LOOKING AHEAD:
THE WAYS CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN
POLITICIANS IMAGINE THE FUTURE

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIRMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
POLITICAL SCIENCE

December 2011

By
David J. Brier

Dissertation Committee:
Jim Dator, Chairperson
Kathy Ferguson
Phyllis Turnbull
Noelani Goodyear-Ka'opua
Alex Golub

Keywords: images of the future, long-term politics, future generations, intergenerational
justice, futures studies, forecasting


©2011
by
David J. Brier


typed portions of the dissertation offering creative commentary (an odd mix of babble
and interesting linkages among chocolate milk, cookies, cheese, and the future) and
encouragement.
Above all, I am grateful to my wife, Vickery, who remains an invaluable support. She
took the children out of the house on countless weekend mornings so I could write. She
gave me pep talks when I needed it and provided a sounding board when trying to form
and sharpen my arguments. Without her intellectual and emotional support, I would have
been unable to complete this dissertation.

iv


ABSTRACT

This dissertation examines the ways in which contemporary American politicians
imagine the future. Analysis of the futures-related content of political speeches and
congressional testimony reveals that, contrary to conventional wisdom, politicians do
think beyond the next election and, at times, consider the plight of future generations.
Chapter 2 analyzes images of the future and futures-related discourse found in State of
the City and State of the State addresses delivered between 2000 and 2010. The
dissertation provides a new methodology to classify images of the future to improve the
ability of analysts to identify long-term politics. Typically, categorization schemes such
as Dator’s generic images of the future encourage the analyst to conceptualize the future
as a noun, the thing it becomes. This dissertation offers a new classification scheme that
invites scholars to conceptualize the future as a verb, a political process and contest. By
exploring the ways politicians speak about the extent of human agency in shaping the
future, this dissertation develops a technique to help scholars escape the short-term
economic development versus long-term environmental preservation frame that
dominates our thinking about long-term politics and intergenerational justice. Chapter 3
investigates the use of future generations-related language and themes in these speeches.


CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1

Politicians Don’t Take the Future Seriously

1

Short-Term Assumptions and Starting Points

3

Individuals and Groups have Exclusively Short-Term Interests

4

Events Contain One Time Horizon

10

Future Generations are a Single Entity

11

Long-Term Thinking is Altruistic

11

Long-Term Action Will be Punished by the Electorate

The Justification for This Dissertation

33

CHAPTER 2. IMAGINING THE AMERICAN FUTURE: VISIONS OF
WHAT IS TO COME IN POLITICAL SPEECHES

36

Why Rhetoric and Discourse?

36

State of the State and State of the City Speeches

43

Images of the Future

44

Economic Growth Image

51

vii


Technology Driven Future


Phoenix in 2034

87

The Emergence of the Creative Class

89

Social Justice & the Uncreative Class

95

Technological Fixes

97

The Future Hawaiian Style

106

There Can Only be One

107

Using the Long-Term

108

Smart Growth


Generativity

158

Who Benefits?

162

Open Space

167

Time Horizon

170

Scope of Interest

172

The Gendered Nature of the Future

173

Conclusion

178

viii



194

National Environmentalism versus Global Environmentalism

204

National Security

210

Indigenous Futures

217

Alaska Land Claims Settlement Act

228

Introducing the Gwich’in

231

Who Decides? The Genuine Native

233

The Timeless Indian

241



LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: ANWR Map

182

Figure 2: ANWR Land Use

182

x


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Politicians Don’t Take the Future Seriously
A popular belief in futures research, political science, and public administration is
that elected members of government do not think long-term (20 years or more into the
future) or beyond the next election cycle when preparing or considering legislation and
providing plans and visions to their constituencies. For example, public administration
scholars Keiner, Rejeski and Wobig described it this way:
Ask high level public officials how much time they are able to spend thinking
about long-term issues, and the answers often range from “none” to “a few
moments in the shower this morning.” The future is simply too distant to
command much attention given the day-to-day imperatives of government.
(Keiner, Rejeski, & Wobig 2002, 26)
This assumption that government focuses on the present and does not think long-term is
shared by numerous futurists. In the words of political scientist and futurist James Dator:
“it is impossible for a legislator to be future-oriented” (Griffith 2005, 8) and “… the

contained beliefs of and desires for the future well beyond the next election and, indeed,
beyond the politician’s term limit in office. When, during a course in political futures in
my doctoral program, I began to review legislation and public policy for language and
provisions to promote and protect future generations, what I read did not always concur
with the mainstream view that politicians ignore the future. It appeared as if academics
making such assertions avoided the wealth of political language on the future and the
examples of legislation and policy proposed on behalf of future generations. It is easier
not to see a concern for the plight of future generations if one remains committed to the
prejudice that politicians don’t care about the future. However, if one begins to read
political language and public policy closely and with a habit of finding the future,
instances of it become apparent.
In my job as a librarian, I noticed that numerous academics spoke and wrote about
topics in a way that allowed them to ignore long-term organization and action inherent in
political movements. To illustrate, a review of academic literature indicates there is little
published on the subject or keywords long-term politics (or short-term politics for that
matter). Although a substantial amount of political thought and energy is devoted to longterm projects, these actions are described in the academic literature under a myriad of

