Energy Memo: Democrats Need to Fight Smarter

Democrats like to talk about green jobs and cap-and-trade. A new strategy memo says they need to ditch those phrases, play down global warming and fight back on what their plans will cost Americans if they want to prevail in the high-stakes energy debate about to erupt on Capitol Hill.

When voters hear "green jobs," they apparently think of recycling or making herbal soaps. Global warming is not one of their pressing concerns. And cap-and-trade – which involves "capping" overall carbon dioxide levels and letting companies buy and sell emissions permits -- "pushes big negative buttons" for them.

These are some of the findings from 12 focus groups conducted in six states by the centrist group Third Way and the research group Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. The groups plumbed the attitudes of moderate and swing voters who had voted in both 2006 and 2008.

The good news for Democrats: The public believes there are better ways to make and use energy and that a move to clean energy could help the economy. They also trust Democrats more than Republicans to bring about changes.

The bad news: People are susceptible to the Republican argument that the complex Democratic bill moving toward the House floor "amounts to a big energy tax." And the language Democrats use is "often confusing or meaningless."

Several language gurus have emerged on the political scene in the past few years. George Lakoff and Drew Westen have written reams of advice for Democrats on how to connect better with voters. Frank Luntz is the master on the GOP side. He and Democrat Paul Begala recently exchanged dueling memos over how their parties should talk about health care reform.

As the Senate grapples with that priority, set by President Obama, the House has been grappling with his other top concern: How to reshape U.S. energy policy in ways that revitalize the economy, boost energy independence and reduce global warming.

Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Ed Markey, D-Mass., responding to his goals, have produced the enormously complex American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). It has been under attack from many angles, from not enough love for nuclear energy to not enough love for farmers. The most severe critics say it will produce steep job losses and higher taxes -- "intense pain, no environmental gain," as Investors Business Daily said in a headline this week.

It's an understatement to say Obama and his allies are facing quite a sales job. The new energy memo recommends that Democrats reframe their pitch around the phrase "Get America running on clean energy." It's forward looking, action oriented, achievable and – most important – has an economic focus, the researchers say.

"The people in our groups really understood the potential economic benefit of reforming energy," Third Way Vice President Matt Bennett told me. "For the most part it wasn't about them getting jobs. What they really like is the broader economic impact that reform could have. That should be the basic fundamental point."

Specifically, the memo says Democrats should talk about clean energy jobs instead of green jobs. It also says "cap-and-trade," as ACES is often called, not only lacks meaning to voters, it also gives them an impression of dead ends and Wall Street trading. A clean energy incentives bill sounds much better.

"The name of major reform legislation should evoke the underlying public policy purpose of the bill, not the mechanics of its implementation," the memo says, and underscores the point by asking Democrats to imagine what would have happened if the "No Child Left Behind Act" had been called the "Mandatory Testing of Schoolchildren to a Federal Standard Act."

Like so much else in Washington, the fate of ACES may come down to who is more convincing about how much it will cost. Democrats are not winning that argument so far.

Republicans and allied interest groups have been hammering them about the cost of the plan ever since Obama included his campaign-trail energy proposals in his budget. "Every American family will pay more each and every time they gas up their car, turn on a light switch, or heat their home," the National Republican Senatorial Committee said in March press releases targeted at eight senators.

The NRSC says families will pay an extra $3,000 a year under the Obama plan. The Industrial Energy Consumers of America puts the figure at $4,300 a year. Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, broke it down in April at the start of hearings on ACES. "Your electricity bill will increase by 77 to 129 percent. Filling up your gas tank will cost anywhere from 60 to 144 percent more. The cost of home heating oil and natural gas will nearly double," he said.

Third Way counters with a new Environmental Protection Agency analysis that says the specific bill produced by Waxman and Markey will cost about $140 per family, per year. "This is not going to be free," says Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress. "But the cost is going to be extremely small – about the price of a stamp a day."

Still, the assertions about high costs "have resonance and are memorable," the Third Way strategy memo says. It urges Democrats to "fight numbers with numbers."

There's no immediate pushback on numbers, but Democrats seem to be getting the message on language. The memo was circulated to congressional offices and advocacy groups on Tuesday. On Wednesday, e-mails about "clean energy" started showing up in my inbox.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was speaking at a "Green Jobs Summit" on Capitol Hill (named and scheduled before the new guidance, no doubt), but the headline on his e-mail was "We are firing the first shots of a clean energy revolution that will create jobs."

Weiss, meanwhile, sent word of two upcoming reports about how the House's "clean energy legislation" will make a $150 billion investment in a "clean energy economy" and generate "clean energy jobs."

The only off note, from the Third Way standpoint, was the use of the word investment. Better to say research and development, the group writes, and better still to do so in conjunction with universities or business incentives. Why? "The financial crisis seems to have soured the public on the idea of government 'investment.'"