Does There Really Need to be Another “Gulf War”?
Several of the opening passages of President Obama’s Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil spill compared this crisis to a “war” —a “battle” we are waging against an enemy that’s “assaulting” our shores. Commentators like Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post are calling on the Administration to treat the spill as a war and Gail Collins of the New York Times is suggesting that the Administration “issue the…call to arms on energy.” But is a war analogy appropriate? Is it effective? Does it have unintended negative consequences for public thinking about this crisis – and about other challenges that face our nation? And is “war” really the one (and only) concept that can rally public support to garner all available resources to address profound challenges?
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.