2


other subjects such as parks, forestry, soil erosion, water quality, water management,
mining, ranching, agriculture, climate change, space research, urban planning, economic
and technological development, demographic changes, military strategy, wilderness
preservation, wildlife protection, nuclear waste disposal, etc.). In short, a focus on the
who, what, where, and how of subjects rather than the when (in particular, the duration)
places an emphasis and turns the analysis of the political on the non-temporal (the
demographic, technological, environmental, economic, legal, scientific, social, spatial,
etc.) rather than the temporal (the time horizon enveloped within each subject). Bending
de Certeau for my purposes, there is “a triumph of place over time” (de Certeau 1984,
36). Thus when speaking about the political, “there is an invisible identity of the visible”

have short-term interests. Consequently, to be (re)elected, politicians develop an
approach to politics that is responsive to these short-term interests (Dunn, 1999; Kim and
Dator 1994; Sasaki 1994, 2004). In other words, some analyses suffer from a tendency to
translate or see all political action (for the electorate and the politician) in terms of shortterm interests. I shall refer to this principle as crude short-termism. For the crude shorttermist, all politics is short-term. Crude short-termism presumes that there are no longterm political interests−hence there is neither pressure nor incentive for politicians to
pursue long-term legislation. Flipping this, even if the politician wants to act responsibly
towards future generations, they cannot be (re)elected because no one will support them.
The electorate is represented as a monolithic block of individuals and groups exclusively
pursuing their selfish, short-term interests. As a result, the future-oriented politician
stands alone; they are an island of long-term thought in a sea of short-term interests.
Illustrating a strain of crude short-termism, futures researcher Bruce Tonn points out
Special interest lobbying and concern for future generations are completely
inconsistent with other by definition. The former represents a group of people,
who usually have significant financial resources, that press government to make
specific decisions on specific matters favourable to them in the short term at the
exclusion of all other people, all other issues, and anything related to the long
term. (Tonn 1996, 416)
In one fell swoop, Tonn creates an inseparable cleavage between lobbying and long-term
interests. But notice what is ignored in this argument that accepts uncritically the
assumption that individuals and groups only lobby for their exclusive, short-term
interests. In actuality, individuals and groups, some with large sums of money, such as
the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Rainforest
Action Network (aka Gang Green) regularly engage in long-term lobbying to preserve
the environment for present and future generations. But Tonn either ignores their efforts
or frames their organization and action as “short-term and at the exclusion of other

4


people.” This narrow method of thinking about political organization and action mystifies
what is happening in many areas. Crude short-term explanations represent individuals



development, what is good for the company is good for the community. Using the narrow
conception of wealth found in current industrial discourse, creating the optimal
conditions for a thriving and prosperous economy are not only fair and just for present
generations, they are the greatest gift one can leave to future generations. Crudely stated,
numerous business leaders and politicians believe the following formula: prosperity =
security. Thus, the official story goes, developing one’s economy to the fullest extent
possible in the short-term is for everyone’s benefit in the long-term. This general
sentiment, helping future generations by helping present generations, is echoed by
professor of International Relations Wilfrido Villacorta when he argues “the best way to
create a better world for future generations is to improve the conditions of the young
generations who are now living with us…” (Villacorta 1994, 82). But Tonn presumes that
that there is a right (real and true) way and a wrong way to lobby for future generations
(and he knows the difference). Moreover, Tonn presumes he can correct the mistaken
view of short-term politics by showing people the truth (about how they should go about
caring for future generations). While I agree that some individuals and groups do ignore
or exploit future generations, I do not think that this should always be characterized as a
straightforward narrative (for example, all lobbying is short-term and exclusionary).
There is no patron saint of the future because there is no one way to look after future
generations. It is far from clear how one respects the future. In other words, there is no
point in establishing the real or best way to care for, promote, or envelope the interests of
future generations because there is no privileged site from which we can speak about
intergenerational justice that is not constructed. Actions that excite one group about the
future may perturb another. For example, using the precautionary principle in public
policy to protect future generations is applauded by some but discouraging and
disappointing to others because they believe “such an approach is of dubious utility and
may even be counterproductive” for future generations (Morris 2000, back cover). I aim
for a more problematic notion of short-term interests and intergenerational justice in this
project.

