First, you must convince them you have their interests as a priority, especially over the "people they hate". Until you do that, nothing you say will matter. There is a saying "Nobody cares what you say, until they know how much you care (specifically about them)".
Bill Clinton was good at this. He could behave any way he wanted, and be a…
First, you must convince them you have their interests as a priority, especially over the "people they hate". Until you do that, nothing you say will matter. There is a saying "Nobody cares what you say, until they know how much you care (specifically about them)".
Bill Clinton was good at this. He could behave any way he wanted, and be as insincere and corrupt as he wanted to be, because enough people thought he cared about them and was one of them. Maybe a lot of it was wink and nod, but it worked for eight years.
Thanks for the note. To me the challenge is more difficult when they have a misunderstanding of the world. If I'm advocating for a law to address climate change, that is directly making "their interests a priority." But if you think "climate change is a hoax to take away my freedoms," of course you're going to ignore me and even punish folks who are trying to address it. You run into the same challenge regardless of the issue: "tariffs stick it to china," "immigrants take more than they contribute." It's all garbage understanding of the world. You can't convince them you care if they misunderstand what you're doing.
For a while, you might have to play within their frame, their understanding. Instead of trying to convince them climate legislation is moral and "good for the planet", show them how it will directly save them money. Electric cars are cheaper to run than gas cars. More efficient homes are cheaper to heat and cool.
Win first, then try to make gradual change and change their "understanding" of the world. Again, I go back to Bill Clinton. He was a moral dirtbag POS, and nobody's idea of a progressive icon, but his two victories made Obama and Joe Biden possible, and their presidencies moved the country left on several issues progressive think are important.
Well, to be clear that's the tact we take but it's still structurally flawed because it ignores the real reason for the switch...to stop emissions. As a result here is what I often hear "well damn if you would just let us drill baby drill we'd have $1 gasoline and then we wouldn't need those environmentally disastrous EVs with their toxic metals for transportation." The structural flaw is that if you don't understand that burning fossil fuels is wrecking our planet, insurance markets, and our livelihoods, you're always going to argue "why change my vehicle or my home systems, just make the inputs cheaper...and Trump will do that."
First, you must convince them you have their interests as a priority, especially over the "people they hate". Until you do that, nothing you say will matter. There is a saying "Nobody cares what you say, until they know how much you care (specifically about them)".
Bill Clinton was good at this. He could behave any way he wanted, and be as insincere and corrupt as he wanted to be, because enough people thought he cared about them and was one of them. Maybe a lot of it was wink and nod, but it worked for eight years.
Thanks for the note. To me the challenge is more difficult when they have a misunderstanding of the world. If I'm advocating for a law to address climate change, that is directly making "their interests a priority." But if you think "climate change is a hoax to take away my freedoms," of course you're going to ignore me and even punish folks who are trying to address it. You run into the same challenge regardless of the issue: "tariffs stick it to china," "immigrants take more than they contribute." It's all garbage understanding of the world. You can't convince them you care if they misunderstand what you're doing.
For a while, you might have to play within their frame, their understanding. Instead of trying to convince them climate legislation is moral and "good for the planet", show them how it will directly save them money. Electric cars are cheaper to run than gas cars. More efficient homes are cheaper to heat and cool.
Win first, then try to make gradual change and change their "understanding" of the world. Again, I go back to Bill Clinton. He was a moral dirtbag POS, and nobody's idea of a progressive icon, but his two victories made Obama and Joe Biden possible, and their presidencies moved the country left on several issues progressive think are important.
Well, to be clear that's the tact we take but it's still structurally flawed because it ignores the real reason for the switch...to stop emissions. As a result here is what I often hear "well damn if you would just let us drill baby drill we'd have $1 gasoline and then we wouldn't need those environmentally disastrous EVs with their toxic metals for transportation." The structural flaw is that if you don't understand that burning fossil fuels is wrecking our planet, insurance markets, and our livelihoods, you're always going to argue "why change my vehicle or my home systems, just make the inputs cheaper...and Trump will do that."
$1 gasoline is not coming back. There isn’t enough oil left.