Grand Strategy: Quit Marketing, Start Communicating

Since I spend a lot of my professional life working with environmental and other non-profits to improve their communications, their campaigns, and their fundraising, I get to see up close the way that many of them are captured by the received wisdeom of the marketing profession - circa 1980. What I'm referring to is the commitment that most of our NGOs have to branding and market differentiation, both factors that lie behind successful fundraising.

But these factors do NOT lie behind successful social change, or at least they do not necessarily contribute to it. Instead, what makes effective campaigns and movements that change the world is a vibrant, rich, and dynamic relationship with the people who are affected by your cause and who support you the most. It's not about whether you are differentiated in the marketplace, but whether you offer a believable response to the oldest question in political discourse, 'what is to be done?', and that you engage those people in doing what you say should be done.

How credible is a movement whose main direct communication with its consituency is fundraising appeals packaged in myriad competing brands rather than a united program to change teh world?

Some individual organizations are doing a better job than others (see, for example, FarmStart, an important innovator in the sustainable food movement), but the lack of what most people in most eras of the modern industrialized world would recognize as a coordinated program with political, legal, and social dimensions hampers our efforts.

But this griping on my part isn't getting me very far with my green friends. Most of them are worrying about revenue shortfalls as a result of the recession, which is making them redouble their efforts in what I consider a secondary direction.

So, as part of my quest to see things in a new light, I offer here a perspective labeled 'radical collaboration' which I found in a post by Adele Peters on worldchanging.org. This approach offers insights from big business on how collaboration between organizations can be made to work even when competition remains an important context in which they must operate.

A recent initiative of Creative Commons is a case n point -- Green Xchange brings together a number of major consumer products corporations (including Nike and BestBuy) to share research and practice in energy efficiency, waste management, and 'greening' their supply chains. This field -- referred to incorrectly as 'sustainability' in the corporate world -- is now seen by some mainstream analysts (see July/09 issue of the Harvard Business Review) as the most important driver of technological and business process innovation in market economies today, so there is evidence that some of the biggest economic entities on the planet are moving past greenwashing to actual behaviour modification.

A certain amount of cross-pollination goes on between the larger environmental groups, obviously, and grassroots groups are always flowing into and out of one another. But a systematic effort to collaborate through matching competencies for a more powerful agenda of social change? I don't see it, I'm afraid.

Will Nuclear Free Thinking Spread to the Arctic?

President Obama announcement today that he has reached agreement with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to further reduce the two countries' nuclear weapons stockpiles. Weapons of mass destruction have no place in a world that calls itself 'civilized' and we are seeing again in this announcement the sea-change in political life that now allows us all to think such rational thoughts.

Disarmament campaigners have for years made the case that until the 'official' nuclear weapons states (Russia, the US, UK, France and China) control their addiction to nukes, no one else who covets them (Iran, Iraq, Isreal, India, Pakistan, etc) will be the slightest bit interested in even talking about, let alone actually, getting rid of theirs. You say we can't have nuclear weapons? how come they formt a central pillar of your foreign policy? (Beyond this rationale, the 'official' weapons states are also bound by the Non-Proliferation Treaty to move toward total nuclear disarmament, and unless they do there are concerns that this treaty will simply collapse for lack of legitimacy in the global South.)

Now Obama and Medvedev are applying that logic, and explicitly hoping to influence discussions in the Middle East, where constant flareups of violence look ever more ominous as the 'unofficial' nuclear arsenals of the beliigerents (including Isreal) grow.

Let's take this another step though, and not just put pressure on Mideast nations, but actually model steps to total nuclear disarmament. Russia and the US can take the lead on a treaty to impose a permanent ban on nuclear weapons (and nuclear-powered vessels) in the Arctic region. This area is turning into a geopolitical hotspot in its own right, what with all that oil under the ice and that ice disappearing faster than you can say 'catastophic climate change'.

