How does a nonbinding sustainability framework become, for
some, a symbol of the loss of both individual rights and private property?
Agenda
21 is a nonbinding international agreement made at the United Nations (UN)
Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In most countries it is simply a guideline to help countries make a more sustainable world. But in the U.S., Agenda 21 is a term to be avoided, due to its more loaded interpretation by the Tea Party.
In the U.S., it is common for Tea Partyists to disagree with environmentalists and planners, and for this disagreement to result in standstill. In the interest of becoming a more empathic planner, and a more effective communicator, I have been curious about how to understand the Tea Party perspective. Here I will explore the ideas behind the Tea Party interpretation of Agenda 21, the popularity of this opposition in the U.S., its impacts, the Tea Party
mentality, and what environmental planners can do to engage the opposition constructively.
Opposition to Agenda 21
The dialogue of the opposition to Agenda 21 includes theories that extrapolate concerns about Agenda 21's intentions and
implementation into dystopic futures.
Sound bites such as "pack'em and stack'em" enumerate the fear
of suburbanites losing their way of life when they are forced to move into high
rise buildings downtown (Lenz 2012).
Fear of this dystopia bleeds over into opposition to bicycle paths,
public transit, and even into any initiative that has sustainable terms,
including more social terms such as "equity" (Koire 2011).
The opposition to Agenda 21 stems from a dislike of big government and defense of private property and individual rights (CBS 2010a, CBS 2010b). It manifests as anti-global governance, such as the UN, and an association of green initiatives with socialism, fascism, or communism. The debate plays out in a battle between the Tea Party and environmental governance institutions. At the heart of this battle is the U.S. office of ICLEI, the UN's partner NGO for local Agenda 21 support (Clabough 2010, Koire 2011).
The opposition to Agenda 21 stems from a dislike of big government and defense of private property and individual rights (CBS 2010a, CBS 2010b). It manifests as anti-global governance, such as the UN, and an association of green initiatives with socialism, fascism, or communism. The debate plays out in a battle between the Tea Party and environmental governance institutions. At the heart of this battle is the U.S. office of ICLEI, the UN's partner NGO for local Agenda 21 support (Clabough 2010, Koire 2011).
Popularity of the Opposition in the U.S.
Agenda 21 oppositionists and Tea Party members are
minorities in the U.S (APA 2012). The
majority of Americans oppose the Tea Party, 14% support them but are not
active, and only 4% of Americans are active members of the Tea Party, having
either donated or attended a Tea Party event (CBS 2010). These active members constitute over 12
million people who have been highly instrumental despite their minority status
in reframing the conversation around local environmental governance.
Impacts of Agenda 21 Opposition
As a result of the Tea Party's pressure, 47 bills have been
introduced at the state level against Agenda 21 (Schonerd 2013). Five of these have passed (Schonerd 2013),
though in Missouri, the governor vetoed the bill (Jost 2013). An account of the change in ICLEI memberships
across the country reveals the influence of Tea Party activism as well. Of the at least 715 local governments who
have at one time been members of ICLEI, only 505 hold memberships today (this
is a minimum based on analyzing memberships in 2010, 2012, and 2013 from
icleiusa.org). Withdrawn memberships
have occurred across the country in forty states.
The Tea Party
The Tea Party first formed in 2008 after the downturn, but
gelled after a large protest on September 12, 2009. Today, several organizations constitute the
Tea Party, and each has its own nuances.
Three groups are instrumental in the anti-Agenda 21 rhetoric: FreedomWorks, the Tea Party Patriots, and the John Birch Society. The Koch brothers founded FreedomWorks in 2004, and this organization now runs training events, conferences, research, and media production for many of the other Tea Party groups on top of maintaining a large membership (Clabough 2010). FreedomWorks was originally credited with founding the Tea Party itself (CSE 2002). The John Birch Society has been active since 1958 but is now resurging on the tails of the Tea Party (Hurghart and Zezkind 2011). The Tea Party Patriots is one of the grass roots Tea Party organizations, formed by three ordinary citizens who were fed up with the way America was being run. It now has a wide membership (IREHR 2010).
Three groups are instrumental in the anti-Agenda 21 rhetoric: FreedomWorks, the Tea Party Patriots, and the John Birch Society. The Koch brothers founded FreedomWorks in 2004, and this organization now runs training events, conferences, research, and media production for many of the other Tea Party groups on top of maintaining a large membership (Clabough 2010). FreedomWorks was originally credited with founding the Tea Party itself (CSE 2002). The John Birch Society has been active since 1958 but is now resurging on the tails of the Tea Party (Hurghart and Zezkind 2011). The Tea Party Patriots is one of the grass roots Tea Party organizations, formed by three ordinary citizens who were fed up with the way America was being run. It now has a wide membership (IREHR 2010).
