The "Bluff Reformer" Strategy
Strategy of Appearing to back Reform that you don't believe wil pass.
1) Oil Company Climate Change “Reform”: Deception
“Did you know that the oil companies are in favor of a carbon tax to address climate change? It may appear that the oil companies have found climate science “religion,” but you must understand that according the an Exxon lobbyist, this stance is a merely a public relations tactic. By taking a seemingly progressive position, they make it appear as though they are being responsible about climate change, but they have actually calculated that adoption of a carbon tax would be exceedingly difficult to achieve. For them this difficulty is a feature, not a bug.
“Bluff-Reform” describes a type of proposed reform that is intended to deceive or distract from more substantial, achievable reforms. It's a tactic employed by opponents of real change to appear progressive or open-minded while actually stalling or hindering progress.
They will work to oppose action on climate by funding “shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts,” while portraying themselves as responsible companies that are being cooperative.1
Keith McCoy, a senior director in Exxon’s Washington government affairs team, was recorded on video in May saying that the company backs a carbon tax “as an easy talking point” and an “advocacy tool” because “there is not an appetite for a carbon tax” and that Republican legislators who oppose taxes in principle will never let it happen.
“Nobody is going to propose a tax on all Americans, and the cynical side of me says, yeah, we kind of know that – but it gives us a talking point that we can say, well, what is ExxonMobil for? Well, we’re for a carbon tax,” he said. (The Guardian, June 30, 2022)
2) Tax the Rich: Was Kamala Bluffing?
I wonder how common this “bluff-reformer” strategy is? When Kamala Harris said she wanted to tax unrealized capital gains, what chance of success did she think (or her advisors) think this tactic had? Did she have a strategy for an “initial bargaining position” turning this into something achievable, or was this just posturing, like the oil companies support for a carbon tax?
3) “Sheep Dog” Candidates
The strategy of “sheep dogging”2 is similar. It’s a type of “bluff reform” in which a candidate offers the promise of reform, with the intention of ultimately funneling those wayward voters who are alienated with the party, back into supporting the usually corporate “centrist” nominee, by staking out a position within the party that captures the attention of those wanting reform and then drop out after the deadline for new candidates to file, thus capturing the audience for reform and then blocking the emergence of a real reform candidate.
QUESTIONS:
Were you aware of corporations, parties, or political figures taking positions without the intention of following them, but out of a “bluffing” strategy which hinders reform-minded voters ability to achieve long-term representation?
Have your heard the term “sheepdog” in “mainstream” media? Would the naming of the
Would a political party like the Democrats allow a candidate to run, without the intention of allowing them to win the nomination?
FOOTNOTES:
“Or they think that these taxes will not affect them because demand for oil and gas is inelastic or that international coordination will fail and lead to leakages. Finally, it could be that this is simply a communication exercise and that a carbon tax helps them shift the responsibility from fossil fuel companies to customers, voters and elected officials.” Alain Naef, SUERF: Can fossil fuel companies really support a carbon tax?, November 2023
Sheepdogs are herders,” wrote Bruce A. Dixon, “and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic Party. ( Jesse A. Myerson, Dissent Magazine, July 27, 2016)