|
|
Every policy campaign needs to have a "case" for the policy; a statement which makes the most
important arguments for adopting the policy and answers the most important questions about it.
You need to develop your case at the very start of the campaign, so that all of your literature, all
your public statements, and everyone working on the campaign uses the same basic messages.
This section will explain the basic elements of a case statement, and how to go about deciding on
primary arguments.
Your main goal should be to make the statement brief and understandable. Do your best to avoid
jargon and technical language.
A case statement is a working document; you should keep changing it as you go through the
campaign and refine your messages. As new issues become important during the campaign, you
may want to put in new elements and drop others that no longer seem important.
A case statement doesn't have to be written down. The advantage of writing it out is that it is
easier to incorporate into your literature, materials you use to train volunteers, and/or your
website. The down side to written statements is that people sometimes get bogged down in
grammar and style. You need a good case statement. But don't spend the entire campaign
writing it. While the case statement is usually the basis for literature and training materials, it
usually isn't distributed itself. However, its contents shouldn't be any great secret and you should
never put anything in it which you would be unhappy to see in a newspaper.
A case statement should have four major elements. Each element should be set out in one fairly
simple statement. You can elaborate if you need to with a couple of sentences giving details or
explaining a point.
The first part is an explanation of what the policy does. This should be a concise statement of the
major parts of the policy.
Make sure your lawyer is satisfied that whatever you say is accurate. You can add an explanation
of the details that are most likely to be interesting to the board and its constituency if you think
you need to.
The second element is a short (again one or two sentences if possible) summary of your main
argument, followed by a few sentences of elaboration if needed.
The third element is short statements (again one sentence each if possible) of any important
secondary arguments for the policy.
The fourth element is short answers (you know how long) to the major questions about or
objections to the policy. See the section on Responding to Opposition.
Most policy campaigns serve many purposes. Most civil rights campaigns, for example, are part
of larger movements which aim to get society to accept a group which it has marginalized.
Often, policy campaigns are aimed in part at getting a community organized. Sometimes, an
important part of the aim is to get the public to start thinking about an issue. While all of these
are perfectly legitimate reasons to do a policy campaign, they are usually not the most persuasive
arguments for adopting a policy.
To boards and their constituents, the best reasons for adopting a policy are usually connected to
what the board's job is, and the practical effects of the proposed policy, on what it would actually
do if it were adopted. The best arguments for a policy are arguments which explain why it would
be good to have a policy like the one you propose. This may seem obvious. But more than once
in the past, policy campaigns have instead would up focusing on something completely different.
When you've got your explanation of what the policy does, think about why it would be good to
have it. Most of your reasons are likely to be built around the idea that something undesirable or
unfair is happening (or could happen) which policy is designed to stop or prevent. For example,
the classic civil rights argument is that people are losing jobs because of sexual orientation or
gender identity and not ability, and that the law is designed to keep that from happening.
There are two main things to consider when you decide which argument to use as your main
argument. The first is resources. Most arguments are made up of some factual and some moral
propositions. For example, the classic civil rights argument described above is based on the
factual claim that people lose their jobs because of sexual orientation and gender identity, and the
implicit moral claim that people shouldn't lose jobs if they have the ability and do their jobs well.
You should make this the centerpiece of your campaign only if you will be able to produce: 1)
evidence that people lose jobs, and 2) support from recognized moral authorities that people
shouldn't lose jobs except for lack of ability (if a proposition is near universally accepted, like
this one is, you may not need too much support for it).
The second factor you need to consider is which arguments is your board and it constituents most
likely to find compelling. To make decent predictions about this, you should do a little attitude
research.
First, check whatever opinion polls you can find. National polls on attitudes towards LGBT
people are usually done every year. When you think about how to use polls, make sure you think
about ways in which the group sampled is similar to or different from your board and its
constituency.
Talk to people who have recently carried on policy campaigns with similar boards. If you've
heard about campaigns in the media, check the stories for leads on the people who did them.
Most activists are very willing to spend time sharing their experiences. Ask them what worked
and what didn't. If you don't know of any similar campaigns, do some internet research or call
one of the national LGBT organizations for a referral.
Finally (and maybe most importantly) talk to people in your area; ask them what they think about
a proposed policy, and see how they react to different reasons for adopting one.
Make sure that you talk to people who reflect the diversity of your board and its constituency.
Make sure you don't talk just to people who will be inclined to favor a policy (on the other hand,
you probably shouldn't bother with likely die hard opponents). Try talking to representatives of
business, moderate political groups, moderate churches. Talk to some of the same professional
observers you approached in your basic research on the board. Talk to some sympathetic
politicians, especially those you will expect to support you. You run the risk of alerting people to
your coming campaign, but as long as you are quietly asking about ideas and you don't plan a
stealth campaign, you are unlikely to start a counter campaign or do much harm.
>> Next: 9. Endorsements
|
|
