Polarization
In our polarized political world, it’s difficult to have a “civil” discussion about controversial issues. Our current debates about access to abortion are a great example. The Pro-Choice side claims that Pro-Life takes away the right of women to choose what happens to their bodies. It’s a “freedom” argument. The Pro-Life side says that abortion is murder, and kills a human life. It’s a “moral” argument. And both sides often degenerate into name-calling and horrible imagery. Pro-Choice: Pro-Life wants to enslave women to their moral/religious view. Pro-Life: Pro-Choice are murderers doing Satan’s work (I heard that just yesterday).
Once the argument gets to that point, there’s no going back. Compromise is either making a “deal” to take away freedom, or a literal “deal with the devil”. The now over-ruled Roe v Wade Supreme Court logic was the compromise; now the current Dobbs Decision simply takes the intractable argument out of the Courts, and onto state legislatures.
The list of issues grows: guns, immigration, vaccination, history, racial equity. And one by one, they have stopped being “debate topics”, available for discussion, and become “a hill to die on”. Our current political climate is a mountain range of issues, each peak dramatically defended. There seems to be no valley, no stream, where the two sides can even meet. Any move toward compromise is seen as a betrayal to “the cause”.
Just a Pinch
“Permission structure” is a political term in vogue these days, but it’s been around for a while. In advertising, it was used to persuade folks to do something that they considered “not appropriate”. An example: in the late 1970’s, it was clear that cigarettes were unhealthy, and bad for athletic performance.
But the tobacco industry had a different product to sell, snuff; and wanted to create a “permission structure” for young athletes to use tobacco without impacting their athletic abilities. So they advertised the product on television with a great athlete, future Hall of Fame running back Earl Campbell of the Houston Oilers. In the commercials, he showed his athletic prowess, followed by the line, “A pinch is all it takes”.
If Skoal was OK for Earl Campbell, Skoal was OK for aspiring high school athletes. They had his “permission”. And it worked. Use of snuff was endemic among high school male athletes throughout the 1980’s and 90’s. Campbell by then was in the Hall of Fame and on a cane, but it was a rite-of-passage for young men to “take a pinch”. And since it was a nicotine product, one pinch led to another, and nicotine addiction.
Political Cover
But it was the Obama Administration, particularly the “brain trust” of Dan Pfeiffer and David Axelrod, who used the term “permission structure” to explain how to frame issues in a way that allowed Republicans in Congress to support it. At the time, Republicans were faced with the Tea Party (the pre-cursor to Trump and the MAGA movement). Any deal with Democrats might mean getting “primaried” in the next election, with an opponent going to the political “right” and using cooperation as a cudgel.
So the “permission structure” included a justification that might relieve that risk. It worked, particularly on issues like Government shutdowns. The “deal” to end the shutdown would include some item that Republicans could take home as a victory in their war to stop Democrats. “Sure we let them open the government, but we got THIS!!!!”
But the best example of creating a “permission structure”, was in the 2024 Democratic Convention this past August. In what obviously is going to be a very close election, Democrats tried to convince Republicans, particularly Never-Trump Republicans, to support a progressive Black woman from California for President of the United States. It sounds like an impossible task.
For America
There are differences between the political parties on economics, taxation, immigration, guns, healthcare, and all of the other “normal” issues. So Democrats framed the election in “existential” terms: Donald Trump is a threat to the American Democracy. They invited Republicans to the convention to tell their fellow party members that the question of democracy was more important than all of the other normal arguments. A former Trump White House Press Secretary, the Mayor of Mesa, a Pence aide, the former Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, and a former US Congressman, all Republicans; spoke to their fellow party members from the Democratic podium.
They told fellow Republicans that voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz wasn’t betraying their party, but standing up for America. And, they have been followed by a whole galaxy of Republican leaders, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Congressman Liz Cheney.
Republicans for Harris are trying to create the “permission structure” for other Republicans who might vote for Trump; out of habit, loyalty to the Republican Party, or who might decide to sit out the election all-together. With their “structure” is the implied promise: America needs to survive Trump first; then we can get back to all of the other issues we care about.
Like Earl Campbell’s “pinch” of snuff, the Republicans for Harris are trying to create a “structure” to give their fellow party members permission to find a way out of MAGA world to vote for Harris and Walz. The facts: 2016 was decided by 77,744 votes in the critical swing states. 2020 was decided by 44,000. Every vote makes a difference, no matter the political affiliation of the voter. If Republicans need “permission” to vote for Harris, they’ve got it.
And that’s good for America.
