Pipelines Go Green(ish)
Alberta Tar Sands
The construction of pipelines always creates controversy, something that Obama is certainly looking to avoid with an impending election next November. However, an article in a recent edition of The Economist discusses how the proposal for construction of Keystone XL, a pipeline running from Canada to Texas, has started an intense debate between businesses and environmentalists. These two parties are either in support of or against the construction of the pipeline respectively, with Obama caught in between. Each side holds a degree of power in the argument, but based on Obama’s decision to wait the project out, it seems that the balance of power falls in the direction of the environmentalists—for now.
In order to better understand what impacted Obama’s decision to postpone his decision it is necessary to consider power in the context of the situation. The power of both businesses and environmentalists in the context of upcoming elections stems from their ability to produce votes– the more votes each group represents the greater power they have– from Obama’s perspective. As elections are upcoming, it is inevitable that Obama considers the affect that his approval will have on the way citizens vote. Thus, both parties intend to persuade the president that they have greater power over votes using various tactics.
- Persuade: to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position or course of action.
- Tactic: a device for accomplishing an end.
Persuade and tactics are both emphasized here to highlight the role they play as both the goal of using power (to persuade Obama to either approve or reject the project) and the means of creating power (tactics which at least allude to the group representing a significant number of votes). This means that effective tactics create the perception of power which increases a parties’ ability to persuade. To be successful persuaders, businesses and environmentalists employ tactics which draw on concepts from the work of Conger, Cialdini, and Alinsky. Further analysis of how the participants of this debate incorporate tactics from these authors helps to explain to some extent why environmentalists were more successful at persuading President Obama.
Conger states that an effective tool for persuasion is to, “connect emotionally with [the] audience.” In this case the audience includes citizens and as a result, Obama as well. This means that creating a connection with the people and making their interests important to them will increase businesses’ ability to sway votes which clearly exerts power over Obama’s decision. Businesses’ main argument is that the pipeline will increase jobs, which pulls at the hearts of the working class, who have lost their jobs during the economic downturn. By framing the argument in such a way businesses, “frame their goals in a way that identifies common ground with those they intend to persuade,” and establishes this connection described by Conger. Environmentalists similarly integrate Conger’s idea of emotional connection using Cialtini’s principle of Scarcity.
Interpreting this principle of scarcity in the context of the environment, citizens are demanding more regulations in response to environmental damage and depletion of natural resources. The growing scarcity of resources increases an individual’s emotional connection with the cause, and thus the ability of environmentalists to influence votes in response to whether Obama approves the pipeline or not. In this way, environmentalists (as well as businesses) use the 1st and 13th rule of power tactics depicted by Alinsky outlined below.
1st rule of power tactics– states that power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have
13th rule of power tactics– states that you must pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
With respect to the 13th rule, businesses and environmentalists have used the upcoming elections as a way to target Obama and further their causes. They realize that the current situation provides an opportunity to make this an issue on which citizens will base their vote. By structuring this in the media as either a major environmental or economic decision, the issue and its outcome will play a greater role in voting decisions. Obama recognizes that his response to the problem will have media attention and therefore must address it in a way that will further his position. With respect to personification and polarization, either he supports the environment (and not the creation of jobs), or he supports the creation of jobs (and not the environment). Thus they have picked a target, frozen it, and they have made it an issue which will act to reflect Obama’s character, accomplishing the 13th rule. This entire debate however, ultimately comes down to the 1st rule of power tactics.
The power each party possesses reflects not only their ability to directly impact votes, but to give the impression that they are impacting votes. If Obama thinks that the environmentalists’ have a greater number of voters in support of their cause, then he will likely respond according to their demands, regardless of whether or not they actually have the votes. In the article it states, “[Obama] appears to have calculated …the business lobby was probably lost to him, whereas environmental lobbyists would respond with appeasement,” supporting the idea that by putting off a decision he was hoping to attract the votes represented by environmentalists. In other words, environmentalists were more effective at using their tactics to increase (or appear to increase) their power and persuade Obama. However, after elections this power may shift, as Alinsky says, “power is not static; it cannot be frozen…it must grow or die.” Time will tell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKKx7zm-A5U&feature=related –thousands surround White House Protesting Keystone XL
For further reading please refer to The Economist, Keystone cop-out, November 19th 2011