This was originally going to be a comment on the allways-thoughtful jamess' post, When are we going to start calling it the Norquist Economy? but as I wrote it, I felt like sharing it with all.
I believe that we have to study Norquist and his tactics, just as Patton studied Rommel and his. The man is on the wrong side of most issues, but his political sense is incredible. Learning how he does what he does can help us duplicate his success.
First, a recommendation. For an in-depth look at Norquist, his background, and the growth of his influence, see the section on him in Gang of Five: Leaders at the Center of the Conservative Ascendacy, by Nina J. Easton
There are a number of reasons he has been so effective at what he does. Among the most important:
1. Americans for Tax Reform was built into a serious force by maintaining a laser-like focus on one issue, taxes, at a time when different kinds of conservatives, social and fiscal, were not getting along. He picked the right issue and stuck with it.
2. Norquist, understands the power of a written, public commitment. Acclaimed social scientistRobert Cialdini identifies, through research and field studies (some conducted undercover) six "Principles of Persuasion" among the commitment and consistency:
From Wikipedia
- Commitment and Consistency - If people commit, orally or in writing, to an idea or goal, they are more likely to honor that commitment because of establishing that idea or goal as being congruent with their self image. Even if the original incentive or motivation is removed after they have already agreed, they will continue to honor the agreement. For example, in car sales, suddenly raising the price at the last moment works because the buyer has already decided to buy. Cialdini notes Chinese brainwashing on American prisoners of war to rewrite their self image and gain automatic unenforced compliance. See cognitive dissonance.
The desire to be consistent is even higher is a commitment is made publicly. Thus, the power of the Norquist pledge.
My question is: why doesn't the progressive movement create a similar pledge? Or pledges?
Norquist's pledge focuses on making legislators promise not to increase something everyone dislikes anyway, taxes, which makes it so difficult not to sign. Of course, this has broader implications, as a government that's broke can't do much of anything. In one step, it influences policy across the board.
I'm thinking we could find something similar that has both an immediate appeal and broad implications. For example, if we asked legislators to sign a pledge to take no action to increase the level carcinogens in US air, food and water, they'd be hard-pressed to disagree with it. Further, there would be broader implications as, in order to keep the promise, they would have to push for clean policies in environmental, food safety, energy, transportation, agriculture and consumer protection legislation, to name a few.
There are many other areas of leverage that could be subject to a pledge: a promise to prevent any increase in total fuel consumption, a promise to raise the minimum wage every time Congressional pay is raised (thank you SinceSlicedBread.com or a promise to pay for any military conflict with immediate tax increases are just a few. In any of these cases, progressives would put legislators into a position of having to keep a pledge or explain why they didn't sign it. A win-win there.
Why not learn from the opposition? They're pretty good at what they do.
