Last night, I attended Claire McCaskill’s kiss-and-makeup-by-proxy session with some individuals from the Missouri Chapter of Americans for Prosperity (AFP),  an astroturf organization that has opposed tobacco and clean air regulation among other progressive initiatives, and is now targeting health care reform.  This meeting with a McCaskill staffer, a very gracious gesture on McCaskill’s part, was scheduled after the belligerent  AFP protesters frightened her St. Louis office staff, prompting them to lock the office doors and call the police, giving rise to AFP tantrums over their putative mistreatment (these folks don’t miss a trick).  

As Hotflash has already noted (backing her claims up with video), there was lots of boisterous behavior in evidence at last night’s meeting. Lots of “boos” and clapping when the invective reached the level of shrillness folks seemed happiest with.  But there was a lot more going on as well.  The ratio of anger to ideas was high, but the underlying concern was real and honest. Most of these people want to do right, and they want their government to do right.   They aren’t necessarily fools, but they have been fooled — and how that has happened is the story that interests me  

One of first things I noticed was a tee-shirt emblazoned with the slogan “I want you to help stop tyranny.”  This piece of mock-heroism effectively set the stage for me.  I knew I was going to hear from the holy warriors, jihadists against the black helicopters, those individuals who need to define themselves in opposition to some threat, most often personified as big government. This is not a new phenomena; in a classic essay from the 1950s, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” Richard Hofstadter, speaking of the movement spawned by Barry Goldwater, observed:

American politics has often been an arena for angry minds. In recent years we have seen angry minds at work mainly among extreme right-wingers, who have now demonstrated in the Goldwater movement how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority. But behind this I believe there is a style of mind that is far from new and that is not necessarily right-wing. I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.

And indeed, it was clear that many people at this meeting were angry because they are suspicious of change, fearful of forces that seem beyond their control.  What was also clear, given the buzz-words and the arguments that were on display, is that the opponents of health-care have very effectively tailored their arguments to take advantage of the paranoid zeitgeist that pervades the tea party contingent.

Over the next few days, I will be putting up individual posts on some of the between-the-lines stories that really struck me last night. I want to understand how patently manufactured arguments with little real substance can bring nearly 200-300 citizens out, in some cases from long distances.  What was so compelling? All they did was spend a couple of hours bombarding an impeccable, polite, and  utterly noncommittal staff person with all their grievances against the big government that is now threatening them with sane and rational health care.

Of course the real question is what does this flurry mean about the state of discourse in the U.S.?  And how can we make our narrative the most telling in the face of the noise and the fury that this tiny minority, boiling with all their inchoate rage, is able to generate?

In a new investigation from the China Labor Watch (CLW), “Wal-Mart’s Road to Sustainability: Paved with False Promises?”, the CLW reports on the Wal-Mart’s extreme exploitation of foreign factory workers – amongst many other egregious acts they’ve detailed.  

The CLW has found, as a result of investigations from April to June of this year, that violations at one of Wal-Mart’s suppliers, the Huasheng Packaging Factory, include:

• Elaborate system to cheat Wal-Mart audits.

• Some workers make only $0.51/hour, 60% of the minimum wage.

• Poor working conditions: workers inhale large amounts of paper particles and other debris.

• Twelve workers live together in cramped dorms

• Workers not paid overtime wages.

• During busy period, workday is 11 hours or 77 hours per week, and overtime is mandatory

Please help us by taking action and voicing your concern about Wal-Mart, and please continue reading for more from CLW’s press release.

This is merely the latest, and one of the most grievous, examples of Wal-Mart saying one thing and doing another, in their long running anti-labor track record.  Americans cannot continue to support the world’s largest retailer while it remains in support of some of the world’s worst labor standards.

CLW has also written a letter (pdf) to Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke, and you can read their full report here (pdf).  

CLW also reports that recent violations at another facility, the Hantai Shoe Factory – who they began investigating in July of 2008, also include:

• Overtime only paid up to Wal-Mart’s limits. When overtime surpasses the limit, extra wages are not paid until the following month.

• Workers forced to lie to Wal-Mart inspectors.

• 5 hours overtime daily. If workers request not to work overtime once, they will be denied any overtime for a month.

• Disguised layoffs to avoid paying severance payments to workers. Workers are abused by management or switched to undesirable jobs until they quit voluntarily.

The CLW’s press release goes on to conclude:

“These issues represent only a portion of the problems CLW has discovered in these two factories. In nearly 10 years of investigating Wal-Mart’s Chinese supply chain, CLW has identified these same violations at the majority of Wal-Mart’s suppliers. In terms of labor violations, Hantai is one of Wal-Mart’s better factories and Huasheng is one of its worse, yet no where are Wal-Mart’s standards actually met.