Our own Canadian hawk, PM Stephen Harper, has repeatedly rattled his little sabre about Canadian sovereignty in the North, and a major public debate about the future of this region is long overdue.

Michael Ignatieff, are you listening?

Here's a major foreign policy angle for you to outflank Mr Harper (as you've failed to do on the Arctic since you won the Liberal leadership earlier this year) - Canada pressing for a nuclear free Arctic would be credible internationally, it would strengthen, not weaken, our claims to the North, and it would prove difficult for Mr Harper to follow suit since his own base finds that kind of policy shift both unappealing and untenable (they still think that Harper's Arctic rhetoric is based in military thinking).

It would also give Mr Ignatieff the chance to speak truth to Mr Obama while at the same time directly engaging the other Arctic nations (in addition to Russia and the US - Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland), and making a practical proposal that would echo very powerfully in the Middle East. Obama would then have another international plank to build the scaffold around Isreal and Iran, pressuing THEM to consider a nuclear-free Middle East.

This would be a big improvement on Mr Ignatieff's ridiculous preening about Arctic issus so far, which have been a laughable imitation of Harper's hawkishness (see the 23.1.09 Arctic post here on NC). As such, such a move by Ignatieff would raise all the right sentiments about the Liberal Party among centrist Canadian voters - nuclear disarmament is not a leftwing issue, after all.

As we've all been saying, that Obama sure does open up possibilities, doesn't he? If only the rest of the geopolitical class was as bold.

Torture Us No More America

How much scarier can America get? Now there's a partisan fight breaking out between Democrats and Republicans over treatment of top Bush Administration officials who authorized 'coercive' interrogation techniques in their 'war on terror'. Many of us are worried that this political storm could engulf Obama's ambitious agenda, knocking desperately needed action on climate, healthcare and banking regulation off into a second term (aka The Wild Blue Yonder).

The torture issue could also have an impact on Obama's foreign policy if he sidesteps what many view as a clear case of illegality by some agents of the United States. Spanish prosecutors may end up doing what he will not - prosecute the decision-makers behind these misdeeds, and in the process undermine the amazing amount of goodwill he has inspired around the world.

Americans need to grapple with the political meaning of the torture allegations, just as much -- or more -- than the legal and moral implications. The deep-rooted sense of 'exceptionalism' that teaches many in the United States to see their democracy's laws as inherently superior to international law lays traps for the nation's foreign policy into which even President's of Mr Obama's intelligence can fall.

A nation that valorizes, even reifies, individual liberty to the extent that America does has to extend those liberties universally - not because it is a moral affront to say that American liberties are more valuable than those of an Egyptian, or a Canadian -- but because if America is an exception to the rule of international law, praise be the gods, so are we all. Like the legitimation of nuclear weapons because you're The Good Guys, believing it's okay to take away liberties of life and limb because you are the defenders of liberty negates the political legitimacy that is at the root of your claim. In the international sphere, political claims are increasingly founded on moral consistency, a fact that is a fact no matter how exceptional you may think you are.

It would be more valuable to Americans, and to us all, if the country spent time deliberating on the meaning of this fact as it pertains the country's foreign policy. How are one's particular interests to be advanced if one cleaves to a strong moral code of universal human rights? This is an interesting question for a superpower, an edifying question.

And a question that would, in all likelihood, be submerged and silenced if a show trial of the 'Bush Six' were to proceed. For Mr Obama - the right path is probably political and historical inquiry, not legal mumbo-jumbo.

(For a legal interpretation from the international standpoint, check out this article from The New Yorker in which the views of my old friend (and QC) Philippe Sands are featured. He is spearheading efforts to charge members of the Bush administration with war crimes under international law.)

The New Action Orientation

The appointment of Phillip G. Radford as the new Executive Director of Greenpeace in the United States marks a critical and decisive step toward constituency-based activism for the iconic green group. It also marks a move to empower a younger generation of campaigners who are fired up by the climate crisis and who were central to the Obama victory last November.