politicians to bring them about, for years. This disregard for enduring struggles and longterm interests is not limited to social events. As Bob Seidensticker points out in his book
Future Hype: The Myths of Technology Change, commentators often ignore the years of
preparation that make technologies possible. Seidensticker argues that conventional
representations of the Internet made it appear as if it burst out of nowhere in 1991 (the
year it became public). Yet the Internet began in 1969. But the 22 year history that made
7


the Internet possible was erased from many accounts about it in the popular media and
academic literature. Taking over 20 years to unfold, the Internet was the result of years of
planning, funding, and preparation on the part of government and universities.
Backgrounding the extended period of time bound into social movements and
technological projects camouflages long-term politics and the ongoing pressure and
possible incentives for politicians to initiate (or respond) to future oriented thinking and
intergenerational justice.
Other telling illustrations of the limitations of crude short-termism were apparent
in Hawaii’s struggle over House Bill (HB) 444 of the Hawaii State Legislature. Briefly
and simply, HB 444 proposed that all the benefits, rights, responsibilities and processes
attached to marriage be attached to civil unions (for lesbian and gay couples).
Community commentary on the HB 444 revealed a way of speaking and imagining the
future that was not limited to short or long-term interests. For example, arguing against
House Bill 444, The Most Rev. Larry Silva, bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of
Honolulu, wrote a commentary in the Honolulu Advertiser stating
Marriage is not just about the two individuals, but about our community and its
future. Civil unions undermine the connection between procreation and marriage.
Children are not commodities. We have a responsibility to assure a firm
foundation for raising children and this is best done in the context of a loving
father and committed relationship that gave them life. (Silva 2009, B4)
Although Silva links HB 444 to the future, his ambitions were timeless. He did
not speak and imagine the future as if it were a natural, external, linear, and unidirectional

it, “other modes of time and other modes of presence that lie outside the familiar” linear
political time (Shapiro 2001, 125). Because there are other ways of speaking and thinking
about time, choosing one way to represent a politician’s temporal interests is incomplete.
In other words, the diversity of time extends far beyond matters of (re)election for
politicians. Therefore speaking about a politician’s temporal motivations, incentives, and
interests exclusively in terms of short-term interest and action limits our ability to see the
richness, contradictions, and paradoxes manifest in the politics of time. Additionally, and
more importantly, it forecloses our notions of temporal possibilities within existing
institutions.
In this project I argue that individuals and groups are not exclusively short-term
thinkers; they hold a mix of short, medium, and long-term ambitions. Further, they
perceive, experience, and speak about time in general and the future in particular in a
variety of ways that are undetected, unreported, and unappreciated in conventional
political commentary. Put another way, people and institutions are transtemporal
9


(containing a mix of time horizons) and heterotemporal (composed of multiple and
competing ways of thinking about the future and experiencing time). The thrust of this
argument is not to invent new dualisms (such as essence/hybridity) and valorize hybridity
so much as to challenge the common-sense assumptions often implicit in time
discounting explanations and develop a sense of what is possible. Drawing on de Certeau,
“each new time provides a place for a discourse,” a new way of speaking about time and
the future (de Certeau 2000, 25). Although analysts may describe political behavior in
single and closed time frame, temporality cannot easily be partitioned or be treated as
discrete and isolable units. The breakage of time into quantifiable pieces and historically
significant chunks is a political act, one that simultaneously reveals and conceals political
power. Telling and measuring time is “an infinite labor of doing” (de Certeau 2000, 33).
Although it seems natural, it is produced; although it seems neutral; it has an impact. I
will show that temporality is an action that is a practice of power. Further, I will

generations with the needs of future generations. Kim and Dator, for example, encourage
us to think of the living as part of the present generation and the unborn, the “people we
will never know, and who can never thank us for caring for them, or bring us to task for
failing to do so,” as future generations (Kim and Dator 1999, 8). Beyond the division of
living/not yet living, intergenerationalists make little effort in problematizing present
generations or future generations. But identity and interests are rarely so straightforward.
As futures researcher Sohail Inayatullah points out, “future generations thinking is not
transparent, it is problematic. The question often not asked is whose future generations?”
(Inayautllah 2005). Or as attorney and legal scholar Christopher Stone asks “which future
generation” (Stone 1996, 68)? Are we talking about future generations of Native
Hawaiians? If so, are we talking about Native Hawaiians in 20 years, 200 years, or 2000
years? Are we talking about future generations of Native Hawaiians living on Maui, Las
Vegas, or Mars? Are we talking about future generations of Native Hawaiian men or
women? As Stone points out, the phrase future generations is often used “loosely and
often without much consistency” (Stone 1996, 68). As I will show, the lumping of beings
into one of two general categories (present generations or future generations) sometimes
conceals long-term organization and action.
Long-Term Thinking is Altruistic
Despite the characterization that long-term thinking is good to do, there is nothing
inherently good or bad, right or wrong, inclusive or exclusive, just or unjust about long-

