Kamala Harris is Trying to Make Climate Action Patriotic
13:15 Share

Hey, Micah, ready for this? Yes, yes. And listener, don't skip ahead. Stick with us for one second. Yeah, you know why. A couple of weeks ago, you may remember, I announced a challenge. If we received 400 donations by Election Day, not a lot, given how many people listen to this podcast. But I announced a challenge.

we could unlock $12,000 from a generous OTM superfan. And guess what? We are already close to meeting that goal. And thank you guys so much. But we know we can do even better. And now we've had another OTM superfan step up to extend the challenge. George Hanby, a retired seventh grade world geography teacher, has offered up another $5,000 annually.

If we can double our initial goal and get 800 OTM donors by Election Day. Brooke, I can't tell you how huge this would be for the show. I know. Money that we could really use when we cover the new administration who's ever in the White House. And money just to keep the show going, right? Yeah. November 5th, that's just over two weeks away. So...

Listeners, help us gather the resources we need to cover whatever comes next. And at the same time, you can snag our fresh new On The Media hat when you make it a $12 a month donation. I know that Micah really, really loves it. I love this hat. It's light blue. It has like a really nice pinkish.

The OTM logo on the front is so tastefully etched on. And then on the back, you have this cool WNYC logo. We didn't even make that many. So get yours before they run out. Visit onthemedia.org to make your donation in support of our show because we really rely on you.

And we are everlastingly grateful. Hey, we know that there are another 400 out there who have maybe been taking in this show for free for a long time. This could be a chance to kick in, to help support it and help us leverage a little extra money besides. Thank you so much. And here's the show.

You're listening to the On The Media Midweek Podcast. I'm Michael Loewinger. Brooke had to run out to a panel that she's going to be on this evening, so I'm reading this intro for her.

The use of patriotism as a campaigning tool has for years been the domain of the GOP. A Gallup poll from June shows that 60% of Republicans, compared to 29% of Democrats, express extreme pride in being American. And you can see it at Donald Trump's rallies, where he wraps himself in a flag, walking out to God Bless America, his crowds a sea of red, white, and blue.

It's not like Democrats have never employed the tactic, but this election cycle, they've been putting patriotism front and center. At rallies, and at the DNC. I've learned something about the Democratic Party, and I want to let my fellow Republicans in on the secret. Adam Kinzinger, former Republican representative of Illinois. The Democrats are as patriotic as us.

Partway through Kamala Harris' speech at the DNC, she listed a series of fundamental freedoms Americans should hold. For example, the freedom to live safe from gun violence, the freedom to vote, and...

This resonated with researcher Catherine Mason at New York University, who's been investigating the unlikely pairing of flag-waving, steak-grilling, good old American patriotism and climate change to see if patriotism could be the missing ingredient when it comes to changing stubborn minds.

For the study, Mason and her team surveyed around 60,000 participants from across the world. They measured changes in people's understanding of climate change after reading a specially designed text and seeing images that emphasized that it was patriotic to take actions to limit the effects of climate change, and how doing so would actually maintain the status quo or the participants' current way of life.

Here in the U.S., she said she's noticed that politicians have taken up the charge. Biden and Harris both have been adopting some of this new patriotic language. Biden has been discussing EVs and the push to manufacture vehicles here in the U.S. So they're, quote unquote, American made. Today, if you want an electric vehicle with a long range, you can buy it.

This does seem to be pretty new when it comes to the Democratic Party, although I do want to highlight that this is not solely the Democratic Party that's doing this. Republicans like Bob Ingalls, who's a previous representative from South Carolina, previously framed climate action as patriotic and aligned with conservation and other values that conservatives tend to hold.

Somehow we have to convince conservatives, the champions of free enterprise, that this fits with exactly what they deeply believe. Democrats have always used patriotism. It's just that they're leaning into it more, right? And that language is a way to bridge divides over things like gun violence and climate change by putting us all in the same tribe, the patriotic tribe.

Yeah, the science is showing that when we talk about things in ways that align with people's beliefs and values, they tend to be the most persuasive. It's actually kind of equally effective for both liberals and conservatives. At first, we had kind of maybe feared that if liberals tend to be a little bit less patriotic than conservatives, that it would maybe backfire.

But it's really showing very promisingly that this is language that can bridge ideological divides, which is what we really need right now. The climate debate is so divided. I thought that was getting better just because many areas that are red on our electoral map have been getting hit pretty hard by environmental emergencies.

Polling is showing that among the public, the divide about belief in climate change is decreasing. People's lived experiences can kind of illuminate the reality of climate change. But in terms of who our representatives are, the ideological divides are as strong as they've ever been. Yeah, the language coming from the GOP and fossil fuel lobby groups

is still of skepticism. They also will attack scientists themselves, saying they have some agenda. Newer frames that are starting to arise really kind of focus on the solutions to climate action and the effect that those solutions are going to have on our personal lives, the economy. They're saying that our lives are going to change a lot if we actually try to address climate change.

They are consistently emphasizing the cost of climate action. More people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change. So let's get into the weeds of your study a bit. You measure people's beliefs in climate change after reading a specifically designed text. Tell me what they read. The main passage basically says that

Being pro-environmental allows us to protect and preserve the American way of life. It's patriotic to conserve our country's natural resources because doing so allows us to protect and preserve the American way of life so that the United States remains the United States.

