There has been much discussion of the presidential candidates’ proposals to address rising gas prices. I would like to examine a dimension of this debate that I haven’t yet seen explored: what the candidates’ messages express about their views of prosperity and its sources. The word “prosperity” might seem out of place in a discourse that has emphasized words like “crisis” and “recession,” but we can find signs of what the campaigns regard as the conditions that produce prosperity. Is it an expert who has the knowledge and will to act in our best interests? A leader who provides the necessary reassurance to a nation of insecure consumers? Or does it require someone who informs and leads us to act together? While the candidates have made many statements regarding gas prices, I will be looking at one each from Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama. First, let’s look at a recent Hillary Clinton ad called Trouble:

In the ad, the narrator speaks of the actions that Clinton proposed “when the housing crisis broke” and “now [that] gas prices are skyrocketing.” The ad doesn’t point to the causes of these problems. To me, it seems to suggest that we live in a world in which crises arise out of nowhere, like a 3:00 a.m. phone call to the White House. According to this view, what we need most is a leader with the ability to recognize a crisis and act decisively, drawing upon vast expert knowledge of the system. The actions that Clinton proposes in the ad are direct ones. People losing their homes to foreclosures? Pass a law to freeze foreclosures for a while. Gas prices hitting record highs? Cut the gas tax for a few months (and make up for lost revenues with a different tax on oil companies). The idea that systemic changes might be needed is missing, which is predictable given the view of rising oil prices as a sudden crisis rather than a long-term trend. It would not take much time for an ad to point to factors such as rising global demand for oil, stagnating oil production, or the OPEC cartel, but this ad instead avoids such explanations, as if the crafters of its message presume that viewers couldn’t understand them or don’t care to be informed about what is going on. The ad doesn’t reflect a recognition of the need to increase public understanding of the causes of such problems or how to respond to them. Instead, it encourages us, as passive consumers (rather than engaged citizens), to get out of the way and let experts solve them for us. McCain doesn’t have a commercial running about his gas tax proposal, so here’s his appearance on McCain-friendly Fox News:

In this interview, McCain repeatedly uses the word “psychological” to describe the nation’s problems. He states that rising gas prices are “terrible,” but suggests that public confidence, trust, and uncertainty are the issues that matter most. McCain downplays the amount of savings that would result from a gas tax suspension, which he cites as an example of his “straight talk.” The real impact - he tells us - would be “psychological,” giving consumers the encouragement they need to make another purchase next time they fill up. (Perhaps a fine Hostess product, such as a Ding Dong.) As with the Clinton’s ad, McCain’s remarks largely avoid citing the causes of gas price increases. His logic is consistent with Clinton’s. If gas prices are rising, cutting the gas tax is the solution. (Of course, the gas tax didn’t cause the price hikes, so that’s all the more reason for him to avoid talking about causation.) At the end of the interview, he adds another proposal to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so that the government will stop “competing” with consumers for oil. (Does he think that other nations should stop filling their strategic reserves too? Why fill the reserves with $120 per barrel oil when we can wait a few years and fill them at $200?) McCain also seems to regard his audience as consumers, albeit consumers whose main problem is a lack of self-confidence. Like Bush urging Americans to go shopping following the 9/11 attacks, McCain sees his role as enacting proposals that make consumers feel better about the situation and show their confidence in markets to save the day by spending more freely. We’ll see if his luck is any better than Bush’s. In North Carolina, Barack Obama is airing an ad called Truth:

Obama’s ad highlights the need for systemic changes to address rising gas prices. In the ad, Obama ridicules “quick fix” proposals to suspend the federal gas tax for a few months with the help of reaction shots of laughing and smiling audience members. He contrasts these short-term proposals with the need for a better energy policy that lead us away from oil dependence. Obama cites a need for systemic changes in our political system to enact such a policy, as titles appear stating, “Nothing will change unless we change Washington.” In calling for higher fuel efficiency standards and development of alternative fuels, Obama highlights the need for us to act to end our dependence on a system that is no longer serving our citizens well. (His argument might be strengthened by pointing out the serious risks we face as a nation by keeping our petroleum-based system, as can be seen in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq as oil prices skyrocketed.) Unlike conservatives who argue that unfettered markets maximize the production of wealth, Obama articulates a view that we have a responsibility to ensure that markets serve our needs. By acting together, we can make a transition to an economy in which our need for oil diminishes over time. This stands in stark contrast to the idea of short-term relief handed out by an expert from on high. Obama’s ad also refers to a $1,000 middle class tax cut, which I think is slightly out of context for the message of acting together to change Washington and bring about a better energy policy. He also cites a need to end price gouging by oil companies, a call that Hillary Clinton has also made elsewhere, which to me seems a distraction from the fundamental causes of long-term oil price rise. In some ways, the ads from the Obama and Clinton campaigns magnify their policy differences. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both proposed versions of a green jobs initiative that would provide training, investment, and new energy standards to promote economic opportunities that benefit the environment. (You can find outlines of Clinton’s version and Obama’s version of the green jobs plan on their websites.) In the context of the gas price debate, however, the differing choices that Clinton, McCain, and Obama have made are telling. Clinton and McCain have each responded in ways that establish themselves as authorities who are bestowing something upon the nation’s consumers (with no call to action that engages people as citizens). In the case of Hillary Clinton, her authority comes from experience and decisiveness and what she offers is relief from what is afflicting consumers right now. For McCain, the source of authority seems to be an understanding of consumer sentiment, which is reflected in his offer of a tax cut to promote confidence and spending. By contrast, Obama establishes a different kind of authority, that of the truth-teller who explains how Washington really works and what we must do together to bring about systemic solutions. None of the candidates refer to prosperity in these videos, but what they each say (and don’t say) is revealing. The site that Joe Brewer and I are starting, hivethrive, is about community entrepreneurship, and these differing approaches offer some lessons for people who want to build businesses that strengthen community. We have, perhaps, seen the limits of the Always Low Prices model of business that results in a race to the bottom for workers and the environment. As we start progressive businesses, we must not only find ways to address systemic causes of social and environmental problems, but also find ways to engage and inform communities, building connections and conversations that are more meaningful than typical marketing communication. In many cases, the solutions will be bigger than what any one business can create, but fortunately we don’t need to do it alone. Joe and I hope that hivethrive will become one of the places where people can pitch in and develop such solutions together.