Radford, 33, is credited as Greenpeace's top grassroots organizer in the US, an experienced fundraiser and political activist with a reputation for focusing on measurable campaign outcomes. His arrival in the organization is recent -- 2003 -- but his impact has been significant. When I took over as Chair of the Board in 2000, Greenpeace in the US was a shadow of its former self: Self-absorbed, drifting, shrinking in stature, and bereft of strong, effective campaigns. Radford was part of the team (which included outgoing ED John Passacantando, Campaign Director Lisa Finaldi, and Ops Director Ellen McPeake, among others) that rebuilt the street-level presence and credibility that Greenpeace has always depended on to make its daring high-profile protests resonate in the living rooms of the nation. Into the bargain, the group has doubled its fundraising and invested heavily in the new American youth movement (through fellowships, mobilizing drives, and a quasi-militaristic foot canvass in dozens of cities). (Go here for the NYT story on Radford's appointment)

Among the big international green groups, Greenpeace takes the strongest stands, and -- contrary to the expectations which that might elicit -- gets the most done. That has been true around the world but hard to claim for the American wing since the early 1990s -- until now.

Old-timers in the rest of the Greenpeace world (and they are legion) may be nervous that the direct action roots of the group are disappearing under the thicket of grassroots lobbying tactics that Radford represents. But in America today, power is the sound of millions of feet on pavement, and that is where Greenpeace USA is finding its strength and inspiration.

(Go here for a vast compendium of high quality images of Greenpeace's past work.)

What makes some campaigns tick better than others?

Okay try this powerpoint about the sources of effectiveness in advocacy campaigns, and please let me know your critical thoughts and ideas on it. It dates from 2006, so I have not doubt my own understanding has changed, but it was a genuine 'stab' at analyzing why advocacy works sometimes and not others. cheers.

The Coming Change in Climate

During the US election, novelist Ian McEwan mused in The Guardian that Barack Obama may be our world’s last hope for significant action to avoid catastrophic climate change. But Obama’s powers are fleeting, McEwan says, because they rest on a sort of ‘collective dreaming’ by millions of hopeful citizens in America and around the world: ‘Obama may succeed in tipping the nations [involved in climate change negotiations] toward a low-carbon future simply because people think he can... Having persuaded everybody else, he may be doubly persuaded himself. This aura will be his empowerment, as numinous as good luck, as permanent as spring snow.’

McEwan concludes that Obama must ‘move decisively’, lest our collective dream of his immense power end, and we awaken to find our civilization already pitching forward into a deep chasm.

We would go further here at NC: if Obama is to succeed there must be a determined application of practical wisdom from other governments, including Canada’s. And for that to happen there must be widespread engagement of citizens, both politically and in daily life, and a ‘revaluation’ away from consumerism and endless accumulation of material wealth towards collective fulfillment and happiness even when that means lower growth or fewer luxuries for the wealthiest among us.

Unfortunately, our recent federal election threw into high relief just how disconnected our national institutions are from the imperatives we face. Dion's 'green shift' debacle, the worst communictions effort since Joe Clark tried to sell higher gas taxes, put carbon taxes off the agenda for years to come.

Focusing the mind of our bankers, CEOs, and politicians is no small task, but it is not just a matter of reaching them with 'better information' (as our mainstream environmentalists have preached for too long). This challenge is fundamentally political: The concentration of power at the top of our social pyramid is a key reason that the ecological crisis continues to deepen. As archaeologist/novelist Ronald Wright notes of every civilization’s top dogs: ‘They continue to prosper in darkening times, long after the environment and general populace begin to suffer.’ (A Short History of Progress, House of Anansi Press)

As for our ‘creative class’, on whom so much of our practical future depends, many artists, scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, planners, and designers are fascinated by the challenge of finding a sustainable way to live. It appeals to their moral code and requires great things of them, so it naturally feels like a 'fit'. See, for example, Massive Change ("it's not about the world of design, it's about the design of the world").

