Green days

Part 3

by Michael Crowley

Just a couple of years ago, the Republican Congress would have pounced ferociously on Clinton's clean-air regulations and endlessly ridiculed his pronouncements on global warming.

But the fact is that today, Republicans are scared of the tree-huggers they once demonized. With the support of crucial swing voters such as suburban women, environmentalists now wield major political clout with both political parties in Washington. Politicians are courting the greens as never before.

When the GOP seized Congress in the 1994 "Republican Revolution," it seemed like the worst thing to happen to the environment since the industrial revolution. By way of example, the power shift meant that the third-ranking member of the US House of Representatives would be Representative Tom DeLay (R-Texas), a former exterminator (seriously) who ran for Congress out of frustration with pesticide laws.

DeLay, Gingrich, and friends tried to utterly savage environmental law in 1995. They sought to cut the Environmental Protection Agency's budget by 40 percent, and to gut environmental regulations. Major environmental "reforms" were sometimes drafted by corporate lobbyists.

But the Republican Party overreached. Its extremism eventually frightened the electorate, and several Republicans paid the price in the 1996 election. Ironically, by threatening to eliminate hard-won environmental protections that Americans had come to take for granted, the GOP had actually managed to revitalize the environmental movement by reminding people of what stood between them and an unchecked free market.

In a recent memo to congressional Republicans, top GOP pollster Frank Luntz explained the dilemma: "No one wants polluted air and water, yet that's what a majority of Americans think Republicans stand for."

In response the Republicans have shamelessly recast their image, thanks to such Luntz pointers as: "First, assure your audience that you are committed to `preserving and protecting' the environment, but that `it can be done more wisely and effectively.' " Let's listen to Gingrich, laying out the GOP's agenda on the House floor in March:

Our environmental protection efforts [must be] smarter and more effective. I used to teach environmental studies, and I believe deeply that we can have an effective environmental program, that we can secure biodiversity around the planet, that we can have cleaner air and cleaner water, that we can clean up the toxic waste sites.

Environmentalists are happy with this new evidence of their clout, but they remain wary. "The rhetoric has been softened but a lot of their efforts have gone underground," says Daniel Weiss, political director of the Sierra Club. "They have the same anti-environmental agenda, but now they've painted a big smiley face on it." Just this week, a group of mostly Republican senators introduced a bill that would eviscerate the Endangered Species Act, a federal law that protects the habitats of animals in danger of extinction. Meanwhile, Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) is expected to introduce a bill to reform logging practices in national forests -- and, as one leading activist puts it, "when Larry Craig says `reform' he means `clearcut.' "

But this is nothing compared to the GOP's agenda at the peak of its power. Washington environmentalists have largely tamed their Republican foes, and now they're even taking on their allies. Consider Al Gore.

The high-profile battles over clean air and global warming have landed the vice president in a tight spot. Gore, considered the clear front-runner to succeed Clinton, has made fervent environmentalism a defining element of his political image. It was he, after all, who once called environmental damage "the worst crisis our country has ever faced" and suggested a "Global Marshall Plan" for the environment at a cost of $100 million a year.

But environmentalists suspect that as Gore nears a presidential run, which will require millions in corporate donations, he is toning down his green image. Determined to prevent that from happening, they lashed out at Gore this spring and summer, charging that he hadn't been visible enough in the clean-air and global-warming debates. Some activists even hinted that they could drift toward Gore's potential presidential rivals, such as House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt. That could be deadly for Gore, especially given the influence of greens in vote-rich California.

The worst may be behind him. Washington enviros now say they believe Gore has been fighting harder behind the scenes than was publicly evident a few weeks ago. But the flare-up was a testament to their willingness to harass even Washington's most powerful pols. (And Gore, apparently, has been listening. The Wall Street Journal reported last month that the vice-president, who has made few major declarations on global warming recently, has begun planning a new public offensive on the issue with his aides.)

For his part, Gregg Easterbrook says he's unsurprised by Gore's balancing act: "Gore's rhetoric has always been alarmist, but his actual legislative record is very mild. In fact, I think corporate America is very comfortable with him. They see him as someone who talks doomsday but doesn't do anything."

The Sierra Club's Weiss, however, says he doesn't foresee a revolt by the Gore greens. "He's still been the most pro-environment vice president we've had, and he would still be the most pro-environment president" among the early candidates for 2000.

Back to part 2 - On to part 4

Michael Crowley can be reached at mcrowley[a]phx.com.