USITW’s  work on developing an alternative to the dominant “war on terrorism” security narrative has given us important insights into the implications of the “war” frame.  It may rally support, but it also leaves out many options.  While everyone is supposed to pull together to fight a war, the number one player (the player that directs the action and defines the conflict) is the government, leaving little space for community or individual leadership.  In a war, we turn our attention to immediate threats and responses, often knowingly ignoring negative longer term consequences because of the short-term needs that arise in a state of emergency.  Looking at issues through this lens obviously blurs opportunities to address long-term, big, durable shifts in policy, behavior, and understanding.

On top of all of that—the “war” frame is quite frankly tired.  And the research we’ve scanned and commissioned as part of our Managing the Fear Factor project shows that in the post-9/11 context, the “war” frame keeps progressives on the defensive, operating within a conceptual framework that plays to the arguments and leadership style of conservatives.  This narrative may also tell Americans that we are embattled, targeted, living in an “us vs. them” world, fundamentally on our own.  Reinforcing such a set of perceptions is likely to have very negative carry-over effects on public thinking about other issues.

President Obama’s campaign rested on hope and change.  This has perhaps become, today, something of a cliché; but the public does want change and they want effective leaders and solutions to major problems.   USITW’s work and that of our partners suggests that instead of the “war” frame, progressives—including those in the Administration— should consider using a “crossroads” frame.  The idea of being at a crossroads not only tested extremely well in a major research project to identify frames that promote clearer, more progressive public thinking about climate change; it is also fresh, it can be “owned” by progressives, and it offers a weary public options.

The “crossroads” frame signals to people that we can take the initiative —that we have a choice—we can play offense or we can sit on the sidelines and watch. By acknowledging the oil spill as a crisis but then pivoting to frame this crisis as marking a crossroads, progressives can share a vision of where we want to go, contrasting our vision with the status quo vision of our opponents.  This frame also allows us to describe the serious consequences of inaction or of turning in the wrong direction, and to connect the dots on how the steps we take now can lead us toward our vision.  Being at a crossroads also opens up a conversation about the role that everyone has to play—government (including watchdog agencies), individuals and business.   It allows us to critique government agencies, business, individual actions, etc. in a way that focuses on actions and not entities.

This kind of conceptual framework could help change the conversation not only about oil and related energy, climate, and economic issues, but also about some of the other changes we need to make if we are going to create a sustainable future in which the U.S. is strong and prosperous at home and wields responsible leadership internationally.

At a time when the media and political spheres are full of strident claims and counterclaims that do little to inform or engage Americans on critical foreign policy issues, our website aims to help you communicate more effectively and stimulate more constructive public debate about the important policy choices this country faces. On the website and blog, we will share messaging advice and reflections based on publicly available research as well as on research that we commission.  Our blog posts will examine effective (and ineffective) messaging by political and other leaders; explore what the latest opinion polls mean for communicators; and provide timely commentary on articles and reports that shed light on key communications challenges.

We hope you will visit the website regularly, add your comments to our blog posts, and let us know what you think!

Priscilla Lewis and Sue Veres Royal
Co-Directors, U.S. in the World Initiative

That earlier post commented on some of the opportunities that the Abrahamic faith traditions seem to offer for encouraging the kind of “affiliative action” that counters fear and fear-based thinking.  In this post, we focus on some of the obstacles that seem to be raised by those same religious traditions.

As one conference participant put it, each of the three faith traditions has both “tribal” and “covenantal” ways of promoting connections among its congregants. The covenantal strand of these traditions stresses the shared beliefs and principles that bind members of the group; some (though perhaps not all) of those principles resonate across different faith traditions.  The tribal strand stresses historical and cultural similarities – and it can overtly or implicitly discourage relationships of mutual respect and trust with the followers of other religious traditions.

Within each tradition, there also seem to be strands of fear-based teaching, which could undermine efforts to promote reasonable, inclusive conversation in the aftermath of a fear-inducing event.  And within each tradition, there tends to be a divide between left-leaning and secular sects (whose representatives participate more readily and frequently in interfaith dialogues) and right-leaning, orthodox sects.  It has proved much more difficult to engage orthodox religious communities in interfaith activities – but their participation would seem to be essential, at some level, if faith leaders are to play a major role in countering fear’s negative impacts on public thinking, including the way in which fear heightens fidelity to ones own group and increases stereotyping and suspicion of other groups.

