Managing the Message: The Epicurus 6 Step Program For Policy Denial

So in watching the coverage of the global warming debate heat up (no pun intended) over the last couple of months, I've gotten to thinking about how the debate on this issue has evolved over the years. In thinking about this, I've come up with a rough outline for how those who wish to mount opposition to a particular set of policy proposals often go about it. I don't think this recipe is unique to any particular issue, though I do think in the case of global warming, the GOP has executed this playbook in sterling fashion. So here it is, my 6 step program, using global warming as an example which illustrates the overall progression through the steps:

Step 0. Decide upon your desired outcome. Before the debate even gets underway, you need to decide upon the pre-determined optimal outcome based on your political, economic, or sometimes personal considerations. Perhaps it goes without saying, but if you're not predisposed to a particular outcome, the 6 step program isn't really for you.

Step 1. Completely deny the existence of the underlying problem or problems which have prompted calls for the policy proposals with which you disagree. This strategy is a good place to begin because oftentimes, you can cut off debate on an issue very early on. In the immediate case, opponents of measures to curb global warming for years pointed to "evidence" that we weren't heating up the globe. They thoroughly denied the existence of the problem and refused to believe that there were even good reasons to be having the debate. Some, like Sen. Inhofe, have never moved beyond step 1.

Step 2. Loudly proclaim that there is much disagreement about the existence and extent of the problem and call for more study/research/hearings, etc. This is an excellent second step because it can really slow things down. If you can't completely scuttle the initiatives with Step 1, the next best option is to slow any forward progress and bring action to a standstill. In the global warming context, opponents trotted out the few experts who held contrarian views, and pointed to their research as perfect examples of how more study is needed. A corollary to this rule is to equate in the minds of the public and the media the views of a very small but vocal minority with those of the large, growing, and oftentimes more passive majority thereby implying that they have equal standing with respect to the underlying truth of the matter. This only further bolsters the justification for calls for more study. Given the nature of governmental bureaucracy and the halting pace of Congress in general, this can be a very effective and quite long-lasting step in the policy denial process.

Step 3. Call into question the motives of those who support policy reform and attempt to conflate the newly questionable motives with the underlying validity of their point of view. If you're loosing on the facts, change the subject. By moving the discussion to one of peoples' motives, you can shift attention away from the underlying issue. Furthermore, if done well, this step can call into question the validity of the underlying conclusions by getting people to focus on something other than the facts. With respect to global warming, this was done by conflating legitimate, peer reviewed scientific research with policy or position papers which were circulated by environmentalist groups. By working to associate the scientific community with a sometimes unpopular advocacy community, opponents of global warming reforms successfully changed the subject and clouded the issues.

Step 4. Admit the existence of the underlying problem but characterize it as completely intractable, thereby implicitly rejecting any proposed policy prescriptions. There's a pretty large chasm between Steps 3 and 4 and, as such, moving from one to the next should be done only after careful consideration. By actually admitting there is a problem, you have the potential to lose some credibility, but this can be mitigated by pointing to the confirming nature of the additional studies/research/hearings you called for in Step 2. In the climate change context, this step essentially involved the circulation of a variety of conventional wisdoms. A few include a) the notion that we are merely powerless to influence our climate without massive unintended consequences, b) we can never measure the results of any actions we do take or be sure of the ultimate cause and effect, therefore any specific policy solution is futile, c) because climate change is a global problem, any steps we take to fix the problem will just be exploited by other countries who don't choose the same costly policy reforms. There are many others, but you get the idea. The duration of this step can be elongated by engaging on the details of particular proposals in an attempt to further confuse the issue.

Step 5. Gain control of policy solutions which are rising in popularity by exaggerating or minimizing the costs or benefits of the given solution. Now that we're all the way at Step 5, things by definition have become more dire. We really need to pull out all the stops or we may actually lose control of the situation. To regain control, you need to make the specific solution which is on the table unpalatable. The GOP is currently in Step 5 with global warming. Currently, they are executing Step 5 by painting dire predictions of the costs to our economy, our way of life, and at times, even the "American Dream" were we to undertake any of the particular approaches being bandied around these days. Conveniently absent from the analysis of those using the 6 Step Plan are are the substantial and largely un-refuted consequences of inaction. In a related, inverted example, the "One Percent Doctrine", which was proposed in Ron Suskind's book of the same name, is an excellent example of an attempt by Dick Cheney to paint the costs of inaction with respect to terrorism as so dire that all traditional analysis and evidentiary standards should be set aside when there is even the smallest hint of negative consequences to inaction. Wouldn't it be funny if the Administration applied the "One Percent Doctrine" to global warming.

Step 6. Take control of the issue by putting forth a counter-proposal which is largely unworkable but can be used as an excuse by users of the 6 Step Process to brand the original reformers as defeatists, or even worse, opponents to action, when they inevitably reject the counter-proposal. This is by far the most risky step, as it can have a way of becoming quickly unmanageable, but I have no doubt that over the next couple of years, we will see the GOP minority in Congress move to Step 6 from Step 5. You can take it to the bank that we will see some fatally flawed voluntary emissions reductions proposal, or a carbon cap-and-trade scheme with some serious loopholes, emerge as a GOP proposal, and when the Democratic majority highlights the deficiencies, they will be branded as soft on the environment and as unwilling to make the "hard choices" required to fix the underlying problem which the GOP will claim they have been "leaders" about for time immemorial. You can already see the Administration moving to Step 6 with respect to the health care debate by proposing the tax deduction for the purchase of private health insurance plans and the accompanying tax increase on those who already have better than average coverage from their employers.

While there was admittedly a fair bit of sarcasm in the above, the kernel of truth is that managing the evolution of the debate on a particular policy is almost as important as ultimately obtaining the desired policy outcome. Because policy is so much easier to make than it is to un-make or reform, there's huge advantage to be had by those who slow down the pace of change as much as possible when they disagree with the current trajectory of the debate.