Environmental Word Games
Editorial
The New York Times
March 15, 2003
Whenever the Republicans find themselves in trouble on environmental issues, the call goes out for Frank Luntz, a respected party strategist. Back in 1995, Mr. Luntz urged the party to soften its language when it became clear that the Gingrich revolution had gone too far in its attacks on environmental law. Mr. Luntz is now making the same point. In a memorandum recently described by The Times's Jennifer 8. Lee, he warns that after two years of regulatory rollbacks, environmental issues have become "the single biggest vulnerability for the Republicans and especially for George Bush."
Mr. Luntz's remedy is not to change the policy, but to dress it up with warm and fuzzy words. As in 1995, he says that the problem is one of communication, and that what must be done is to start using comforting words like "balance," "common sense," "safer," "cleaner" and "healthier."
So far, Mr. Bush has been following the strategy to the letter. His State of the Union address, for instance, forecast a paradise of cleaner air, pollution-free cars and healthier, fire-resistant forests. He did not mention the trade-offs: Mr. Bush's clean air program weakens current law; the pollution-free car, decades away, does nothing to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil; the forest program undermines environmental protections. But it all sounded extremely virtuous.
Avoiding bad news is an important part of the Luntz strategy. Take his discussion of global warming, an issue that has given Mr. Bush fits ever since he rejected the Kyoto accord on climate change. Most scientists believe that warming is caused largely by manmade pollutants that require strict regulation. Mr. Luntz seems to acknowledge as much when he says that "the scientific debate is closing against us." His advice, however, is to emphasize that the evidence is not complete.
"Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled," he writes, "their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue."
To many Republicans, Mr. Luntz's strategy is a recipe for political success. We think it underestimates the public and its capacity to distinguish rhetoric from reality. To us it is a recipe for cynicism and political manipulation.
nytimes.com |
