We count on Thomas Friedman for business and culture insights that go beyond the obvious. Mr Friedman recounts a fascinating conversation with Democratic strategists James Carville and Stan Greenberg in his New York Times column.
Mr Carville, renowned for his ability to frame gut issues (e.g. “It’s the economy, stupid”) tells Friedman he and Greenberg have identified American voters’ emerging gut issue: Energy Independence.
But — and here’s the insight that makes the cash register ring — it’s not about the gas pump.
“It’s now the No. 1 national security issue,” Carville says. “It’s become kind of a joke with us, because no matter how we ask the question, that’s what comes up.”
At the end of August, a survey of likely voters (a population Mr Carville says skews slightly Republican) posed the question: Which of the following would you say should be the two most important national security priorities for the administration and Congress over the next two years?
The findings:
- 42 percent – “reducing dependence on foreign oil”
- 26 percent – “combating terrorism”
- 25 percent – “the war in Iraq”
- tied at 21 percent – “securing our ports, nuclear plants and chemical factories” and “addressing dangerous countries like Iran and North Korea”
- 12 percent – “Strengthening America’s military”
Friedman notes the distance between the top response and everything else, suggesting that thoughtful voters see how US oil dependence links to “a host of really bad national security problems.” Mr Greenberg: “There is frustration that leaders have not taken it up. There is a sense that the public is ahead of the leaders, and there is actually a sense of relief when anyone talks about [energy independence] with any seriousness.”
What does that response look like? “The public wants government to impose much higher auto mileage standards on Detroit and much more stringent energy codes on buildings and appliances. People want a tough regulatory response, à la California.”
Carville and Greenberg, Mr Friedman says, believe, it is “no longer enough to have ‘energy security’ as part of a 12-step plan for American renewal.” …Not “part of an expanding litany, but rather a contracting narrative. …This is not something to add to the stew — this is the stock.”
Friedman closes with a word to the politically wise:
Remember, Mr. Carville and Mr. Greenberg are professional campaign advisers. They get paid to get people elected — not to offer feel-good nostrums. So when they tell you that their polling and focus groups around the country show that “reducing dependence on foreign oil” is voters’ top national security priority, you know that this issue has finally arrived. The party that captures it most credibly will be rewarded.
Which suggests our question to the commercially wise:
You’re most likely not running for office or guiding the campaign of someone who is but, whatever your industry, if you were going to bet your company’s future on what’s important to your customers – and of course you are – what would you make of Energy Independence as National Security Issue No. 1?
