Bill Ruckelshaus. Russell Train. Lee Thomas. Bill Reilly. Christie Todd Whitman. What do these names all have in common?
Answer: All are former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency. All take human-caused global warming seriously. And all are Republicans--moderate Republicans, of a very different breed from the ones who are (generally) running our government today.
The GOP has a proud environmental tradition, of that there can be no doubt. Just think of Teddy Roosevelt. The tradition lives on, albeit in a kind of exile, in these five Republican former EPA heads--none of whom, I suspect, would humor the kind of thinking now prevalent on the political right, according to which huge swaths of environmental science research are deemed to be politicized "junk science" and therefore dismissed out of hand.
Alas, the Republican party has changed, since at least the time of Reagan (although there have been some political oscillations since then). The GOP has become a party dominated by the modern conservative movement. And these moderates, while still willing to call themselves Republicans, have been increasingly marginalized--the saga of Christie Todd Whitman's conflicts with the Bush administration being only the most prominent example.
I just don't know whether there's any serious prospect of the moderates retaking the reins of their party. I have to say, I'm pretty skeptical that it can happen, though I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on the matter. But I am at least glad that the moderates are willing to speak out occasionally.
- Log in to post comments
My inaugural address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead, after I have raptured out billions!
At: http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman/
Your jaw will drop!
eschatology,End Times,second coming,rapture,secret rapture,Second Resurrection,Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead,
End of Days,Day of the Lord,Endtime,Judgment Day
clarks shoes Probaly you should read this. clarks shoes Hope this helps. See you next life. Buy clarks shoes now! God bless you.
As much as we as Americans hold competition as some sort of sacred ideal (free markets, an adversarial justice system, party politics), this definitely seems to be one of the ways it has a distinctly negative impact. When the object of the game is to beat the other guy, and when that impulse is allowed to obscure more relevant ideals and goals, the people who actually care about the issues sort of fall by the wayside. As you've pointed out, the real issue is when politics encroaches on territory other than that of policy; the policy should be a response to the evidence, not vice versa. At this point, maintaining the integrity of science is a tough enough task. It used to be that the real worry was getting government to pay attention to the science, but now it's all we can do to keep the government from sacrificing the science on the altar of partisan hackery. Not that administration officials are the only ones with a vested interest--obviously there's considerable interference from industry too.
Damn.
There are republicans who are environmentalists/conservationists. My late uncle was one of them, if I have his party affiliation correct. I remember him chewing out some people washing their hair with regular shampoo in the pristine Cathedral Lakes in upper Yosemite.
I've had one thought about how to get republicans to become more interested in the environment. Perhaps if we considered the goods and services produced by the environment, such as the service of protecting a city provided by the wetlands around New Orleans, or the filtering of water by unpolluted aquifers? I think many republicans have that party affiliation because of their views on economics, and the economy is thought of as something external to the ecosystems that it depends upon. If there was money in a healthy environment, you'd bet that they would be all over it. Plus, they need to think a little more long-term than what it takes to win 4-year presidential terms.
As for those who are republicans for social reasons, good luck.
I think that those who are deeply Christian and attracted to the political right, could also be convinced to the "environmentalist cause". After all, it's about protecting the God's creation.
But, Roman, many seem to have taken the position that the Earth was created to be under the Dominion of man--used as convenient. Former Sec'y of the Interior James Watt (he was my favorite; I amassed a huge collection of James Watt political cartoons) was of the opinion that, hey, the Rapture was coming soon, no need for conservation!
Chris - like it or not, Congress and the Congressional make-up is just a reflection of public attitudes. When Americans in aggregate want a moderate Congressional leadership again, they'll get it. The process will likely start trending that way in the upcoming midterms (although I see little chance that the House D's will make up their 30-seat deficit and there aren't enough competetive Senate seats to get the D's back in power there, either).
Kevin,
Is it just a reflection of the public, though? I don't really know, but that's not what Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson argue in Off Center (from what I understand based on reviews). They argue that the country has remained generally centrist but the GOP has perfected procedural tricks in order to achieve extreme policies nonetheless. I don't know if they're right, it's been debated, certainly.
Sure, they might be right, but my general feeling on political analysis is, trust your instinct, don't over-analyze, and don't believe anything that sounds too much like a conspiracy theory (which is what their thesis sounds like to me). When political leaders get too far away from the public, there is always a correction. Maybe it just takes a few days.... Then again, I could be spectacularly wrong.
I know what you mean--but their thesis is that the procedural tricks and misinformation about the substance of policies, perhaps combined with substance-less media coverage (which fails to expose said tricks), has actually prevented the political correction that one would expect from taking place. Is it a conspiracy theory? No, it actually sounds pretty plausible to me, as someone who watches both Washington politics and the media.
But I must confess that I have not read the book, although it's on my list.