The China-U.S. Economic and Strategic Dialogue, which opened in Washington today, will focus on economic, environmental and security cooperation. CLW calls on senior officials of both governments to encourage multinational companies to improve labor conditions in their supply chains and promote effective implementation of China ‘s Labor Contract Law.”

( – promoted by Clark)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has staked out a position as some form of “moderate” on Climate Change legislation, stating that she fully acknowledges the Global Warming’s reality but seeking to fight to keep legislation from “unfairly punishing” Missouri, which heavily depends on coal-fired plants for its electricity generation.

Putting aside the absurdity of suggesting that legislation which would end up putting money into the pockets of Missourians (saving money) is some form of “unfair punishment,” a question emerges: is Claire looking at this in the wrong way? Is she framing the issue, for herself and her citizens, incorrectly?  Rather than seeking to avoid “unfair punishment”, would Claire, Missouri, and Missouri voters be better off if she sought “unfair benefits” instead?

After highlighting the absurdity of Senator Claire McCaskill’s comments re Global Warming in Twitting Claire and To Twit Claire, a musing step back contemplation. Putting aside simply doing the right thing, recognizing the science, taking the Energy Smart path, and fighting to convince her voters that she’s right as she seeks to put the nation on an Energy Smart path for a prosperous, secure, and climate-friendly future, what “should” (or “could”) Claire McCaskill do when it comes to energy and climate legislation?

Now, a quick moment to review the bidding:

• Missouri is one of the most coal-dependent states (roughly 83% of its electricity), even though that coal is all imported.
• Claire has, repeatedly, stated that “Global warming is real,and its a serious problem.”
• Claire has, repeatedly, stated things like climate legislation ‘should not unfairly punish Missouri citizens’ and that she will work with ‘moderates’ to assure that climate legislation doesn’t unfairly punish Missouri businesses and citizens.
• Missouri residents overwhelmingly voted for moving toward renewable energy, even though the ballot measure explicitly stated that this might mean higher utility bills.

While there many questions to ask Claire, why not seek to help Claire turn this around:  Rather than fighting the twisted logic that, somehow, climate legislation will “unfairly punish Missouri’, why not seek to assure that clean energy legislation will ‘unfairly’ favor Missouri?

A simple fact: Claire’s seeming intention to fight to protect Missouri’s archaic and heavily-polluting energy system will foster continuing to dig a deeper hole, on multiple grounds, for Missouri rather than crafting a strategy for a more competitive and prosperous Missouri in the years and decades to come.

Rather than struggling to protect the burning of coal (imported from other states, thus sending Missouri rate-payers’ hard-earned money to other states), couldn’t Claire embrace the two-thirds of Missourians who have voted for clean energy, the two-thirds who embraced a serious renewable electricity standard even though the ballot measure explicitly stated that the measure could (COULD) lead to increased utility bills?

Now, when it came to passing the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act out of the House of Representatives, there were votes ‘bought’ with expenditures (necessary expenditures — but now targeted to specific districts rather than uncertain as to where the jobs would go).  Being able to point to X jobs, $Y spending to come in provides powerful press release material for any member of Congress.  Rather than embracing delay, rather than seeking some form of false middle ground between science and sufferers of anti-science syndrome, could not Claire step up for Missourians and their future in a far different way than her current strategy?

Huh??? What does this mean?

Consider this alternative path, an outline for Claire McCaskill to follow in negotiating with other Senators and the Obama Administration:

• Missouri is highly coal dependent with, in fact, a relatively modern coal-burning infrastructure
• This coal dependency enables relatively low electricity rates.
• These low rates, however, come at a high cost in terms of pollution damage.
• Just like all Americans, Missourians want a clean energy future, but to phase out the modern coal-burning infrastructure could prove to be an economic burden.
• Just as the Federal government helped other portions of the country achieve a clean energy grid (through, for example, building of minor things like the Hoover Dam), America should help Missouri accelerate its way toward a clean energy future in part because so many of the benefits (such as reduced acid raid for New York, reduced burden on the rail lines for moving coal) accrue outside Missouri.

If we were ‘to be Claire’, this could be used to support a request along these lines:

• Provide additional assistance to Missouri for:
  
  • Energy efficiency in businesses, homes, public buildings
  • Deploying renewable energy production

• Establish in Missouri a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) center focused on biomass energy (along with guaranteed funding for biomass demonstration facilities in Missouri)
• Request $2 billion per year for these measures (okay, wouldn’t get that, but don’t start with your minimum requirement)

If Claire McCaskill were able to go back to Missouri citizens with a $billion (or $500 million or $1.5 billion) per year in targeted funding that would lead to jobs in Missouri, more Missouri spending staying in Missouri, improved business competitive position, a leadership position in critical arenas for a clean energy future, and savings for Missorians (businesses and housholds) on their energy bills, she would be a hero to the two-thirds plus of Missouri voters who have already demonstrated, in the ballot box, their support for a clean-energy future.

Claire faces a choice. Right now she is regaling, it seems, in portraying herself as “moderate” because she places herself between those concerned about Global Warming and those who simply wish to say no to science and the reality of what we are already seeing around the world.  She can continue this path which will sabotage (both environmentally and fiscally) effective energy / climate legislation or she can carve out a leadership position that advantages her state while helping move the nation (and the globe) forward toward a more prosperous, more secure, more climate-friendly future.

When it comes to “unfairly”, Claire can continue with the truthiness-laden concerns of worrying about ‘unfair punishment’ or she could turn herself to serving her voters by seeking to assure that legislation unfairly benefits Missouri.

Engaging Claire

Now, while Claire is a Twitter addict, far more effective are face-to-face communications and more personal communications (such as hand-written letters) from Missourians.  One of her constituents recently spoke directly with her about how Missouri youth want her to be a leader on climate change.

[Senator McCaskill] listened politely, then in an empathetic voice asked how we felt about  China and India’s lack of cooperation in climate change negotiations, referring  to the recent G8 summit in Italy. Our delegation of young people in the room  clearly were on a different page than her, and responded with enthusiasm that  we’d rather start the clean energy transition than follow (in more eloquent  words, citing strong investment by China into alternative energy).

Claire responded by turning to speak on the economic difficulty she believes  ACES would place on Missourians in particular. She said that she knows “10-15”  manufacturing companies that are on the “bubble” in Missouri, even “one or two”  that have already had to move jobs overseas. Claire claimed a “chasm” existed  between the current and future energy infrastructures. In sum, her argument was  that if we attempt to transition too quickly from our current mode of energy  production, many companies (energy and otherwise) would suffer.

Thus, fearful that there might be negative impacts in the short term, Claire is willing to sacrifice the long term: the long term competitiveness of Missouri in a world economy to be dominated by clean energy options and the long term viability of Missouri in the face of ever-mounting Global Warming impacts.

That discussion is worth reading, not just for understanding the chasm between Claire and Missourians concerned about creating a prosperous clean-energy future, but also for a window as to the communication challenge before us:

A door opened in the room- an assistant alerting Claire her next meeting had  arrived, so I made my last pitch, telling her that despite how it may appear,  there are many in Missouri who believe ACES should be strengthened and passed,  especially young people like those before her. “You know what, though?” Claire  said, returning to her empathetic tone. She reported that, out of the letters  she’s received from Missourians, (approximate numbers) around 200 were “against”  ACES and only 10-15 “for”.

Let us assume that this is accurate, just “10-15 [letters] for” action on climate change legislation?  Okay, Missourians, can’t you do better than that?

Now, there is also the question of face-to-face discussions with her staff (a vehicle for communicating with Claire). For example, just tomorrow night, the astroturf Americans for Prosperity (key supports of Tax Day Tea Parties, for example) has a special session set up for tomorrow with a McCaskill staffer.

Town Hall Meeting with Sen. McCaskill’s District Director

Come join us Monday Night in St. Louis

Date: Monday, July 27, 2009

Time: 7:00pm – 8:00pm

Location: St. Louis Community College – Forest Park Campus (Student Center/Highlander Lounge)

Street: 5600 Oakland Ave, Saint Louis, MO

Michelee Sherod, McCaskill’s district director, will be there for this AFP event. (Reminder, AFP calls global warming “hysteria” and scientists presenting the facts on climate change “alarmists”. )  This is an opportunity for  Sen. McCaskill and her staff to hear from the 2/3rds of real Missourians who believe in clean energy and are counting on Claire to help lead on (rather than help degrade)  federal climate change legislation. Imagine if an AFP event is half filled with people calling for respect for science and for action to enhance Missouri’s future.  If you live in St. Louis or the area, join others Missourians who believe in a clean energy future to weigh in with Sen. McCaskill’s office.

ACTION ITEMS:

1. If a Missourian, contact Claire McCaskill in support of a clean energy future.

2. If in the St Louis area, attend tomorrow’s meeting.

3. If neither, contact those you know who fit into the above categories to encourage them to contact Claire.