Part One: Framing

Over the weekend of January 11-13, I attended the Rebooting Democracy conference put on by the Oregon Bus Project. It featured several workshops, policy discussions, and candidate debates. Over the next week or so, I'll try and summarize some of these happenings. (I had intended to do a quick wrap-up over a couple of days, but I ended up going more in depth here than I intended. Ultimately, I think this will be more interesting for any readers I may have, but it's going to take a bit more time.)

The subject of the first workshop I attended was "framing." For those not familiar with the concept, framing refers to setting the context in which an issue is discussed, particularly the language used to discuss the issue. For example, on the issue of abortion, you'll notice that pro-choice advocates talk about "choice" and "the right to choose" rather than being pro-abortion. Their opponents are considered anti-choice. On the other side, abortion opponents call themselves pro-life and consistently refer to the fetus as an unborn child.

The panel discussing the issue consisted of Ian Greenfield, Adam Klugman, Mac Pritchard, Steve Bella. The first point they made was that you have to frame things in a way that people personally relate to. People don't care (as much) about other people who don't have health care. What they worry about it losing their own. This can't just be a factual connection; it needs to be an emotional one. People respond most strongly when they're angry, concerned, or afraid (fear being a frequent tool of the Bush administration in particular). It's also important to be the first one to frame a discussion. If the media and public have already accepted your opponent's frame, it becomes much more difficult to make them see it your way. Furthermore, when your opponent does try to frame an issue, you have to respond immediately. The strategy for changing an existing frame is actually fairly simple. You must send out more press releases and attract more media using your frame than the opponent does using his or hers. Also you can try to form relationships with the press by allowing them access to your campaign and making them more sympathetic to your frame. Journalists are always looking for stories so the more you can give them using your frame, the more likely it is that they will adopt it. Finally, you can't accept your opponent's frame. This is one reason Barack Obama received a great deal of criticism from Paul Krugman and many other progressives recently for referring to the "Social Security crisis," which is a frame Republicans have used a frequently in their attempts to privatize Social Security.

Another great example of framing that could be particularly useful today occurred early in the twentieth century. Like today, huge corporations wielded a disproportionate amount of power in the government and, through their monopolies, in the marketplace. Woodrow Wilson, in running against Howard Taft, called for a "new freedom" in the marketplace. He posited that entrepreneurs were being kept out of the market and crushed by the influence of these massive and powerful corporations.

Another key in framing is to take a perceived negative and turn it into a positive. For example, in response to a question from the audience, the panel discussed how Kerry could have responded to the Swift Boat allegations. The Republicans were attacking his strength (his war record) and trying to turn it into a negative, another classic framing trick (Karl Rove is one of the masters of this ploy). In response, Kerry could have tried to use the incident to address one of his negatives. During the campaign, one of Kerry's problems was his inability to speak to voters in a voice they related to. In contrast to Bush's down-home [idiot] charm, Kerry appeared stuffy and elitist. If, for instance, he had chosen to go on a personality show, like Oprah, and explained how the accusations hurt him personally and how they were insulting to all veterans, he might have been able to turn the issue to his advantage by showing his own humanity and vulnerability, and also his strength in standing up for himself and other veterans.

Towards the end of the workshop, the discussion turned to how progressives who represent a variety of different issues can be helped in using successful framing. The panel suggested that a list of talking points and accepted framing be distributed for each of the major issues before us. Then whenever a candidate or policy-maker is addressing one of these issues they can be using approved, unifying language.

They also suggested that in addressing baby boomers, who remain a hugely important and influential voting block, that we adopt an overarching frame about their legacy to their children and grandchildren. This frame can be applied to virtually every major issue before us (health care, foreign policy, energy policy, and the environment, among others). We need to persuade them that they have a moral obligation to leave the country better than they found it.

The workshop ended with an admonition to stop looking to our supposed leaders for answers, to distribute leadership among ourselves, the masses of progressives all over the country, and be our own leaders.