I would argue that Obama sold himself as a "tough love liberal," although I'm not sure if he's manifested that way since taking office.

One technique for making new converts is to make early and courageous concessions.

For example, the following concession to Global Warming skeptics would get me in hot water with my supposed liberal cohort: There is no consensus that Global Warming will be, on the balance, bad for the world. If anything, history has shown that increases in global temperature have been followed by global economic development. Russia must be excited by Global Warming because their entire Northern frozen lands will soon become viable agriculture. There's also a clamor for access to the trading routes opening over the thawing Arctic.

Having said that, there are varying qualities of consensus. And I believe that the consensus that Global Warming is caused by humans is too strong to shrug off:

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. (Link)

I think what gets Global Warming skeptics anxious is the guilt implied by the theory. If you can appease that guilt, you can get them to accept the factual premise.

This is related to my previous post on faith. I'm of the belief that Obama's "Hope" message was just code for "Faith." You can substitute the word "Hope" everywhere in his speeches with "Faith" and they would still make sense. Playing this message was the only way he could get elected. It was clear to Obama, his campaign team, and everybody in the world, that his lack of experience was his largest trait, even larger than his race. Or maybe his race was intertwined with this issue, in that non-black people need to have more faith in black people, and black people need to have more faith in themselves.

I'm loving these Hannity video montages of political current events that play like doomsday movie trailers.

I especially like this line around 1:00:

And also this one from Kennedy around 1:45:

This is another one I saw, about the Stimulus:

"Science is not politics. You can't just get two opposing viewpoints and think you've done due diligence."

- Stanford researcher and policy analyst Steven Schneider, discussing the current state of media coverage of global warming and related issues February 13 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago.

Maybe some advice for Obama's State of the Nation address tonight:

Start to use the language of Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life, and have a talking point like:

I know it sounds a little ridiculous, but I don't think it's too ridiculous to be repeated on CNN, FOXNews, and MSNBC.

Purpose-driven hospitals? What's that?

A doctor who's a friend-of-mine says that hospitals are run by MBAs who bring all these metrics to measure his "performance." Unfortunately, he says, they're performance only in the context of the Starbucks model: give them a shot of happiness, at the least amount of cost-to-the-hospital, in the shortest amount of time.

This is basically a re-framing of the argument that the drive for profits creates an inappropriate incentive structure for healthcare given the actual purpose of healthcare.

This article, by the New Yorker, about moral hazard, has done the most to educate my perspective on the Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan.

And I thought of some clinching rhetoric to further seal up this point:

Note: this post is just about one side of the issue, and should not be taken as representing the sum total of my viewpoint.

Jay-Z said this about Chris Brown, who recently assaulted Rhianna:

Chris is a walking dead man. He messed with the wrong crew.

If Jay-Z really wants to make a difference, this is what he should say:

This idea follows on the heels of this article on ABC News about the black community being bitter about Chris Brown. Jay-Z has an opportunity to be a voice for societal change considering he's one of the biggest role models. An appeal to manhood would be especially effective.

Obama is going on a tour to promote the Stimulus Bill, but I think there might be an even better strategy that leverages the power of viral marketing.

What you do is leak a 30-second campaign ad, showing how opponents of the bill will be viewed in the upcoming elections.

For example, the Stimulus has about $250 billion in tax cuts. If Republicans vote against this, couldn't someone create a commercial mocking them for going against their conservative ideology? It's the same thing that the Republicans did by claiming Democrats voted against funding the troops, when in fact the funding was tied to other undesirables, such as contracts for Blackwater and Halliburton.

So this time around, instead of creating the ad after the votes have been cast, create the ad beforehand. Leak it to YouTube and see if that can shift the winds of public opinion. Because right now, I think Republicans are winning the message war on the Stimulus bill.

(Credit to loud-mouth Joe Biden for inspiring the idea)

These people are the same kind of people who believe that the moon landing was faked, or that 9/11 was an inside job.

This is a re-telling of my previous post, "Message Control Idea for Rick Warren". E-mailing famous people has worked in the past for me. I have two replies from Noam Chomsky, for example (to be added later).

Subject: Message control suggestion

Hi Rev. Warren,

I'm loving your Purpose-Driven Life, and I have already bought multiple copies and handed them out. I find my life being transformed by your message.

Since your interview with Ann Curry, it seems you've chosen silence. At least, that's what I gather from the New York Times:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/rick-warren-chooses-silence/

From a PR perspective, I think this is nearly the optimal move. While many are still angry, the fire has quieted down.

This is also the nearly right move in general, as it makes the Inauguration less about you.

But I think an even better move would involve both PR and a bit of introspection. First, I think you should acknowledge the "slippery slope" fallacy. While as only a slight majority of Americans disapprove of gay marriage, the vast majority of Americans probably do not equate homosexuality with incest, bestiality, or polygamy.

I have faith that you don't truly think authorizing gay marriage will then lead to authorizing incest marriage. The leap from one to the other is most likely borne out of fear.

I'd then suggest the following on-air message:

"There is a tendency, as a pastor, to be steadfast in your positions. If I am fallible, the reasoning goes, how will I gain the trust of my followers? But while as God's word is infallible, pastors are most certainly fallible. God also says, [insert Biblical passage urging us pause and re-evaluate]. And so over the the holidays, I reflected deeply, and prayed for guidance. What I discovered is that I made a mistake. I need to apologize to the gay community, America, and the world. I do not believe that gay marriage should ever be compared to incest, polygamy, or bestiality. I realize the hurt I have caused by making that comparison. I want to let the gay community know that they will always have a friend in me, and that we will treat them, as we treat everybody, with respect and kindness."

I'm not asking you, right now at least, to go back on Prop. 8, but to find a way to widen the dialog.

I also think an expression of humility, at this point, would be a key move, and also within the realm of possibility, given your style.

Sincerely,

Philip Dhingra

--
http://www.philosophistry.com/

Here's a condensed version for those already up-to-date on the Rick Warren controversies.

Since then, Rick Warren has chosen silence. From a PR perspective, I think this is nearly the optimal move. While liberals are still pissed about Obama's decision, the fire has quieted down.

But I think an even better move would involve both PR and a bit of self-development on Rick Warren's part. First, he has to recognize the slippery slope fallacy. He needs to realize that while as only a slight majority of Americans disapprove of gay marriage, the vast majority of Americans probably do not equate homosexuality with incest, bestiality, or polygamy. (This would make a good Gallup poll, if anybody's listening.)

Once he realizes that, he should say this on air:

"There is a tendency, as a pastor, to be steadfast in your positions. If I am fallible, the reasoning goes, how will I gain the trust of my followers? But while as God's word is infallible, pastors are most certainly fallible. God also says, [insert Biblical passage urging us to take breaks, clear our heads, and re-think our ways]. And so over my Winter break, I reflected deeply, and prayed for guidance. What I discovered is that I made a mistake. I need to apologize to the gay community, America, and the world. I do not believe that gay marriage should ever be compared to incest, polygamy, or bestiality. I realize the hurt I have caused by making that comparison. I want to let the gay community know that they will always have a friend in me, and that we will treat them, as we treat everybody, with respect and kindness"

Click "Continue reading..." to read the backgrounder.

Continue reading...