Governor Christie’s Sandy “Rebuild Madness” (TM) is Deeply Unpopular with New Jerseyans
No Rush to Rebuild – Large Majority Prefer “Go Slow” Approach That Assesses Implications Before Rebuilding
“74 percent – say life here is not back to normal after Superstorm Sandy, nearly four months ago. Moreover, most see it as a transformative event, and want rebuilding the shore to go slowly to give time to assess the implications of rebuilding“. Rutgers -Eagleton poll, February 14, 2013
An important Eagleton Institute NJ public opinion poll has gotten very little media coverage. [I could not find one single article on this poll. But did find a bunch of good news puff pieces on the Eagleton poll about “Sandy not spoiling shore-goers’ plans” – and that ought to tell you something, so read on.]
The captioned quote above is by Rutgers (“A Post Sandy Followup”), which summarizes the findings of a Rutgers Eagleton Institute poll, whose results were released on February 14, 2013 – (poll results).
A key finding of that poll was:
Residents in no rush to rebuild shore but want government to pay
More than six in 10 residents (62 percent) are cautious about rebuilding at the shore and believe assessments of the potential for future damage should be made before rebuilding, compared to the third who want to rebuild before the summer tourism season.
Those results confirm that Gov. Christie’s reflexive and emotionally driven rush to rebuild – what I have dubbed “Rebuild Madness” (TM) – is deeply unpopular with the people of NJ.
Significantly, the most recent poll findings on rebuilding directly contradict strong public support for Gov. Christie’s response to Sandy. That strong support is the only factor driving the Governor’s favorable ratings.
Thus, the Governor is highly vulnerable, politically. His only strength is actually a major weakness. Here’s why.
The strong public support for the Gov. response to Sandy – and the Gov.’s constant self promoting PR – have created a dominant media narrative that presumes Christie’s political invincibility.
At the same time, that media narrative has completely shut out any conflicting public opinion results, and prevented the emergence of any policy discussion on shore rebuilding that might conflict with Gov. Christie’s approach.
Yet the public strongly prefers – in fact demands – that the implications of rebuilding be fully assessed BEFORE we rebuild.
Once this reality sets in, the Christie bubble – inflated by the media – bursts.
I) Poll Results Are Not In Conflict But are Being Spun and Misread
The public strongly prefers an “assessment of the implications” of rebuilding before rebuilding occurs.
That term “assessment”, in polling parlance, translates in governing parlance, to what functionally is called planning – openly establishing a collective public vision, exploring alternatives, setting goals and objectives, creating a plan, developing a strategy to implement the plan, etc.
A reasonable assessment obviously includes consideration of the effects of climate change, sea level rise, and projected increasingly severe coastal storms.
So, although the question has not been polled, logically, presumably those poll results mean that there is strong public support for planning and perhaps even a Coastal Commission to direct that planning effort (in fact, a December Monmouth University/Asbury Park Press poll found exactly that support):
A new Monmouth University/Asbury Park Press poll released Dec. 10, 2012, indicates that the overwhelming majority of New Jersey residents want the Jersey Shore rebuilt, but in a thoughtful, responsible and cost-effective manner. The poll also showed strong support for using tax dollars for almost all rebuilding and resilience efforts.
Among the most important findings for policy-makers, the poll shows more than 70 percent favor establishment of a regional entity such as a coastal commission to coordinate planning and rebuilding, and two-thirds favor allowing state regulators to determine which coastal areas can be rebuilt, based on storm risk assessments.
So, how do we reconcile these apparently contradictory poll results?
How can Gov. Christie simultaneously have strong favorable ratings for his response to Sandy while the public strongly opposes his approach to rush to rebuilding?
And why is the media narrative driving out any reporting of that contradiction, or the planning and policy issues?
Poll results are simply being misread and spun.
The Gov.’s popular immediate “response” to Sandy is being confused and conflated with his deeply unpopular policies for rebuilding (what I have deemed “Rebuild Madness” (TM)).
The public’s opinion was formed and the public supports what they saw of the Gov. on TV and in the newspaper in the immediate aftermath of the storm – that of a caring, responsive, empathic and competent man, boldly directing a capable and prepared government to help people in need.
The facts and record show otherwise. (e.g. see: The Deafness Before the Storm).
And how does an Administration go from a policy of DEP deregulating shore rebuilding to – just weeks later – issuing an Emergency DEP Rule strictly regulating rebuilding, with absolutely no one calling out that contradiction? Why no criticism of the closed door Rebuild Czar?).
Obviously, that legitimate emotional response by the public has nothing to do with the Governor’s policies, which directly contradict the emotional image he has cultivated and that the media has so dutifully reported.
II) Media Coverage Created the Contradiction and Inflated The Christie Bubble
The lack of reporting on substantive issues and contradictions in opinion polls is similarly easy to explain –
Once a dominant narrative is formed by the media, it is virtually impossible for facts or issues that contradict that narrative to be reported.
That’s just how the media works.
Facts or events that reinforce the dominant narrative are selected and reported. Those that undermine or contradict are either flat out rejected or relegated to a marginal role (“some critics say…”).
Second, the media, institutionally, is cowed by Gov. Christie, who is a demagogue.
Third, the media has economic interests in rebuilding – those real estate ads are perhaps the last remaining major source of income to the papers, as subscriptions, advertising, and readership all dwindle.
Fourth, media professionals are depleted, editors are clueless, and the reporters lack the time, resources, knowledge and experience to do real investigative stories.
Last, the advocacy community (i.e. environmental groups) is making no demands, offering up no alternatives, and making no criticism of the Gov. or his policy (KIG explains all that).
The political opposition (i.e. democratic party) have simply abdicated. Senate President Sweeney appears to be more worried about losing the legislature than taking on the Gov. (again, because the press has decreed that he is invincible, because they are misreading the polls).
So reporters can’t even do what they do best: report a conflict – because there is no conflict to report (and they all certainly do their best to marginalize critics and dirty hippie bloggers, like myself).
But, keeping hope alive, maybe they can hide behind the Eagleton poll findings cited above and start to report the real story.
If so, Christie crashes faster than Wall Street 2008.
Of course, our friends in the environmental community and the democratic party could always wake up, find their integrity and spine, and help this process along.