As I watch the dynamics of the approaching election unfold I can not help but think that the tide is turning ever so slightly in our favor. Not that I believe that the environmental policies of this congress or this administration are any closer to realizing the green future we envision. Rather, it is a more modest notion that after a year and a half of Republican rule and three years of Clintonomics the all-out war against the environment that we have been living through has reached its high water mark.
There are small signs scattered about that the conservative politicos in both parties are slowly waking to the realization that environmental politics may be the shoal upon which their "revolutionary" boats founder. Not only do public opinion polls reveal an electorate that overwhelmingly feels that environmental regulations should be tightened rather than loosened, but the grass-roots environmental community has once again shown itself to be committed enough to put its individual and collective bodies between the earth and the machine. This community has raised the political stakes higher than elected officials are willing to bid.
To begin with, and again to delve into the unseemly world of public opinion polls, if one takes the polling data seriously (and no one does more than those "leaders" of ours) there is overwhelming support among the general public for extending environmental regulation. It seems that most Americans grasp the simple fact that controlling large, centralized and extremely powerful corporations and industries requires a countervailing strong central public power, which, to date, rests uncomfortably in the auspices of the national government. The task for creating a successful environmental movement will be to articulate a compelling ideology of ecological democracy, a democracy which seeks to harness the power of central government in the interests of the commonwealth rather than politicians and their corporate benefactors.
The recent rebirth of President Clinton as a viable power in Washington has come, significantly, at a time when he has begun to stand up to the Republican leadership in Congress. (See this column, Jan/Feb 1996). Media focus on this power play has revolved around the battle over the budget, a battle which is based more on showmanship than political principle. Yet there is substantial evidence to suggest that environmental concerns are an important part of the public support for Clinton in this battle and that those who play this game feel that the environment may well be a crucial factor in the upcoming election cycle.
Linda DiVall, Newt Gingrich’s staff pollster, offers an indication of this realization: "Our party is out of sync with mainstream American opinion... More disturbing is that 55 percent of all Republicans do not trust their party when it comes to protecting the environment" (New York Times, April 5, emphasis added). Even the Republicans can figure out what this telling statistic means by implication for the electorate as a whole. Given that Republicans are the minority party nationally the numbers that support the Republican environmental agenda must look grim indeed when Democrats and independents are factored in. These numbers would be reason for celebration if we thought that the environment would be the pivotal issue in the 1996 election. It will not be. Environmental issues will share time with the state of the economy, apprehension over the state of the "American Dream" for working men and women, the chimera of crime and issues of morality such as abortion. Yet, conventional wisdom seems to be coalescing around the belief that environmental policy will be a significant factor in the forthcoming elections.
In preparation for the attention that the campaign will focus on environmental issues the national organizations should take a close look at how the labor movement is remaking itself. The once mighty, but lately moribund, labor movement has begun a process of rebirth by disentangling itself from a "checkbook politics" relationship with the Democratic party. Bob Wages, President of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union, argues that Clinton’s policies are simply a less extreme version of the Republican agenda and, for that reason, labor should shy away from a close relationship with him. Wages’ approach, and one that makes sense for the labor movement, would focus union energies on articulating a coherent policy agenda, including voter education, registration and mobilization. The rank and file are not stupid; they can determine for themselves which candidate most closely adheres to a particular policy agenda without the help of a formal endorsement.
In this way, the National organizations maintain their all-important agenda-setting prerogatives. The lesson of labor and civil rights over the last 30 years, and the lesson of the environmental movement over the past four, indicates the importance of keeping a separate identity from the Democratic party. Sacrificing a political agenda in the interests of party politics quickly leads to being taken for granted.
By setting an independent agenda and keeping it separate from the identity of the politician him/herself greens can insist that Clinton move to them if he wants the support of their constituencies. Instead of a "labor for Clinton/environmentalists for Clinton" campaign it would be nice to see a "Clinton for labor/Clinton for the environment" turnabout. The bottom line is that in order to get elected Clinton needs the support of labor and the environmentalists. He knows it. The Republicans know it. It is time that we knew it as well.
