One more thing (you’ve really got me thinking about this, Dave!): The frustrating back-and-forth policy gyrations you’ve described in connection with changes in presidential administrations are a direct result of the failure of Congress to do their job. Congress has been largely dysfunctional for the last 40 years, and when Congress fails to effectively exercise its power, it is inevitable that power will be taken up by the executive and judicial branches of our government.
The reasons for the decline of Congressional effectiveness are many, but among the most important are a system of partisan primaries that tend to exaggerate political extremes and the pressures for re-election that motivate incumbents to emphasize their differences, their posture as “fighters” and their individual positions rather than acknowledgement that Congress is a large body that only works through collective action and therefore calls for compromise in order to be effective in its role in our government.
Great suggestions, Dave. I would add this: as we need to take a collective look at environmental policy as a nation, the environmental movement needs to take a serious look at itself and address the question of how it came to become so attached to divisive partisan politics. Environmental issues are decidedly political in the sense of being issues of public concern, but weren’t always political in the partisan sense. What happened? Conservation is, in name and in essence, a conservative endeavor. Republican administrations advanced some of the environmental laws and programs we value today, yet environmentalism is decidedly identified with the Democratic party.
I believe that to some extent we allowed the movement to be dragged to the political left against our principles and through associations over the years with issues and practices that had little or nothing to do with environmental policy. We failed to stress the genuinely conservative side of environmentalism and among other things withdrew from the traditional conservation movement that was associated with hunting and fishing. That schism did not serve us well in the past and it does not serve us well today as the partisan pendulum swings to and fro. The gaps that have grown over the years will not be easy to bridge, but if we are to bring about the sort of change that you’re wisely advocating, it will be necessary to bridge them.
An environmental attorney told me similar some years ago, Dave. Environmental protection by executive order every four years doesn't work well if at all.
One more thing (you’ve really got me thinking about this, Dave!): The frustrating back-and-forth policy gyrations you’ve described in connection with changes in presidential administrations are a direct result of the failure of Congress to do their job. Congress has been largely dysfunctional for the last 40 years, and when Congress fails to effectively exercise its power, it is inevitable that power will be taken up by the executive and judicial branches of our government.
The reasons for the decline of Congressional effectiveness are many, but among the most important are a system of partisan primaries that tend to exaggerate political extremes and the pressures for re-election that motivate incumbents to emphasize their differences, their posture as “fighters” and their individual positions rather than acknowledgement that Congress is a large body that only works through collective action and therefore calls for compromise in order to be effective in its role in our government.
Great suggestions, Dave. I would add this: as we need to take a collective look at environmental policy as a nation, the environmental movement needs to take a serious look at itself and address the question of how it came to become so attached to divisive partisan politics. Environmental issues are decidedly political in the sense of being issues of public concern, but weren’t always political in the partisan sense. What happened? Conservation is, in name and in essence, a conservative endeavor. Republican administrations advanced some of the environmental laws and programs we value today, yet environmentalism is decidedly identified with the Democratic party.
I believe that to some extent we allowed the movement to be dragged to the political left against our principles and through associations over the years with issues and practices that had little or nothing to do with environmental policy. We failed to stress the genuinely conservative side of environmentalism and among other things withdrew from the traditional conservation movement that was associated with hunting and fishing. That schism did not serve us well in the past and it does not serve us well today as the partisan pendulum swings to and fro. The gaps that have grown over the years will not be easy to bridge, but if we are to bring about the sort of change that you’re wisely advocating, it will be necessary to bridge them.
An environmental attorney told me similar some years ago, Dave. Environmental protection by executive order every four years doesn't work well if at all.