It seemed clear from the conference that (as others have said in other contexts) the divisions within faith traditions are likely to be as critical in shaping faith leaders’ responses to public fears as the divisions between faiths.

In late March, U.S. in the World took a step toward addressing this large question at a conference on Managing Fear Through Faith, co-hosted with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Bradley Hills Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, MD.  The conference brought together leaders from the three Abrahamic faiths to discuss the ways their respective religions and communities have responded to fear, both historically and recently.  Highlights of the discussion were subsequently presented at a briefing for Connect US members in April (PowerPoint posted here).

Looking back on the conference, we want to share some reflections on potential opportunities and obstacles that we think merit further attention going forward – and on which we invite your comments.  This first post focuses on an opportunity; in the next post, we’ll talk about some of the obstacles.

It’s easy to imagine faith leaders playing a critical role in calming individual fears and comforting the stricken after a major terrorist event.  But research commissioned and reviewed by USITW suggests that moderating personal fears is not necessarily sufficient to promote a different kind of public thinking about how we, as a nation and as a society, should respond to the terrorism threat.  Opinion leaders also need to encourage communal activities that address the real concerns people have while drawing them out of fear and into positive affiliation with others – including those who are different from themselves.  Constructing opportunities for this kind of affiliative action may be one of the most important things leaders can do to reduce public fearfulness and, perhaps, to reduce the appeal of precipitous reactions that are based on fear.

Large public demonstrations of shared sorrow and sober determination after the event (as in Madrid, after the attacks of 3/11/04) are one form of affiliative, healing action.  But opinion leaders should also be thinking about how to communicate in ways that encourage positive, affiliative action before a crisis.  Is it possible to invite citizens to imagine how they would like their community, their institutions, and their leaders to react in future moments of great national stress?  Are there ways of engaging Americans in laying the groundwork now for such a response?

While this kind of communication may not come naturally to policy experts and policy advocates, it would seem to be a very natural and appropriate way for people of faith to talk and think.  As we learned from background papers prepared for the interfaith conference by three young religious scholars, all of the Abrahamic traditions seem to address the role of faith in transforming the energy of fear into a different kind of force – a force for humility, for service, for community, for the common good.   By encouraging such a transformation through action and shared experience, faith leaders and communities could make an especially important contribution to shaping a more constructive public conversation about terrorism and security.

In a recent Op-Ed in The Boston Globe, Senator John Kerry lays out the case for why his colleagues in the Senate should join him in supporting treaty ratification. The article discusses the bi-partisan history of arms control with Russia, how the administration worked to get the best arrangement possible in negotiations over the treaty’s conditions, and updating our national security strategy to reflect a post-Cold War world. But despite all these great points, USITW’s work on this issue suggests that Senator Kerry and other advocates are missing an opportunity to make their case even stronger – and may even inadvertently be weakening their arguments – by failing to link arms reduction and non-proliferation into the larger narrative of enhancing global security and stability, and therefore making all Americans safer. The treaty is presented as a noble goal, but a goal in and of itself. This opens up the ratification process to partisan attack and bickering, as with many treaties.

Instead, if New START was promoted as part of a larger strategy, which has bipartisan support, for reducing the risk posed by nuclear weapons and making the world a more stable and secure place (a larger strategy that includes other initiatives like repairing the U.S. image in the world, strengthening alliances, enhanced diplomacy and humanitarian work, etc.), then perspectives on the treaty might be more likely to shift. Rather than being just a singular act between two countries, it becomes part of the process in which the U.S. and its international allies take leadership in trying to ensure global stability and national security.  At the heart of this argument is the notion that nuclear weapons themselves are a liability and not an asset in the modern security climate, where accidents and/or thefts involving nuclear materials are very real threats (see USITW’s report Talking About Nuclear Weapons With the Persuadable Middle).

If this reframing were to be achieved, supporting the reduction and eventual elimination of the U.S. nuclear arsenal would become a much tougher position to argue against on partisan grounds.