11


term thinking. Just because one organizes and acts long-term doesn’t mean one thinks
inclusively, democratically, or justfully. Again, drawing on futurist Sohail Inayatullah:
In the plea to save the world for future generations, issues of the rights of the
Other are often forgotten. Each civilization wants to ensure that its members
survive and thrive, expanding to all corners of the world, that the graves of their
ancestors are forever enshrined. But it is often at the expense of other civilizations

12


Dator draws a link between the costs and benefits enjoyed by a politician and their
behavioral choices to pursue short-term thinking and avoid long-term thinking.
Presumably a (re)election savvy politician will pursue policies maximizing some
individual or group’s short-term interest and in return receive campaign contributions and
votes in the process. Conversely, the politician that pursues long-term (future) action will
be punished by the electorate (no campaign contributions and no votes). Hence, the
rational politician always votes to maximize short-term interests.
Since they insist that politicians can do no more than pander to present interests,
rational choice theorists flatten out and homogenize temporal politics. Further, they
assume that the public tracks and punishes politicians for long-term legislation. However,
all long-term policies are not of equal interest or benefit to the public and thus not equally
punishable. Numerous bills with long-term implications are not salient to the public
because they are not covered by the media. Thus the politician that instigates or
participates in long-term policymaking in these zones of public indifference is neither
likely to obtain rewards nor face penalties for their actions here. Because the public’s
knowledge of long-term issues is shockingly low, vague, and not well understood,
politicians that voted long-term on numerous issues are often reelected.
Short-Term Action is Required by the Structure of Democratic Institutions
I have coined the term temporal institutionalists to describe those that argue that
the structure of democratic institutions determines the time horizon of political actions.
Kim and Dator articulate this sentiment well when they point out that politicians
cannot follow through on their various commitments to future-oriented acts and
policies because, it seems, the pressures and needs of the present always
overwhelm their concern about the future. That is, the very structure of the
institutions they find themselves in always seems to give much more weight to the
present then it does the future, and they cannot successfully override those
structural impediments, no matter how they may want to do so. (Kim and Dator

and subcommittees generally results in short-term legislation, it sometimes leads to
medium-term and long-term legislation. Rather than being fixed in the short-term,
politicians continually move from one time horizon to another crossing, recrossing, and
confusing temporal boundaries within the same democratic structures.
Politicians Have No Long-Term Interests of their Own
Politicians are often represented as instruction bound. In effect, politicians merely
respond to the electorate. However, another strand of studies argues that legislators are
increasingly not responsive to the preferences and concerns of their constituents (Jacobs
and Shapiro 2000; Lijphart 1997; Rosenstone and Hansen 1993). In their book Politicians
Don’t Pander, political scientists Lawrence Jacobs and Robert Shapiro argue that “the
conventional wisdom that politicians habitually respond to public opinion when making
major policy decisions is wrong” (Jacobs and Shapiro 2000, xii). They argue that
“politicians’ own policy goals are increasingly driving major policy decisions…” (Jacobs
and Shapiro 2000, xv). I will demonstrate that politicians have, and at times, pursue their

14


own long-term goals for the future and future generations. Briefly, I will argue that
politicians have a degree of discursive and temporal autonomy.
Future-Oriented Behavior is Counted by Winning Acts of Legislation
Those arguing that politicians are unable to instigate or participate in long-term
behavior fail to count the long-term votes sequestered within losing future-oriented
legislation. Legislative votes are reduced to and analyzed as a single vote−a win or a loss.
What counts is what wins. Thus the future-oriented votes are rendered invisible. For
example, the Climate Stewardship Act (S. 139) of 2003 proposed in the U.S. Senate
called to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 (a medium-term bill with
long-term ambitions). The act lost by a vote of 43-55. Despite the fact that 43 senators
voted to pass the act and the bill’s sponsors, John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman
(D-CT), were reelected, this vote is likely to be used as evidence that it is impossible for