These organizations find leadership on the opposition to
Agenda 21 through members of the U.S. Government, including Senator Ted Cruz
(TX R) and Representative Michele Bachmann (MN R) (Cruz 2013). Glenn Beck provides much of the information
for the movement through his radio talk show, his magazine The Blaze, and even a novel he co-authored. Rosa Koire has a novel of her own, and
encourages Tea Party members to distribute her flyers, be active in local
government, encourage their local government to withdraw ICLEI membership, and
to oppose any initiatives that contain certain Agenda 21 buzzwords (Koire
2011).
Foundations of the Tea Party
At heart, the Tea Party is about smaller government and individual rights regarding property ownership. The core of the Tea Party does not center around a common ground regarding environmental issues. When surveyed, Tea Partyists are much more aligned about questions of government size than on climate change, for example.
Understanding the Tea Party
One way to understand the Tea Party is through an interesting framework established by psychologist Jonathan Haidt that measures the moral reasoning of individuals. In 2011, Haidt identified five moral intuitions: care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity.
Using Haidt's five
moral intuitions, Wojcik compared Tea Party members with members of other parties (Haidt and Graham 2007).
Wojcik found that Tea Party members utilized the five moral intuitions
more evenly, much like conservatives and libertarians.
This makes it difficult
for liberals to understand and communicate with Tea Partyists because they primarily use just two, care and
fairness (2010; 2011a). Wojcik also
found that Tea Party supporters on average have a lower "Need for Cognition," defined as an
innate attraction to tasks that are intellectually challenging (Mussell
2010). A low need for cognition is
correlated with a greater halo effect and high social anxiety (Petty et al. 2009, Osberg 1987). On average, Tea Party supporters also have a higher need
for social acceptance according to the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
(Crowne and Marlowe 1960; Wojcik 2011b). These differences reveal basic underlying ways of seeing the world, reasoning, and making value judgements that hinder communication across the political divide.
How to Engage the Tea Party
When determining how best to engage the Tea Party,
environmental planners have two choices: they can focus more on short-term or on long-term effects.
The short-term path involves marginalization, combating, and proselytizing Tea Party members. However, this path can have high costs because negative reactions can feed the flames of subversive groups, increasing antagonistic membership and activism (Banerjee 2013). The alternative is a more long-term approach that focuses on learning and understanding through participation. This approach assumes that there is some collaborative benefit of working with those opposed to Agenda 21 rather than fighting, which is often the case for environmental conflict at the local level (Forester 2009). At the grass roots level, the opposition to Agenda 21 does not come from a dislike of environmental issues per se, and therein lies the possibility for coordination between environmental advocates and the anti-Agenda 21 supporters.
The short-term path involves marginalization, combating, and proselytizing Tea Party members. However, this path can have high costs because negative reactions can feed the flames of subversive groups, increasing antagonistic membership and activism (Banerjee 2013). The alternative is a more long-term approach that focuses on learning and understanding through participation. This approach assumes that there is some collaborative benefit of working with those opposed to Agenda 21 rather than fighting, which is often the case for environmental conflict at the local level (Forester 2009). At the grass roots level, the opposition to Agenda 21 does not come from a dislike of environmental issues per se, and therein lies the possibility for coordination between environmental advocates and the anti-Agenda 21 supporters.
In order to take advantage of the second approach,
environmental planners must be able to recognize that there are disadvantages
to Agenda 21 and that there are times when the Tea Party is right. They must consider the perspective of Tea
Party members in their interactions with the public. This approach requires training in
environmental conflict management, time and resources for the participatory
process, and the courage to be open to a more bottom-up method that is not
controlled from the top. This approach
has the potential benefits of reducing oppositional posturing, increasing the
effectiveness of local government, and improving outcomes.
Building trust, and finding areas of common ground are two crucial factors when engaging any groups that have a history of disagreement. If environmentalists are to engage Tea Partyists, they must do the same.
Trust building is based on developing relationships, and this can only happen if there is dialogue between groups as well as some transparency. Therefore, environmentalists need to get out there and talk with (no, make that listen to) more people that are on the other side of the political spectrum.
