UPDATED: Progressives urged to be less “think tank” and more “do tank”
The following article from this morning's edition is reprinted with the kind permission of the Hill Times.
Because it talks about the political strategies of the conservative movement, and covers attempts to understand the emergence of populism in a different way, I thought readers of various political persuasions might find it interesting here.
[UPDATE: The video of the full day's conference proceedings is now available through the Rabble TV channel at Livestream.com, including other talks in the morning panel by Alex Neve of Amnesty International, and Kate Rexe of the Native Women's Association of Canada, and remarks by the panel Chair Gerry Caplan. The afternoon session focused on the economy. Unfortunately there were audio problems initially, but you can hear if you turn it up.]
—————————————————————-
Progressives urged to move from ‘think tank’ to ‘do tank’ to counter erosion of democracy
Massive growth in conservative ‘ideological persuasion industry,’ funds narrative tools targeted at the grassroots.
By ALICE FUNKE
Progressive groups must learn from the strategies adopted by the conservative movement in Canada, and spend less time being “think tanks” and more “do tanks” if they want to fight the erosion of democracy in Canada, delegates to the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives’ 30th Anniversary conference were told Thursday.
“Yes, research is important, but it can’t be such a large focus,” University of Ottawa professor Paul Saurette urged the audience, arguing that their opponents in the conservative movement, such as the Fraser Institute and more recently the Manning Centre, “understand that they’re in the persuasion business, not the research business,” and that progressive groups will need to develop new ways to advocate.
Prof. Saurette, whose academic work has studied the development of conservative think tanks and organizations in both Canada and the United States, said that unlike the think tanks of 30 years ago, which used to follow a “tree-tops strategy” of influencing policy, there has been a massive growth in the conservative “ideological persuasion industry,” which funds a variety of narrative tools targeted at the grassroots.
The past 30 years has also seen enormous change in the media landscape, Prof. Saurette argued, citing Tony Blair’s observation that after the war in Iraq, he had to spend the next biggest amount of time responding to the media. Not only has the media adopted a “highly pro-market fundamentalist orientation,” he said, but they “have very limited content capacity now, and journalists are scared of being labelled as biased, which is the result of a campaign by right-wing bloggers, making them even more susceptible.”
Conservative organizations spend a lot of effort “both influencing the influencers and to train journalists,” he added, saying that they have been effective in redefining equality to mean “equal access to the market,” and promoting the concept of choice as “a kinder, gentler way to convey the libertarian view of freedom” and translating that to the consumer market.
“The last 30 years of attacks on government have had an effect,” Prof. Saurette said, “making people believe they can do it themselves,” something he argued the Obama campaign was able to build on effectively.
“We, the professional class, have contributed to this problem,” argued the new executive director of the Atkinson Foundation, Olivia Nuamah, who said that amongst progressive groups she felt “blessed but isolated.”
“There is a big disconnect between the way we talk about the problem, and the way they live their lives,” she said, talking about her family and growing up in Regent Park in Toronto. “My family’s income never goes up, no matter what.” No matter who is in government, she said “they see no relationship between themselves and the state, except for taxation.”
“It is my family that votes for Rob Ford. We always bear the brunt, but never see ourselves reflected in the opposition,” she said.
“We need to broaden the types of people we have dialogue with,” Ms. Nuamah said in an interview, “to really represent that working class under-class who are the base of the service-sector economy, and find out from them how taxation affects their working lives, and their lack of access.”
“I don’t know if the progressive groups are working in a bubble, but I think we may have been too selective about who we let in, and we need to let more people in,” Ms. Nuamah said.
“The Tea Party was a perfect example. They watched the Obama campaign build up, and said we need to do that too. It works,” she said, adding that once he took office, a break occurred between the Obama administration and his organizational base, which might cost U.S. President Barack Obama another term in office.
Ms. Nuamah said she thinks progressive movements have lost the argument on public-private partnerships, or P3s, for this reason. “In the U.K., almost every service is delivered that way now. And they created a lot of employment, broke the unions, yes, but also created a lot more access to services. The private sector provided access and employment that the state hadn’t,” she said, notwithstanding any other problems with the approach.
Prof. Saurette and Ms. Nuamah both advocated variations of progressive populism or economic populism as a narrative antidote. “We need a strong progressive retooling of the value of choice,” Prof. Saurette argued. “People are upset with the conditions of their lives.”
Ms. Nuamah agreed with Prof. Saurette’s advocacy of more narrative tools like the Alternative Federal Budget, saying that while “progressives’ messages are complex,” they need to emulate some of the success the Fraser Institute has had in popularizing their ideas through techniques such as Tax Freedom Day.
In an interview, Prof. Saurette said that he had a lot of respect for Preston Manning as someone who was a true populist and whose work was based on values, but “where we differ is that he thinks what’s missing is a bigger role for the free market. The market also has a lot of hidden costs.”