The truth is that the Democrats come to us every four years for money and electoral energy while mouthing platitudes that they hope will erase the past four years of governance. What is truly astounding is that every four years the "leadership" of those constituencies hands over the dough and the work hours with little in return.
It’s time to stop operating on the basis of the lessor-of-two-evils argument; the bottom line is that the man who jettisoned the massive jobs bill that he promised in the last election and who created Option 9 and signed the timber salvage rider does not deserve the formal support of these movements and will not stand for their interests in a second term if said support comes, as in the past, without demands.
Whether individuals in those movements should vote for Clinton is a personal decision. What is important is that the organizations involved in representing these constituencies should not endorse President Clinton for reelection. It is time we acted as if we believed in the basic facts of democracy and behaved as if we held the high cards in this relationship, which we do. If Clinton insists on aping the Republicans he will surely go down to ignoble defeat, just as the conservative wing of the congressional Democrats did two years ago.
Clinton’s handlers know that he needs to discover his own voice if they expect to win in the fall; that voice will have to speak the language of strengthening environmental regulation and use the power of the government to begin to address the interests of working people. This is why Clinton has recently come out in favor of a full repeal of the salvage rider and in support of a raise in the minimum wage. If Clinton happens to be the lessor of two evils regarding those issues, voters will know that. What is important in that dynamic is that it will be for our reasons, not his!
Local (Northern Illinois)
• Muchos Gracious to all who helped fight the "rehabilitation" of the city’s incinerator on the Northwest side. We Won! The city announced on April 4 that it will close the incinerator rather than spend the $200 million to modernize the facility. It will opt for landfill and waste reduction instead. This is great news for both the residents of the area and the regional environment, which has suffered greatly from the tons of toxic waste the incinerator has been spewing for the last twenty-four years.
National
• In an election-year conversion President Clinton has finally come out in favor of a full repeal of the salvage rider law. This is a frank confession of the importance of environmental politics in the upcoming election. However, Senator Craig (R, ID) has introduced legislation (S. 391) that would make the now temporary "lawless logging" law permanent. In opposition Senator Bradley has offered Senate companion legislation (S 1595) to HR 2745 which would put an end to this madness once and for all. Please contact your representatives in Washington an urge them to support the repeal of the salvage rider law.
• According to a report from the Project on Government Oversight ten large oil companies have cheated the Federal Government out of nearly a billion dollars in revenue by underreporting the value of oil they have pumped from public land. The report further charges that the Interior Department has know about this practice for years yet has failed to force compliance with the law. Business as usual.
• Another victory to report: it appears that the Senate has killed, at least for this year, the attempt by the Utah delegation to open up 3.7 million acres of defacto Utah wilderness for despoliation. Hats off to the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance for spearheading a Herculean effort to take down a political heavyweight the likes of Orin Hatch. Kudos as well to Senator Bradley for sacrificing a parks bill that was dear to his heart but was unfortunately attached to the misguided Utah bill. Bradley lead a filibuster against the bill and the Republican leadership failed to muster the votes needed to close debate (the Senate rules allow for unlimited debate and require 60 votes for closure, they could only find 51). This bill may not be gone forever but it seems to be dead for now and, with a general election looming, it seems as if its time has come and gone.
International
• The world just quietly glided past the 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster and the plant continues to operate. When unit 4 of the V.I. Lenin nuclear plant in Ukraine spewed more than 50 tons of radioactive fallout into the atmosphere, killing over 500 people and disrupting the land and communities that surrounded it, it was safe to say that the world expected something to be done to prevent a repeat of the disaster. Yet, political and economic forces in the former Soviet Union have buried the issue, but not the plant which still haunts Europe as the specter of a potentially disastrous future.
• According to a report by the Foundation for the Advancements in Science and Education the U.S. trans-shipped over 344 million pounds of hazardous pesticides (pesticides that are either banned or severely restricted in the U.S.) between 1992 and 1994. The report found that these shipments grew by 26 percent in two years, from 100 to 126 million pounds. Unfortunately our environmental and economic racism are not limited to the domestic front.