Frank Lunz on Enviros

12Feb07

This past week, Frank Lunz was interviewed in Grist Magazine about the U.S. environmental movement and its failure – in his view – to effectively change policy and engage key publics. He chastises enviros for being “mean” and generally ineffective at framing solutions and cultivating key allies with whom they actually share common values and aspirations. According to Lunz, they’ve squandered numerous opportunities to build support and engagement through their habit of continually ‘yelling fire’ and marginalizing themselves in the process.

I agree with alot of his points. I’ve been working closely with conservation organizations for several years. Some of this work is focused on increasing the movement’s engagement in more focused, concerted policy-level work, in the context of the electoral cycle. This is new terrain for many activists, with its multi-faceted inside/outside blend of government relations, hard-assed media, policy development and public engagement and list-building. In particular, government relations – essentially an inside game based on relationships and a highly nuanced understanding of the ‘real politik’ levers of power and decision-making – is met by many activists with both skepticism and trepidation. Many activists, accustomed to a more or less continual ‘war’ waged through the media (especially in the context of perceived ‘brown’ administrations) are suspicious and skeptical about the prospect of holding back, ever, in relation to those levers.

One particular challenge groups faced lies in both the timing and framing of releasing negative reports or news releases. In one initiative, internal debates raged about releasing a critical policy report the day before the government’s Throne Speech. For the past year, several groups have been working hard to build relationships and access with key government officials – staff and electeds.  If they had released this report at this particular moment in time – a point at which those same government folks could not possibly respond – it would have been considered, quite simply – ‘gooning’ the government. The resultant anger and annoyance would have no useful place to go – it wouldn’t ‘prove the community’s power’ and lead to greater access, for example.

More and more conservation groups – and other activists – are of the growing belief that there’s a time to be hard negative – a fact which government relations consultants tend to be reluctant to admit. But timing can be everything – and government relations strategies, as part of the process of advancing policy agendas over the long term, require discernment, not continuous ‘yelling’.  But what some might call ‘discerning’ in terms of tone, strategy and approach, others might view as ’selling out’ or ‘only wanting to play an inside game’ by others. It’s subtle.

I think we’re getting there: being mindful of when, and when not, to play ‘hard negative’ in the media. The balance between describing threats and then solutions in activist messages (vs. messages solely about ’stopping’ things), require repeated, thoughtful discussions. As capacity-builders, we need to deliver this message repeatedly.

However, what Lunz’ comments also raise for me is the issue of how cautious we do need to be about the ‘takes’ of advisors – government relations and political advisors – on enviros. Many political advisors are reluctant to admit that sometimes ‘hard negative’ media work is indeed warranted and impactful. That, if done well and strategically (vs. just habitually) it can and does drive players to the table that otherwise wouldn’t play. Those same advisors, along with many legislative reporters and other ‘pundits’ close to the legislature, will be similarly reluctant to admit that enviros are effective. Ever. And their attitudes would have been the same even at times when the conservation community has proved itself to be phenomenally impactful, helping to create some of the most significant conservation gains (Great Bear, Stein Valley, Taku, Haida Gwaii, Clayoquot) in the region’s history.

It’s like market research, in fact – just because people don’t ‘like’ something, doesn’t mean it isn’t highly effective. Discomfort should not be pointed to as a sign of low impact, in our work.

When has any meaningful social change – involving a shift of power and a recalculation of costs and benefits toward the ‘commong good’ and away from the short-term self interests of a few – come about without consequences – without some degree of ‘hardball’ by social change advocates to push the equation? A few government relations advisors I’ve met swear that powerful change has happened in this way – and if so, I am eager to learn of those case studies (which, by their very natures, are not so well-known publicly).

So we have to be mindful of the frames of the ‘chattering classes’ of political pundits and advisors. Lunz, of course, as Bush’s key campaign strategist and advisor, is an extreme case. It’s difficult to imagine Luntz admitting that enviros are shifting the debate, having an impact, and actually are – and have been for some time – talking about solutions. The work of Luntz and others to frame environmentalists as “eco-terrorists” has been wildly successful in the U.S. – far less so in Canada – and so my sense is, he’s sticking with that frame.

Still, very useful insights in this article. Despite the aversion many social change folks feel toward the messenger, Lunz is damned smart and effective, and we might do well to take a few pages from his book.

Filed under: Campaign Strategy, Communications, Social Change   |  Leave a Comment