“Populism is identifying with the people, and what the people want, and then identifying the causes and creating the solutions,” he said, arguing that the market meltdown of 2008-2009 provided a good example of who created the problems and benefited from the chosen solutions.
“For me the question is not whether you raise taxes or lower taxes, the question is how do you help people understand the value, or not, of those taxes. If people believe that they’re not getting value, they’ll want them cut. That’s a huge challenge for progressives, because they haven’t answered that question very well,” Prof. Saurette said.
“Over the last 20 years, the NDP has used populist language like ‘working families,’ as have the Conservatives, for very different purposes. But probably because they’re on the ground, and looking at alternative narratives other parties are using and the people are using, the NDP is well aware that populism as a narrative and a story has importance,” said Prof. Saurette.
“Too many people view populism as an ignorant reaction against elites, but I don’t think that’s true. It’s often an expression of frustration and lack of control and that needs to be responded to,” said Prof. Saurette.
“The problem is that political parties can’t create these narratives alone, or create the intellectual property behind them. Preston Manning’s idea of ‘surfing the wave’ has been important to building the Conservative Party, but happened outside of it,” said Prof. Saurette.
“The progressive movement has to help recreate a narrative that allows politicians to tap into that.”
- 30 -
Alice Funke is the publisher of PunditsGuide.ca
Tags: Hill Times
Great coverage Alice!
I must say i’m a little perplexed by this talk of wanting to “fight the erosion of democracy in Canada”.
It comes on the heels of Susan Delacourt writing an article that was headlined “Is Canadian democracy in real danger?” and Margaret Atwood saying we need to set up a “dictat-o-meter”. I think there was also a column out of a Halifax newspaper a few months back that said Harper was basically the new Hitler.
Its all a bit hysterical for my taste and gives the impression that these people are sore losers. People should focus on why they disagree with Harper’s policies without the trumped up process complaints.
I’d also quibble with the idea of right wing media dominance in Canada. The continued existence of the CBC and the failure or Sun TV to get on the air challenge that notion.
Something else to ponder, do progressive policies fail because of poor marketing or is it possible that the public just doesn’t like some of them ?
Policy types of all persuasions need to avoid sounding like they’re saying people are too stupid to know what’s good for them.
I think the thesis, and various intersecting theses you noted, are less hysterical and conspiratorial than you see Shadow.
It would be that the Right, in the form of think tanks outside of the parties, has been deliberate in doing the background group of ‘framing the debate’.
It outlines a number of ways this is being done. The effect in the not so subtle shift on what journalists report is one of the outcomes.
The various speakers are noting this, and that the left has to play some catch-up.
And the tip to Preston Manning is sincere. Both an appreciation of Mr. Mannings populist sincerity itself, and of how good he is at it.
I agree that in many ways and on many levels Preston Manning is an excellent model of what the left should aspire to.
I would agree with the fear agenda pattern that Shadow has noted. Nothing has changed in new powers or the use of them since a change from Liberals to CPC.
From my perspective the opposition are blocking policies of Democratic Reform for a stronger more centralized Federal Government.
Adding MPs to BC, AB, ON would reflect the growth in population. This will not change the balance of power as Ontario-Quebec still retain same % of seats.
The progressive groups are unhappy because even with their majority in Parliament and until recently majority in the Senate have been unable to stop the agenda of the CPC.
If we objectively examine the shared theme/strategy within the progressive groups is their a pattern?
1)Canada being transformed and unrecognizable as a result of a CPC majority.
2)Extreme Right wing Christian religious influence.
3)Anti Science, anti-fact based decision making government.
4)CPC are less tolerant and consist of angry white old people.
Part of the traditional voting left have moved away from supporting the Liberals. We generally only have two parties that are seen as able to form a national government.
People are losing their fear of the “right wing” policies and actions as communicated by the MSM and opposition. It has been nearly six years. People go to work, buy cars, save for retirement.
Certain tax policies have been very popular enacted by this minority government and the global meltdown was not pinned on them.
The progressive think tank membership does not reflect the values and concerns of regular Canadians and the rebuke is evident in the ballot results.
I don’t think they are doing research in what is important in the daily lives of Canadians. The obsession with OMAR or CAGW is not on the top ten list of priorities for families.
Bill C 311 is a perfect example of a progressive policy created in Silo immune to the market forces and realities of Canadians. I am confident not sending a cheque to Mugabe to put a windmill won’t hurt the Conservatives.
I would allow that “right wing media dominance” might be too strong a term. [Though only 'might be'.]
But setting the bar as whether or not there is dominance says nothing about whether or not a lot of influence has been exerted, at least some of it deliberately and systematicaly. And that this has had results.
Conservatives so love to portray the CBC as liberal bastion, that many of you who are not right in the trenches have failed to notice that the CBC has shifted too. Both in what they think they need to report, and what the journalists are willing to say.
