Consider the following two undertakings:
- Policy analysis, of the sort think tankers, bloggers, and occasionally journalists do.
- Passing legislation through Congress, the kind of thing lawmakers, Congressional staffers, lobby groups, and occasionally the public do.
The first is about policy abstracted from politics. The second is about policy immersed in politics. The first makes use of scientific findings, economic models, and conceptual analysis. The second, by and large, does not. Congresscritters are rarely persuaded to vote for (or against) particular bills on the basis of white papers. They are persuaded by retail politics— arguments about how constituents/contributors in their states/districts will benefit/not from legislation. That’s how they keep their skins. So it ever has been; so it ever shall be. Democracy is the worst system of government except the alternatives, etc.
This is not to say that No. 1 is useless, or irrelevant to No. 2. (God forbid, it’s what I do with half my waking hours!) Good analysis can serve as a kind of guidepost or compass to show how close lawmakers are coming to the ideals of efficacy, fairness, etc. It can clarify choices.
Nonetheless, the two are often confused. Policy submits to policy analysis; people—people developing, endorsing, lobbying for, and passing legislation—submit to political analysis. Criticism of legislative proposals must perforce have two parts: how they fall short as policy, and how they fall short as politics, i.e., how stronger legislation is politically possible.
Making the latter case requires a decent sense of the political players involved. It has to show how lawmakers could be persuaded that their constituents’ interests, and/or their own political careers, are at stake. It requires a decent sense of the political dynamic: competing priorities, competing lobbies, and the tools available to those pushing to strengthen bills.
The class of people that actually knows about that stuff is much, much smaller than the class of people making confident pronouncements about it. Much like climate science, everyone who reads the interwebs claims expertise. In truth, an active RSS reader is no substitute for time spent communicating directly with the people involved. I’m only barely getting a handle on the breadth of what I don’t know.
What is the point of this windy digression? I guess that the green blogosphere should get serious about politics.
Yeah, maybe, e.g., USCAP falls short as policy. (I certainly think so.) But that’s not enough. It doesn’t claim to be the Pony Policy. It’s an effort to shift the political dynamic in a positive direction. The green groups involved made the calculation that sacrificing a bit on policy was worth getting a slate of large, influential corporations on record in support of not-terrible carbon legislation. They think that even with a more Dem-heavy Congress getting carbon legislation through is going to be a difficult fight, and that marking a point of consensus between NGOs and corporations will raise the floor for what’s expected. They expect that with two years of slow movement in the right direction, the businesses involved will ultimately be open to further movement.
Was that the right calculation? Perhaps not, but if you think so you have make a political argument, not just bash the lack of policy ponies. Some of the folks in those groups have been schlepping around the halls of Congress for decades. In addition to becoming Capitalist Running Dogs sucking up to the Corporate Man, it’s possible they also learned something, including the fact that you can’t make politics go away by stamping your feet.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Comments
View as Flat
Gar Lipow Posted 3:57 am
26 Jan 2009
Example: I have been saying for years that green groups think too small, that people like the Apollo Alliance who call for a 30 billion annual green investment or even Van Jones who calls for a 50 billion green investment need to think bigger.
And now Obama is supporting a 440 billion dollar stimulus for two years. And what is the green portion? 15-30 billion per year - just what green groups have been asking for. It turns out his people considered much higher numbers. But there were not detailed proposals in place for spending more than 15-30 billion. So 15-30 billion is what is being proposed. Now there will be some pushback, maybe a bit more for buses and rail. But fundamentally if nobody is asking for more we wont' get more.
Lets take another example. The Republicans were very successfuly in pushing through what they wanted until recently. Now the Republicans are lousy at relationship building. Bush and Cheney are both personally obnoxious in different ways. So is Newt, and so are at least half of the Republican big time players. Bt they had the muscle so they got what they wanted. And ultimately they failed not because they were obnoxious, but because their policy so damn bad.
Lets take another example. Maxine Waters is one of sharpest legislators out there. She is one of the three or four leftmost members of Congress out there, yet she is a player. She is a good enough player to able to get the occasional bit through - even though she is a minority of a minority. She is the progressive part of the Black Caucus, which is itself not exactly in the mainstream of Congressional thought. She is at the left end of the Progressive caucus, which again is not itself in the mainstream. And she is no purist, knows how to make a strategic compromise. By raising a stink at the appropriate time she may well have save Aristide's life after the second Haitian coup. And yet she would be the first to tell you that if she could get anyhing she wanted it would not be for some the other legislators to become as smart as she is. I would not be slicker lobbying groups on her side. It would be a grassroots group that could put some muscle behind all her brilliance. Because there is a limit to how much you can accomplish with clever maneuvering if you don't have the muscle to back it up.
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 4:44 am
26 Jan 2009
but suck up to the old, brown bulls in the hope of getting a favor from the truly powerful, in the spirit of Real Politik.
perverse.
Couple other thoughts: staff on hill and in lobby groups are generally smug, dishonest and incompetent. Trust no one's view because he or she is an insider.
key to politics: keep lists
be organized about it
publicize your efforts
Permalink
Ted Nace Posted 4:59 am
26 Jan 2009
The USCAP approach only makes sense if: (A) it solves the problem, or (B) it puts us closer to solving the problem.
I don't hear anyone, even Hawkins, arguing with much passion for (A). So obviously we're talking about situation (B).
But does the USCAP proposal put us closer to a climate solution? Actually, it could well do the opposite. The most immediately felt effect of cap-and-trade will be increased electricity rates in Midwestern and Southern states that rely heavily on coal. However, the effect won't be enough to actually make existing coal plants uneconomical, so we'll have the worst of both worlds: (1) an annoyed constituency that will make further legislative progress on climate more difficult, not less; (2) no actual reductions in coal, since the legacy fleet will continue being the cheapest way to drive a watt into a powerline.
If the USCAP proposal passes, people may remember this Congress the way they remember the California legislature that passed a disastrously complicated deregulation scheme. The Los Angeles Times, for one, thinks so. Those in Los Angeles also lived through the RECLAIM ozone cap-and-trade system, which wasted seven years before it finally collapsed .
A better approach than USCAP's grand scheme is a series of smaller, more focused legislative measures aimed straight at the heart of the problem: phasing out existing coal plants.
It's conceivable that such measures could be enacted on top of a cap-and-trade system. But if the name of the game is being realistic about Congress, then let's not rest our hopes on that sort of fallback scenario. Rather, let's make those measures our top priority.
Help build CoalSwarm -- a shared informational resource on coal and alternatives to coal.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 5:06 am
26 Jan 2009
Write your bill, wrap $100,000 with your bill in a freezer bag then give your bill to your lobbyist who in turn will give it to your congressman. Congressman puts the money in the freezer and the bill becomes a law.
You tend to over think everything on this site!
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 6:36 am
26 Jan 2009
BTW - a great book on this subject that is all the more relevant for it's age (was written in the 1920s) is Arthur Bentley's The Process of Government. It's far from a light read, but if you can wade through his turn-of-the-century academic style (like, for example, quoting his sources in their original German with no translation!), it's quite persuasive. Essentially argues that policy advances (in all forms of government) based upon the relative strength of competing political pressures, with no larger moral agenda or great historical arc. It is cynical, but compelling, and on point with your post: figure out how to re-align the pressures and you win. Argue about the morality of your position and you win only to the degree that you happen to be in the right place at the right time.
Permalink
liberalnun Posted 3:44 am
27 Jan 2009
Permalink