Politics: Showdown or Strawman
When Christine Todd Whitman announced her departure from the Environmental Protection Agency, I immediately thought of a Doonesbury cartoon from a while back with the speech bubbles coming right out of the White House. The President was going through a briefing from some functionary and the briefer got to the part about the EPA. There's a beat, and Bush responds, "We still have an EPA?"
So my initial thought was, basically, Why would the White House even bother to name a successor? The agency could run itself perfectly well without a public face. The American people, even at the height of American environmental awareness, people weren't clamoring to hear from their EPA Administrator. I worked in the environmental movement for a half-dozen years, and I can only name one other EPA Administrator (Carole Browner), and I know she didn't exactly make a ton of friends from the agency's old hq down on the waterfront (which, ironically, is now a complex of abandoned sick buildings). So I can't imagine a single member of the Republican faithful being disappointed that Bush wouldn't name an EPA administrator to issue toothless recommendations and glaze over surprisingly bad information about the state of the environment.
I also had trouble believing that anyone would want to take on the position, because of its tradition position, between a rock and a hard place. Environmental regulation and management are expensive, and hated by business interests and their friends fiercely. Meanwhile, the only people who are pleased when environmental regulation and management occur are environmentalists, who generally speaking aren't happy because you aren't doing enough, and (I speak for myself here) are always demanding more action than the government and the EPA administrator are willing to give.
All this is by means of pretext for the question posed by Kit Seelye's NY Times piece today on the building fight to replace Christie Whitman. On one hand, this seems like a natural place for Democrats to take a stand, since the Bush administration is clearly weak on the environement, and maybe something they're weak on, we should try to be strong on. Unfortunately, within the movement there isn't strong sentiment that any of the current Democratic presidential contenders (or a lot of other Democratic leadership in the last decade or so) is actually great on the environment. Democrats are much better, but just not great.
Of course, another major concern I have is that I'm out of step with the American electorate, because I feel absolutely disgusted at what Bush and Whitman have done and have let happen to the environment. I believe they should be raked over the coals for the unbelievable impacts on public health their environmental policies have left. From allowing energy lobbyists to write new laws governing their business to building new pollutant-spewing power plants and from abandoning efforts to cut toxic emissions to selling America's national parks to lumber companies for pennies an acre, this administration has done damage to environmental protection and environmental progress that would make Teddy Roosevelt blow a gasket. Want to know how I know I'm out of step with the American electorate? Because this can be printed in the newspaper, and nobody even notices:
Seriously, automobile manufacturers and timber products? Do any work for the people who blow the tops off of mountains and let the fill tumble into the valley below to contaminate the water for decades? What about endangered animal poaching or puppy incineration?
Nevertheless (and I may have personal biases here) I am afraid that there may be more important fights than this one. The Supreme Court battle will be massive, if a vacancy comes this summer as predicted. Some of the other judicial nominations, which are already starting all kinds of filibuster related fights, also have a ton at stake, because these judges and the panels on which they sit will determine environmental policy as well as just about everything else for years after George W. Bush hands off the presidency to Condi Rice or whomever.
As far as the EPA position is concerned, and speaking as an environmentalist, I can't believe anyone that the Bush administration would let through would do anything other than the evil bidding of the friends of W under the EPA's banner. The Democrats (as Seelye chronicles) can make a lot of noise and talk about filibustering until they're blue in the face. But you could put the entire goddamn Sierra club into Whitman's office, and the White House wouldn't let any actual environmental protection come out of that agency. Just ask Christine Whitman
When Christine Todd Whitman announced her departure from the Environmental Protection Agency, I immediately thought of a Doonesbury cartoon from a while back with the speech bubbles coming right out of the White House. The President was going through a briefing from some functionary and the briefer got to the part about the EPA. There's a beat, and Bush responds, "We still have an EPA?"
So my initial thought was, basically, Why would the White House even bother to name a successor? The agency could run itself perfectly well without a public face. The American people, even at the height of American environmental awareness, people weren't clamoring to hear from their EPA Administrator. I worked in the environmental movement for a half-dozen years, and I can only name one other EPA Administrator (Carole Browner), and I know she didn't exactly make a ton of friends from the agency's old hq down on the waterfront (which, ironically, is now a complex of abandoned sick buildings). So I can't imagine a single member of the Republican faithful being disappointed that Bush wouldn't name an EPA administrator to issue toothless recommendations and glaze over surprisingly bad information about the state of the environment.
I also had trouble believing that anyone would want to take on the position, because of its tradition position, between a rock and a hard place. Environmental regulation and management are expensive, and hated by business interests and their friends fiercely. Meanwhile, the only people who are pleased when environmental regulation and management occur are environmentalists, who generally speaking aren't happy because you aren't doing enough, and (I speak for myself here) are always demanding more action than the government and the EPA administrator are willing to give.
All this is by means of pretext for the question posed by Kit Seelye's NY Times piece today on the building fight to replace Christie Whitman. On one hand, this seems like a natural place for Democrats to take a stand, since the Bush administration is clearly weak on the environement, and maybe something they're weak on, we should try to be strong on. Unfortunately, within the movement there isn't strong sentiment that any of the current Democratic presidential contenders (or a lot of other Democratic leadership in the last decade or so) is actually great on the environment. Democrats are much better, but just not great.
Of course, another major concern I have is that I'm out of step with the American electorate, because I feel absolutely disgusted at what Bush and Whitman have done and have let happen to the environment. I believe they should be raked over the coals for the unbelievable impacts on public health their environmental policies have left. From allowing energy lobbyists to write new laws governing their business to building new pollutant-spewing power plants and from abandoning efforts to cut toxic emissions to selling America's national parks to lumber companies for pennies an acre, this administration has done damage to environmental protection and environmental progress that would make Teddy Roosevelt blow a gasket. Want to know how I know I'm out of step with the American electorate? Because this can be printed in the newspaper, and nobody even notices:
Another candidate who appears still in the running is Josephine Cooper, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and a former executive at the American Forest and Paper Association. She worked for the Environment and Public Works Committee under former Senator Howard H. Baker Jr., Republican of Tennessee, and has close ties to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Seriously, automobile manufacturers and timber products? Do any work for the people who blow the tops off of mountains and let the fill tumble into the valley below to contaminate the water for decades? What about endangered animal poaching or puppy incineration?
Nevertheless (and I may have personal biases here) I am afraid that there may be more important fights than this one. The Supreme Court battle will be massive, if a vacancy comes this summer as predicted. Some of the other judicial nominations, which are already starting all kinds of filibuster related fights, also have a ton at stake, because these judges and the panels on which they sit will determine environmental policy as well as just about everything else for years after George W. Bush hands off the presidency to Condi Rice or whomever.
As far as the EPA position is concerned, and speaking as an environmentalist, I can't believe anyone that the Bush administration would let through would do anything other than the evil bidding of the friends of W under the EPA's banner. The Democrats (as Seelye chronicles) can make a lot of noise and talk about filibustering until they're blue in the face. But you could put the entire goddamn Sierra club into Whitman's office, and the White House wouldn't let any actual environmental protection come out of that agency. Just ask Christine Whitman
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home