What's in a Name?

That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.  Maybe a rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but would it sell?  From John Broder of the New York Times in "Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus," we learn that,

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives...

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.

Broder discusses and then links to a New York Times editorial dated March 23, 2009 titled, "Environmental Word Games."  Not surprisingly, Republicans use the same tactics.  The article reads,

Whenever the Republicans find themselves in trouble on environmental issues, the call goes out for Frank Luntz, a respected party strategist. Back in 1995, Mr. Luntz urged the party to soften its language when it became clear that the Gingrich revolution had gone too far in its attacks on environmental law. Mr. Luntz is now making the same point. In a memorandum recently described by The Times's Jennifer 8. Lee, he warns that after two years of regulatory rollbacks, environmental issues have become ''the single biggest vulnerability for the Republicans and especially for George Bush.''

Mr. Luntz's remedy is not to change the policy, but to dress it up with warm and fuzzy words. As in 1995, he says that the problem is one of communication, and that what must be done is to start using comforting words like ''balance,'' ''common sense,'' ''safer,'' ''cleaner'' and ''healthier.''

Broder uses Drexel University professor, Robert Brulle as a foil to take a stab at politicians, an easy and popular endeavor that I recommend. 

Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said ecoAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. “The form is the same; the message is just flipped,” he said. “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.”

He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective. “The right uses it, the left uses it, but it doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner,” he said, “and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.”

Neither Broder nor Brulle mentioned that politicians often exaggerate their side of an argument.  Read anything on climate by world climate change leader Al Gore, or this article (HT Drudge) describing House Minority Leader John Boehner's claim on the cost of cap-and-trade.  Apparently exaggeration is leadership.