I think your comment CS is itself steeped in conspiracy theories. So much so that unlike Shadow’s comment, that there is too much pure spin to bother commenting with the many points you open up.
Ken,
Can you list the conspiracy theory that I am steeped in regarding the post?
Since 2000 a significant number of voters have moved away from the Liberals. I can back up points 1-4 quite easily with citations from the opposition – MPs including pundits used in the MSM.
We have had a Conservative or a Liberal Federal Government. A coalition Federal government is not the norm and the idea of excluding the party that wins popular support or the most seats is a foreign concept.
Ken on your Conservative theory the CBC being unfairly called a “Liberal bastion” maybe you can point out the previous media campaign when prorogue was covered for months with hundred of articles prior to the change of government.
I understand Global Action on Freezing-Warming has become a progressive think tank project for several generations. How many times have you seen David Suzuki debate Tim Ball or other Canadian experts experts labeled “deniers” on the tax funded CBC? The CBC dismissed Climategate break as a news story? Any idea why the professor in Guelph named in several emails who expose the hockey stick was not contacted for a balanced debate on the subject?
How many times have they aired Al Gore’s piece?
CBC sent reporters on a trip to a sunny destination to talk to a private detective on Helena Guergis?
CBC, a crown corp appealing a court ruling trying to prevent a release of expenses because of competition or trade secrets is not a double standard from progressives?
Shadow, I should have perhaps mentioned in the intro to the article here, that the “Erosion of Democracy” comes from the title of the panel discussion. It was led off by a talk from Alex Neve of Amnesty International who documented from his perspective what that included. Other participants including the two I chose to focus on for this article addressed the point of what to do about that. I’ve updated the post with a link to the talks on Rabble TV. I realize it may not be your cup of tea, but the material is there if you’re curious.
Great coverage Alice!
I often find with some of these lectures are given by academics lecturing people to act less like academics. I have heard some of these arguments before on how progressives must learn to use language better and I agree, what I don’t see is that much action taken from those to say it.
What I also find is I don’t find that many examples and it is still very general and theory based. In my campaigning across the country I have seen the NDP use a lot of use of family and trying to take family away from the right-wing, some examples are: working families, ordinary families and recently from the NB NDP middle class families. But in a way this is feeding into the right-wing idea of us-vs-them and that the only people you can trust is your family.
Well talking to one person while campaigning in Nova Scotia, he came up with a great idea and that is to go from fighting to try and redefine family values to trying to establish community values. Community values such as caring for your communities environment, caring about the other people in your community and that includes those who are disadvantage. In the marketing end of things, rather than try and fight the right-wing head on their turf with family values, flank them by trying to change the debate into community values.
What is conspiracy? If it is what I think it is– organized planning to manipulate people or events then that is indeed what communications people do. If it is bad we call it conspiracy and if it is good it is just good management. I don’t get hung up on the concept.
Shadow, I would not avoid process discussions because many people miss the detail but have a nose for fair-play and that is usually what triggers political change.
I think the article is well written and on very solid foundation– I could add that where the right wing loyalty and expectation is ideological first and partisan second the left is often not so much. The problem is not just what a political party does or how.
Everyone has advice for the parties, the NDP in particular. The truth is that these movements have a partisan component but that is not their extent. It is the ability of right-wing ideologues to deliver their message and influence outside the partisan realm that leads to their success when that is reflected back.
If we want alternative political visions to succeed, we not only need to support action rather than pure thought but this action has to come from outside partisan sources. This explains why the campaigns to try to discredit organized labour have been so sharp and unrelenting over such a long period of time. Labour has been that voice. We need to create more outlets than organized labour and more variety to the doers as well as do more things.
Ken I won’t deny that on certain files the media’s default position is non-progressive.
Although this is likely the result of the Liberals taking these positions in the 90’s as it is influence by think tanks.
Low debt/deficit and support for free trade come to mind.
However, on other files the progressives rule the day to the point that when they have panels or experts come on they don’t even bother showing opposing views.
Immigration, climate change, law and order, the war.
So on economic matters the conservative think tanks may be winning the day.
But on just about every social matter progressive opinion has untouched dominance.
I was out, and missed out on approving Sean’s comment from awhile back. He was replying to Shadow. Sorry for ruining the flow of debate, Sean, but you’re cleared for take-off from here on in.
Sean see my above reply to Ken.
On climate change and foreign policy progressives are already doing very well. NGO’s, advocacy groups, and think tanks in those areas really do dominate the media coverage Pembina institute comes to mind.
On economic matters I think we all agree the left has some work to do. Council of Canadians is probably the leading progressive advocate and quite frankly aren’t taken too seriously.
Re: Process stories.
Other than corruption I don’t think they actually interest the public or decide elections at all.
Spending scandals and tax policy are more pressing issues for the public.