US politics has been taking an ugly turn since Congress broke for recess in August. Many Democratic members have been returning to their districts keen to engage in constructive conversations with their constituents about the complicated details of healthcare reform. To their dismay, they have learned that illuminating the hidden costs to society of those uninsured and of unnecessary expensive procedures is much more difficult than it is for a vocal minority to should NO.
This experience shows clearly that American politics favors simple rhetoric and loud shouting to reasoned and nuanced rhetoric and calm discussion. This has immediate impacts on healthcare reform, raising doubt if it will be possible at all.
It also raises some very big red flags for climate change legislation in the years to come. Climate change is one of the most complicated issues the world faces. Understanding even the basicsthe link between carbon emissions, atmospheric concentrations, and global median temperatureis a daunting challenge. Moving beyond that to consider the merits of a cap and trade or tax schemes or the importance of technology transfer raise yet more complicated topics. If any subject requires calm and reasoned discussion, it is climate change.
So, when the US public is confronted with costly legislation based on a complex argument about global sustainability, shouting NO will have a big advantage. This does not mean that climate legislating is doomed. It does mean that those involved will need to begin refining their arguments for change now. Scientific jargon will need to go, and the compelling reasons must fit on a picket sign.
This is a difficult task. When I am asked about cap and trade, I typically need five minutes to explain. What tag line should we bring up against the power of NO?
About the Author
