Sustainability

I have often suggested that the forces who advocate for the GOP agenda and conservative perspectives, are far better at framing the issues than those who write and opine for the viewpoints supported by the Democratic party and liberal perspectives.

The debate over guns is a prime example.  When the topic is cached in phrases like gun control and taking away the guns of the citizenry, and when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, many Americans in the middle or on the fence, lean towards less gun control.  It doesn't seem to matter that all freedoms come with caveats, and that no freedom is absolute, any proposed restriction on owning guns is met with the claim that once we restrict ownership, we start down the slippery slope of losing the protections of the 2nd Amendment.  The fact that we don't allow the citizenry to keep a tank, or bazooka, or any of the mass destruction implements that exist, that we, in fact, do have limits on how we interpret the 2nd Amendment, doesn't seem to eliminate the all or nothing attitude of those who cherish their right to own a gun above all other rights.

My suggested answer to this problem, is to address the problem we have with phrasing of the issue.  It is clear from most polls, that the majority of Americans prefer a few more common sense restrictions on gun ownership as related to mandatory classes which address care, usage and storage of a gun, a national data base which links illegal use of guns to the actual weapons being employed, more stringent rules on who can purchase a gun, and how many guns are reasonable for someone to own, and the expansion of gun free zones, i.e, schools, churches, national parks, theaters, concert venues, night clubs, etc.  I believe that if we were to stop engaging in debates over gun control and begin talking about violence control, we might see those in the middle of the topic, nod their heads and agree that we need to reduce the level of violence which is occurring in our streets and our homes.

Violence Control

Similarly, I believe we continue to lose the battle of phrasing over climate change.  First off, it is too vague since some climate changes can be described in terms that will benefit mankind.  Secondly, too many proponents of actively addressing climate change, appear too uncaring in their reaction concerning how the millions of people currently employed by the fossil fuel industry will cope.  And, finally, although this is not all the areas that keep some from signing on to the dangers of climate change, is the viewpoint that the problem is too big and too expensive for us, especially as individuals, to make any real difference.

For these and all the other important but unnamed reasons, we need to shift the discussion to the term sustainability. 

When presented as a sustainability problem, it is much easier to get ranchers, fishermen, hunters, and other people who use the land for subsistence and pleasure to become part of the solution.  Telling them they can't do this or can't do that, gets us no where.  Showing them that their opinion matters, and that the goal is for them to continue to enjoy the benefits of the land they love, for now and for generations to come, invites them to the table and creates cooperation rather than confrontation, compromise rather than conflict.

Sustainability says, we value our resources, and how we use them, and wish to continue to use them in a manner that will not devolve into a time when they are depleted.

Sustainability results in new jobs and opportunities as the outdated ones disappear, just as the arrival of the automobile created a chance for a new job for those whose livelihood was dominated by the various businesses and vocations involving horses.

Sustainability provides a framework for businesses who worry that they will be left behind in any "green" revolution, or who are scared that they won't be able to develop a profitable version of their business with the coming adjustment, because it recognizes that we want as many people to be part of the solution as possible, and that entrepreneurs, are nothing, if not flexible to the always moving and
evolving goal of creating an idea or business model that will be profitable.

Sustainability suggests that the solution will evolve over time, allowing for most people to adapt to any new requirements, as opposed to the word change, which seems abrupt and definitive.

Sustainability denotes a plan which extends beyond just one administration or generation.  It feels much more long term, which seems more applicable to a problem as big as the dangers of our changing climate.

Sustainability asks the older folks to put aside the selfish phrase "well, I will be dead soon anyway", by connecting what they do now to the fate of their children and grandchildren.  I can't imagine anyone over 60 saying, "oh well, the next generation will deal with the Nazi's, I will be dead soon anyway", yet they do not seem as alarmed when dismissing the threat of climate change.  It becomes an immediate issue but with a softened label that makes people feel more a ease with the changes to which they might have to adapt, because they are changes that everyone will adapt to, everyone they know in their families, their neighborhoods, their country. 

This is not to say that we need to make some significant changes in how we view, and use, the natural resources of our planet.  We do, and now!  But we need more people to acknowledge the problem and become part of the solution and so by continuing to lose the battle of phrasing, especially in light of the anti-environmental attitudes of the current administration and those who enable him, we continue to waste precious time.

At the end of the day, it is the strength of our democracy that will be the telling point as to whether we begin to make in-roads in addressing the negative consequences of how we have treated our planet and its resources.  Because even if we convince more of those who straddle the middle of this issue, waffling one way and the next based on the last opinion show they watch, it will only be through an extreme increase in the voting percentage of Americans, that we will be able to reduce the influence of those who are the most threatened by climate change, not because they fear for their lives and those of their progeny, but because they fear they will lose the advantages that their wealth and influence provide them by denying the dangers of climate change. 

We need to invoke the idea of sustainability in reference to our democracy so that every vote matters and is counted, and the forces who bombard us with false equivalencies and attacks on our institutions
will be rejected, allowing our democracy to flourish, and allowing a new culture of concern and action to address the sustainability of human life on Earth.