You had pictures of landscapes around the U.S. people would be familiar with, like the Grand Canyon, a gorgeous picture of Chicago with the American flag waving, Colorado, Newport Beach in California, Thanksgiving parade. What was that supposed to mean? And what else did you have besides the postcard view of the U.S.? What these were really meant to do were to remind people the dependence that they have upon the way that things are right now.

After that, they were shown a little bit of what it looks like when climate change does impact our way of life. So they also saw a picture of the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. And then they also saw a picture of forest fires in the San Francisco area. One of those really scary pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge when the air was like

orange and like on fire. You said that you wanted to test a psychological theory that people will rush to defend the status quo because they crave stability, that they're resistant to messaging about overhauling the system or radical change. But that's a lot of the messaging that we've heard from environmental scientists and activists.

that we need to do just that, to overhaul the whole system, to save ourselves from extinction. We need a real revolution to transition us from the dirty fossil fuel economy of the past

to the sustainable, renewable society of the future. Your research suggests that is a very counterproductive argument, however true it may be. It can end up backfiring in that people actually end up ignoring or downplaying information even more as a way to kind of avoid that psychological discomfort that comes with acknowledging the reality of big problems. What we're suggesting instead is that among communicators whose specific goal is to bridge political divides,

that they should probably avoid this kind of overhauling the system language and maybe shift to the patriotic language that's more aligned with people's beliefs and values, specifically those of conservatives. This can create that entry point for the broader conversations that can lead later to more meaningful climate action. So,

Let's talk about how this framework works in other countries or doesn't work. You found differences in the results between American participants and those from elsewhere.

In many countries like the US, Brazil, France, and Israel, the intervention was successful. But in other countries like Germany and Belgium and a few others, it actually backfired. We looked at the political context of each country to try to understand why this could be happening.

So in Germany, for example, patriotism is still associated with the Holocaust. You mean Deutschland uber alles, that kind of thing? Exactly. Nationalism having been a driving force behind the Nazi party's rise to power. And even though we were not trying to suggest anything close to that...

people can still be kind of weary of that type of language. And it seems like they may have been. Because of this, we would probably opt for a different frame. It's interesting, though, that you said it worked in the U.S., Brazil, and France because there's a lot of right-wing political rhetoric around climate change and climate change policy, that it's too expensive, it would impose a threat to our livelihoods. So your language worked in those nations, right?

Across all of our outcomes, the intervention was the strongest and most consistent in the United States and also in Brazil, too. It's because the message directly contradicts the rhetoric about climate action right now, which is that the costs itself are the thing that's really threatening to our American way of life. We hear this a lot. Republican politicians, fossil fuel organizations, as you just said, are

are constantly talking about the cost of climate action. But we're trying to flip this around, highlighting, no, it's the climate action itself that's going to protect us from climate change. So do you have any examples of when patriotic environmental campaigns have been effective here in the past?

Yeah, for sure. So one prime example was the Don't Mess With Texas campaign, a campaign from the 80s to reduce litter along state highways. And it was very successful. So this slogan appealed to state pride, said that littering was un-Texan. What's a couple of football stars doing out here alongside the road? Picking up after some folks who really don't seem to care much about Texas. Oh, okay.

You mean the litter? Yeah. You see the guy who threw this out the window. You tell him I got a message for him. Don't mess with Texas? That's the message. The campaign was very successful. It decreased litter by 72% in four years, which is great. Wow. Is there any risk to using patriotic language to get people excited about climate change? Any fears of exciting nationalistic emotions that would excite xenophobia or bigotry?

We're not seeing this as much in the U.S. right now, but in some countries there is an emergence of what's called eco-nationalist frames, where leaders will use the environment as a justification for xenophobic policies. It goes beyond mere patriotism. It's intentionally exclusionary, and it asserts that the interests of one's own country are more important than those of other nations.

That is not a frame that we would encourage anyone to use. The focus of what we're endorsing here is emphasizing the connection between environmentalism and the American way of life, which to us should include anyone and everyone. It should be egalitarian. It should be multicultural and it should be inclusive, which I think is exactly how Harris is using it.

language about climate change and climate action, even when it is patriotic, should be explicitly anti-nationalist. So our message should emphasize that climate action is a global undertaking and that for us to successfully mitigate climate change, inclusive and collaborative collective action has to be taken. Catherine, thank you very much. Thank you. This was wonderful.

Catherine Mason is a researcher at New York University studying the psychology of social justice. Thanks for listening to this week's podcast. Remember, you should check us out on TikTok and Instagram. Just search On The Media and tune in to this weekend's show. We're looking at why the word fascism has been popping up more and more in the media in the last week or so. Thanks for listening. I'm Michael Loewinger.

On Notes from America, we have conversations with people across the country about how we can truly become the nation that we claim to be. Each week, we talk about race, our politics, education, relationships, usually all of them, because everything's connected. And you, our listeners, are at the center of those conversations. I'm Kai Wright. Join me on Notes from America, wherever you get your podcasts.