By Andy Kerr
With the movement of the nation to a more
conservative posture, the environmental movement
has no choice but to diversify its political
alliances beyond the Democratic Party. If it is
still the party of liberalism, the leaders of
liberalism are presently bankrupt of new ideas,
strategies and tactics. It is not a star upon
which the environmental movement should any
longer hitch its wagon.
Too many liberals use the campaign finance
mess as an excuse to not vote. This cop-out is
killing their cause. Elections and issues are
being decided today. Half of winning in democracy
is showing up. Let's hear from flaming liberal
Congressperson Barney Frank (D-MA):
The left is a victim, to some extent, of
its own ideology. People on the right are
more likely to believe that America works in
the textbook sense: 'This is my Government,
this is my Congressman. How dare he not
listen to me.' People on the left are more
likely to say: 'Well wait a minute, writing
letters is nothing. We need a demonstration.'
That is absolutely backward.
The NRA (National Rifle Association)
doesn't have demonstrations. They write
letters. In fact, direct action, as a
political tactic, is second-choice. The first
choice is to exercise political power, to
scare them into voting the right way. Direct
action is what you do when you have no power.
Blacks in the South had to use direct action
until they got a voting rights act....
(W)e listen the critics who say, 'Oh,
these politicians won't want to listen to the
voters, all they do is listen to campaign
contributions.' In fact, votes will beat
money any day. Any politician forced to
choose between his campaign contributors and
strong public sentiment is going to vote
public sentiment. Campaign contributions are
fungible; you can get new ones. You can't get
new voters.
The excessive association between the
Democratic Party and the environmental movement
was forced by Ronald Reagan. He was the first
president to make the environment a partisan
issue, forcing the environmental movement into
the arms of the Congressional Democrats. An
unconscious deal was struck: the Democratic
leadership would kill horrible anti-environment
bills, but the cost was that great environmental
bills wouldn't pass either. Environmentalists
have been taken for granted by the Democrats not
unlike African-Americans and organized labor.
What utility this deal may have had ended when
the Democrats lost Congress.
The major environmental laws on the books
today were passed with the bi-partisan support in
the 1960s and 70s. (It was Republican Richard
Nixon who signed the Endangered Species Act.)
As a political issue, the environment is like
crime. No one is for crime and no one is against
the environment. (Rep. Helen Chenowith's and her
few cronies encamped in their Intermountain West
redoubt notwithstanding; these wackos are far
from a majority in this nation or even in the
Republican Party nationally.)
Some politicians, of course, talk green more
out of political expediency than genuine concern.
Do Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) opining in the New
York Times about how Republicans aren't
anti-environment and House Majority Leader Rep.
Tom Delay (R-TX) on Fox News saying he loves
clean air and water, mean it? Who cares? They
have to say it! The point is that the debate
about whether to save the Earth is over; it is
now a debate on how.
Of course, vast ideological differences exist
on how best to address the environmental issues.
The Republicans are dominant (for the moment), so
let's examine them. There are four kinds of
Republicans:
Pro-Government/Pro-Environment Senator
John Chafee (RI) is the typecast. He feels that
government can often have a positive effect on
people's lives and favors regulation to protect
the environment. His breed is diminishing.
Pro-Government/Anti-Environment Senator
Mark Hatfield (OR) likes big government and used
government to meet his social and economic
objectives including harming the environment. His
is nearly an extinct breed.
Anti-Government/Anti-Environment Name
your own here. Any US Senator from Alaska, Idaho
or you name it. In environmentalists' minds,
especially those living in the Intermountain
West, they too often typify the Republican Party.
Anti-Government/Pro-Environment Rep.
John Kasich (OH) typifies the type. As chair of
the House Budget Committee, Kasich gets up every
morning thinking about the evils of big
government and how to downsize it. He also cares
about the environment. He signed on to Rep.
Furse's measure to repeal the salvage logging
rider because he likes trees and hates subsidies
to the Forest Service and timber industry. He may
well take a lead role in next year's fight over
the Forest Service budget. This is a breed can
increase with our encouragement.
Eighty percent of public lands and
biodiversity problems can be traced back to
government subsidies. If these activities weren't
subsidized, the problems would be greatly
diminished, if not eliminated. Often the best and
only solution is eliminating the tax subsidies to
environmentally harmful industries.
Environmentalists should work to eliminate the
offending bureaucracy, not seek another to
counter it.
The environmental opportunities are great in
the next Congress which will likely balance the
budget. Environmentalists can recommend many
corporate welfare programs to cut.
By cultivating support in all political
parties (meaning we'll support any candidate who
is green, regardless of party) we can
re-institute the environment as a bi- (or tri- or
quad-) partisan issue. In elections, we must to
get to the point that the major ideologies are
competing as to the best way to protect the
environment. Is it regulation, tax incentives,
the creation of markets, voluntary actions or
what have you? (It's never one approach for all
problems; it depends on the issue.) Only then can
environmentalists fully capitalize on the depth
and breadth of public concern about the
environment.
A social liberal and economic conservative
with some libertarian and socialist tendencies,
but always first an environmentalist, Andy Kerr
recently retired after 20 years with the Oregon
Natural Resources Council and now lives in the
Wallowa Valley.
This was written in 1996, but has not been
published, save for here and now.
|