Potential areas of overlap include the principal of
subsidiarity, which is the legalese term for using the smallest size
governing body that is effective to get something done (i.e. if it can
be done at the local level, it should be done there, and not at the
national level). Using smaller-scale governments is often recognized by
both groups, in principle, though this can change depending if the
larger scale is aligning with the views of the group on any particular
issue.
This post is based on material from a presentation and paper from Dec 2013 by Jennifer Rae Pierce at the Intersection of Crisis and Transition conference held by the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at Central European University, in Budapest, Hungary.
References
American
Planning Association (APA). 2012. Planning in America: perceptions and
priorities. Making Great Communities
Happen (June).
Banerjee, T. 2013. Media, Movements and
mobilization: Tea Party protests in the U.S., 2009-2010. In Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and
Change, Volume 35. Ed. P.G. Coy.
Burghart, D. and Zezkind, L. 2011.
Special report: Freedomworks and the John Birch Society problem. IREHR. http://www.irehr.org/issue-areas/tea-party-nationalism/tea-party-news-and-analysis/item/299-special-report-freedomworks-and-the-john-birch-society-problem
CBS News/New York
Times (CBS). 2010a. The Tea Party
movement: what they think. Poll (April 14). http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_tea_party_041410.pdf
---. 2010b. The Tea Party movement: who they are.
Poll (April 14). http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_tea_party_who_they_are_041410.pdf
Citizens for a
Sound Economy (CSE). 2002. U.S. Tea Party. Internet
Archive WaybackMachine (September 13). URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20020913052026/http://www.usteaparty.com/
Clabough, R. 2010. Beck Closely
Examines Tea Party Movement. The New
American (August 1). URL: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3259-beck-closely-examines-tea-party-movement
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D.
(1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Cruz, T. 2013. Glenn talks to Senator
Ted Cruz for the first time since marathon 21-hour anti-Obamacare speech. The Blaze TV (September 27). Video.
13:34. URL:
www.glennbeck.com/2013/09/27/glenn-talks-to-sen-ted-cruz-for-the-first-time-since-marathon-21-hour-anti-obamacare-speech
Forester,
J. 2009. Dealing with differences : dramas of mediating public
disputes. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press
Haidt, J. and Graham, J. 2007. When
morality opposes justice: conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may
not recognize. Social Justice Research 20, 1 (March): 98-116.
Institute for Research and Education on
Human Rights (IREHR). 2010. Tea Party Nationalism. Special Report (Fall). pdf.
URL: http://www.irehr.org/news/special-reports/item/443
Iyer, R. 2013. The moral foundations of
environmentalists. YourMorals Blog (April 4). URL: http://www.yourmorals.org/blog/2013/04/the-moral-foundations-of-environmentalists/
Jost, A. 2013. Rowland pushes for veto override of bill
banning Agenda 21. The Missouri Times (July 23). URL: http://multistate.com/insider/?p=615
Koire, R. 2011. Agenda 21: The United
Nations Plan for Global Control. Tea
Party Television (June 24). Video. URL: http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2011/06/24/lesbian-democrat-lays-it-on-the-line-about-agenda-21/
Lenz, R. 2012. Antigovernment
conspiracy theorists rail against UN's Agenda 21 program. Intelligence Report 145 (Spring).
Mussell, Patrick (2010). Epistemic
curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant validity. Personality
and Individual Differences 49
(5): 506–510.
Osberg, Timothy M. (1987). The
Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the Need for Cognition Scale. Journal
of Personality Assessment 3 (3): 441–450.
Petty, Richard E.; Briñol, P; Loersch,
C.; McCaslin, M.J. (2009). Chapter 21: The Need for Cognition. In Leary, Mark
R. & Hoyle, Rick H. Handbook of Individual Differences in Social
behavior. New York/London: The Guildford Press. pp. 318–329.
Schonerd, D. 2013. Agenda 21: State
Legislative Scorecard. Multistate Insider
(May 16). URL: http://multistate.com/insider/?p=615
Wojcik, S. 2010. A moral profile of Tea
Party supporters. YourMorals Blog (October 16). URL: http://www.yourmorals.org/blog/2010/10/a-moral-profile-of-tea-party-supporters/
Wojcik, S. 2011a. Tea for two: the
split personality of the tea party. YourMorals
Blog (February 9). URL: http://www.yourmorals.org/blog/2011/02/tea-for-two-the-split-personality-of-the-tea-party/
Wojcik, S. 2011b. The Tea Party and
compromise. YourMorals Blog (October
13). URL: http://www.yourmorals.org/blog/2011/10/the-tea-party-and-compromise/
