Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Advent of Earth Day looks risky for Bush
WASHINGTON - Pollsters, consultants, professional politicians, and friends of the new administration all gave President Bush and his advisers similar advice: Go slow on the environment. Remember that two of the most important voting groups, women and suburbanites, care about wilderness areas and clean air and clean water. And don't forget that there's a connection between environmental issues and health issues.
But right now an administration that is on the offensive on the economy (tax cuts are moving briskly through Congress) and foreign policy (US military personnel safely back from China) finds itself on the defensive on the environment. It doesn't help the administration any that Earth Day is Sunday.
Darkened moods
This year environmentalists, who sometimes use Earth Day to celebrate the beauty of nature, aren't in a celebrating mood - and Republicans, who know that their majorities on Capitol Hill are as thin as recycled newsprint, are beginning to worry.
Environmentalists are upset that the Bush administration backed away from the president's campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide. They're troubled that the administration put off enforcement of arsenic standards in drinking water. They're worried that the Bush team isn't committed to protecting endangered species. And they're furious that the administration is willing to drill for energy in Alaska's wilderness and other federal lands.
''There's almost a daily revelation about another rollback or assault on an environmental program,'' says David Alberswerth, director of the Wilderness Society's program on the Bureau of Land Management. ''The cost to them is going to be less and less public support. This is pure speculation, but I suspect there is increasing concern about whether the environment is being properly protected. That's not usually a big issue, except when people have reason to believe that the protections are in danger.''
Many Republicans agree. ''I've been somewhat disappointed in some of the positions the new administration has taken on environmental issues,'' says GOP Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a leading moderate. A top Republican business lobbyist in the capital says privately that he believes corporate interests are overreaching by pressing the administration to bow too conspicuously to their demands. [An echo of 1996.]
The administration's strategy has great risks. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll taken late last month showed that seven out of 10 Americans believe protecting the environment should receive the ''highest'' or ''high'' priority from Bush and the Congress. The European Union reacted with hostility to the administration's views on global warming; indeed, the Bush team's environmental approach seems to worry other nations as much if not more than its support of a missile defense.
The domestic political implications are clear. ''Environmental protection is something the American public values,'' says Andrew Kohut, who directs the Pew Research Center's public-opinion studies.
The cul-de-sac factor
Studies show that women are more concerned about the environment than are men. In the last election, women gave an 11-point advantage to Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, siding with him by 54 percent to 43 percent. Suburbanites are more concerned about the environment than are urban dwellers. The gender gap was slightly wider in the suburbs than in other areas.
The suburbs are the big environmental battleground. In the 2000 election, for example, Gore specifically stressed road congestion and sprawl, issues that appeal to people who moved to the suburbs for quality of life only to find their mobility choked and their lifestyles compromised by development.
Last fall, Democrats carried most of the states with large proportions of suburban voters, including California and New Jersey, often regarded as the textbook examples of suburban politics. And figures assembled by Congressional Quarterly from state election offices show a dramatic erosion of Republican support in suburban areas. In Orange County, Calif., for example, Bush ran 12 percentage points weaker than his father had run in 1988.
This spring environmental groups are girding for war. ''We've definitely staffed up around here,'' says Laura Chapin, spokeswoman for the Environmental Working Group. ''You don't have to explain to Joe Sixpack why arsenic is bad. People know smog is bad because their kids have trouble breathing. The administration, in the rush to pay back their friends, maybe didn't think about this.''
The Bush administration began its term saying it wouldn't spend its political
capital rolling back the regulations - business and environmental -
promulgated by the Clinton administration. Now there's a chance that the
environment, which candidate Bush hardly mentioned during the campaign,
could become one of the defining elements of the first 100 days for President
Bush.
It's mostly because of stupid women who get their news from Rosie O'Donnell.
True ... I mean, after all, all Dubya did was to roll back the arsenic limits to what they were throughout the whole Clinton administration. How is that "increasing the permissible arsenic levels" of anything?
"Environmental protection" is not an issue on which the fate of elections is decided. It consistently ranks behind the economy, education, crime, abortion, guns, national defense, immigration, 'family values', CFR, 'hate crimes' and nearly every other issue publicized during campaigns. I cannot recall any election for Congress, the Senate or the presidency where this issue was more than an afterthought.
Furthermore, the only demographic that gives a rat's behind about this issue is whiny suburban women and their feminized male consorts, who already vote for whatever leftist happens to be on the ballot promising them clean air, clean water and an end to sprawl with no effect on their wallet. The same voters, it should be noted, who believe that banning guns will end violence and that higher taxes are the key to prosperity.
By the way, the anecdotal data from Orange County indicating a shift away from being the bastion of conservatism in SoCal has far, far less to do with environmental politics than with its changing demographics, primarily the mass influx of first- and second-generation Hispanic immigrants.
I think this writer has spent a bit too much time with Aaron Sorkin's carry-on bag.
The European Union reacted with hostility to the administration's views on global warming;
Note to the editors of the Globe:
No nation on the planet has ratified the Kyoto treaty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |