The Election is Over. How Do we Make Progress on Social Issues?
This article by UFCJC Frank Karel Endowed Chair in Public Interest Communications Angela Bradbery originally appeared on Medium.
Much is forecast to change when President-Elect Donald Trump assumes office — domestic policies, international relations, the global markets and more.
But one thing will not change: We still will face a raft of thorny social problems — a critical lack of affordable housing, a changing climate that brings disaster upon disaster, gun violence, a lack of affordable health care and so much more.
The fact that half the country is appalled and baffled at how the other half could have voted for Donald Trump highlights how, as we have immersed ourselves in our bubbles, we have stopped conversing with people who see the world differently.
If we hope to make any progress on these issues — and yes, I believe we can make progress, particularly at the local and state levels — advocacy organizations on both sides of the aisle will need to engage a broader swath of people.
That’s where public interest communications comes in.
Public interest communications is research-based strategic communications for positive social change. Among its many concepts, it teaches us to consider the world views of a wide range of people. It tells us to focus on those values with which we all can agree and use language that invites more voices into the conversation, rather than repelling them.
By seeking to understand the viewpoints of others and rooting messages in shared values, public interest communications can help us bridge divides. It recognizes that the desire for clean air and water, safe food, a roof over our heads and the opportunities that come with earning a living wage are not partisan wishes but are desires we all share.
Public interest communications in action
Consider the Florida Wildlife Corridor.
More than a decade ago, a conservation photographer named Carlton Ward Jr., and a University of Florida wildlife ecologist named Dr. Tom Hoctor looked at GPS data and realized that black bears were relying on a patchwork of public preserves and private farms to move around the Everglades as they needed. The two men realized that if black bears were relying on that patchwork, then many other animals likely were as well.
Of particular concern was the Florida panther, which was almost rendered extinct because of development. When animals like the panther and black bear are surrounded by development, they can’t mate with nearby populations, so their genetic diversity declines. When stressed by disease or disappearing habitat, the already-vulnerable population is pushed to the breaking point and vanishes.
One way to save these animals is a wildlife corridor — a pathway that allows animals to move around without having to cross highways or navigate development — and that connects the wild spaces where they live.
In 2010, on Earth Day, Ward and Hoctor founded the Florida Wildlife Corridor project.
Fast forward to 2019, when they launched a legislative campaign to persuade the Florida Legislature to spend public money to protect the Florida Wildlife Corridor by buying the rights to rural land throughout the state.
Although Florida’s governor and lawmakers have taken steps to preserve the Everglades, asking them to use public money to sideline swaths of land throughout the entire state to save animals was a daunting task. It would mean denying the deep-pocketed developers who hound Florida ranchers and farmers with offers to buy their land.
Turns out, ranchers and farmers aren’t happy about development either. To them, development threatens their way of life. The corridor project brought together ranchers and environmentalists, who at one point in time “couldn’t stand to be in the same room together” but realized that they cared about the same things. “We both watched the land disappear together,’’ a rancher told the New Yorker. “My hope is that this ranch can stay the way it is now forever.”
In June 2021, the Florida Legislature passed the Florida Wildlife Corridor Act, which set aside $400 million to preserve nearly 18 million acres of wildlife habitat. Seven million of those are working ranchlands and timberlands. The vote was unanimous.
A statement on the Florida Wildlife Corridor website says, “Protected lands of the Florida Wildlife Corridor are a place where our collective missions intersect.”
Had environmentalists not invited ranchers into the conversation — had they alienated ranchers by emphasizing only what die-hard environmentalists cared about — the effort almost certainly would have failed.
Building coalitions
In the Florida Wildlife Corridor effort, conservationists reached out to a group they usually don’t work with. We know from studying social movements that the more people you can bring on board and the greater the variety of perspectives they represent, the stronger the movement.
The anti-apartheid movement in South Africa grew from a regional coalition of a few dozen faith and civil society groups to include unions, sports and culture groups and organizations representing women and students. By 1986, the coalition comprised 700 organizations. The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s in the U.S. similarly built support from a broad range of interests.
In Alaska, groups that usually don’t work together coalesced to defeat a proposal to build the world’s largest gold and copper mine near the watershed that produces about half the world’s wild stock of sockeye salmon. Before Pebble Mine was proposed, communities that rely on the fishery often found themselves divided into factions. Resentment ran high among tribal, sport and commercial fishermen over limits on the quantities of salmon they could catch.
But when mining company representatives showed up and proposed a project that could ruin the watershed, the fishermen realized that they had to work together. A massive effort to stop the mine was born. It included indigenous people, state and national hunting and fishing conservation organizations, faith groups, business groups, tourist operators, engineers, geophysicists and fish biologists, and others.
Although national green groups cared deeply about stopping the mine, they didn’t try to take the lead. Instead, they stepped back, giving space for others who wanted to stop the mine — albeit for different reasons — to take the lead in organizing in their communities and talking publicly in ways that their supporters could relate to. This was particularly important in Alaska, where many residents value rugged individualism, believe in developing natural resources and are suspicious of national environmental organizations.
Stepping back means treating others with respect. Said former Obama White House advisor David Axelrod when discussing why the Democrats lost this election, “You can’t approach working people like missionaries and say, ‘We’re here to help you become more like us.’ There’s a kind of unspoken disdain, unintended disdain in that.”
Looking for nuances
Coalition-building means having conversations, and having conversations means that seeing complexities in both issues and the people.
For instance, West Virginia coal miners have a valid concern about the mines closing — their livelihoods are threatened. Acknowledging that is key to successfully working with miners to find policy solutions that address both their concerns and concerns about the climate crisis.
People are complex, which means it’s important to move away from stereotypes. This Pennsylvania Mennonite farming couple consider themselves conservative. They value tradition. They go to church regularly. They also have an electric vehicle, attended Cornell University and care deeply about the changing climate. Surprised? It is possible for people to harbor conservative views on some issues and progressive views on others. Indeed, many of us do. It’s called biconceptualism.
A prescription for moving forward
Let’s start with core values: economic stability, a safe place to live, health, clean air and water and a livable planet. We all want these things.
Then, advocacy organizations on all sides of the political spectrum might:
- Reach out to people who are not their usual supporters. Find out what they care about and value, and how they see the world. Talk to them. Seek to understand the nuances and complexities in their thinking.
- Use language that invites, rather than repels
- Build broad coalitions and empower your new coalition members to help craft solutions.
Advocacy organizations can make progress, but they must honestly examine how they work. If we all consider what people care about and value, we can make progress. If we set aside stereotypes, we can see the nuances. If we build broad coalitions that include not only the usual suspects but groups that represent a variety of constituencies, we can advance solutions.
For the sake of our future, we must.
Posted: November 20, 2024
Insights Categories:
Social Change
Tagged as: Advocacy, Angela Bradbery, Public Interest Communications