But, for this all-important caste, solidarity with the powerless and with future generations vies with 'top dog-ism', the well-known tendency of people who have priveleges, but little power, to think of themselves as brethren of the really influential Masters of the Universe.

A lot will hinge on the credibility of whatever economic ideology emerges from the wreckage that Wall St. has brought upon us -- if American Republicans and their ilk succeed, we will dive deeply back into the one-dimensional 'new economy' in which winners take all and being poor is a sure sign of moral weakness. In that world, we only measure success by the size of your bank account, and ignore the clearcuts and wasted oceans like we ignore street people outside the Metro. If NC and it's ilk get their way, we will take a much richer view of what progress is, using measures such as those outlined by the Canadian Index of Wellbeing or the Happy Planet Index. In that world, equity and ecological sustainability will underpin a society bent on the welfare of its children and grandchildren.

So keep dreaming the dream of Obama's power, but look forward to big changes in your waking life too.

The upside of global catastrophe: A long-term strategy?

The people of the United States now own more than a third of the world's largest bank, Citigroup, and the shrinkage of the US GDP was revealed to be near an an believable 7% in 2008. The Dow-Jones index is now hovering below 7,000 -- half the value it had only two years ago -- the possibility of all-out collapse of the US stock market is on some minds, I kid you not.

And here I thought that the collapse of global fisheries within the next 30 years, coupled with catastrophic climate change that will flood a third of the world's cities and cut European food production by more than half, was a serious threat to our way of life. Now I know the real problem is that our money is disappearing.

Just ask Labour MP Ed Balls in the UK. He caused a political stir when he said on February 10th that the global economic downturn is "the most serious global recession for over 100 years." Harkening back to 1909 is indeed strong stuff, considering that this period encompasses the British recession after WWI, the German crisis of 1920s, and the Great Depression. According to The Guardian, he warned that events were moving at a "speed, pace and ferocity which none of us have seen before" and banks were losing cash on a "scale that nobody believed possible".

This international crisis may not be the end of free-market capitalism, but it sure as hell is a pause in the action. And it will be the political frame of reference for at least the next 15 years, maybe 20. Is this a problem for those of us who are pushing for climate policies that would see the total 'decarbonization' of OECD energy systems by 2040? Is environmental concern now a thing of the past?

Hardly. Fifteen years of economic downturn is enough time to move ahead with 'sweeping change' (as Barack Obama termed it) -- to 'revalue' what is 'normal' for our society, both in domestic and foreign policy. And the backside of a financial crisis is a good moment to be questioning the real value of consumption in wealthy societies -- just the kind of debate that deep ecology has implied but that environmentalists themselves have eschewed for fear of being shut out of government roundtables and industry consultations.

In short, this crisis will last long enough to allow a whole new way of thinking to take root, making equity and sustainability the touchstones of progress, and 'gross domestic happiness' the measuring stick of civilization. It isn't long enough to achieve all of what we strive for, but it is enough to lay healthy soil for new developments to take root.

Worldwatch Institute President Christopher Flavin puts it this way:

“We should be practicing a sustainable approach to economics that takes advantage of the ability of markets to allocate scarce resources while explicitly recognizing that our economy is dependent on the broader ecosystem that contains it.”

But do we have the skills or the guts to plan and implement a strategy over that timeframe?

Many of the 'progressive' advocacy groups in Canada, whose job is to dramatically change our frame of public discourse on key issues, have resolutely stuck to the lessons of the 1980s, focusing inordinate resources and energy on their organizational capacity and reputational capital. This may be a good strategy for reactionary times, but with everything to play for now, it can only be described as the 'feet of clay' approach -- 'we'll get there eventually'.

No, actually, you won't. Without significant rethinking by the leadership of popular groups, and much more alliance building across a broad front of social, economic, and institutional reform, Canada will remain a laggard in progressive politics.

More to come in future posts, including some points on how the US situation is more hopeful.