Could Bush Steal Environmentalism?

On March 5th, The Economist unexpectedly asked President Bush and his Republican cronies, why not go green? They suggest, “embracing greenery would be good for Mr Bush, good for the Republican Party, good for relations with Europe,” and perhaps help the President rebound from a career-low approval rating.

Why would the oilman from Texas suddenly add environmentalism to his agenda after years of apathy, if not outright neglect? It’s important to remember what Howard Dean and the Democrats identify as the their Big Three low-RI (Religiosity Index) issues for which they believe they have (or had) majority support among the electorate: foreign policy (or to the average voter, the Iraq war), Social Security, and the environment. (High-RI issues, such as abortion, same-sex marriage, prayer in schools, etc, are beyond the scope of this text.)

After 9/11, when the American populace was binging on Republican leadership, the Bush administration had no difficulty finding support for invading Iraq. As the guerrilla fighting dragged on for months after the end of “major combat operations,” and it was clear to even the staunchest war mongers that Iraq had posed less of a threat than a malswallowed pretzel, Democrats realized the support for the war was waning. Although never capitalizing on this during the election, the Democratic base came out strongly against the invasion.

Now, despite not finding WMDs or quickly stabilizing the country, people have new imagery coming from Iraq: elections, government, democracy. Whether perceived or real is hardly the point; Bush’s success in changing the rationale from pre-emptive self-defense to liberation of an oppressed people was no simple political move. As was documented in Control Room (a must-see documentary of Al-Jazeera and U.S. Central Command), the military PR was not focusing on the weapons threat. The enlightened Marine press specialist who starred in the film consistently emphasized liberation and the removal of a tyrant over the WMD threat, even as American troops had just begun to enter Baghdad, and well before the weapons were found to be just in Saddam’s head, suggesting perhaps at least the military knew that the self-defense defense was a sham.

History is written by the victor, and as the situation in Iraq improves, so will the American approval of the move to invade, despite the obvious holes in the original motivation and design. And whether you agree with this new justification or not, it leaves Bush on the winning side of this controversial issue.

Mr Bush is doing the same maneuvering on privatization of Social Security, initially coming out strong to create them, and now saying that private accounts are just one possible option to be part of Social Security reform. Without popular support for the plan to increase the risk held by beneficiaries in exchange for only slightly better potential returns, even some Republicans, led by Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, are questioning the plan. With people feeling threatened by outsourcing and a shaky economy, the last thing anyone wants is to take on more risk to provide capital to major corporations. Private accounts will fail, but the President will end up winning for “taking on” Social Security reform, even though it is unlikely any legislation will be passed.

That brings us back to where we started, at the end of the Big Three: the environment. Conservation has become a priority for the liberal, and more importantly, the environmentalist has become tightly associated with liberalism and the Democrats. While almost everyone agrees with the pursuits of mainstream environmental organizations (nobody wants their kids to have pollution-induced asthma), they do not gain widespread support from both sides of the aisle. Although Republicans may say that this is because protective legislation stifles growth or infringes on property rights, the real problem with environmentalism today is its image (do you know when Earth Day is?).

Environmentalism is dead. Or at least that’s what two young eco-minded activists proclaim in their controversial and well-publicized essay, “Global warming politics in a post-environmental world.” Although the authors, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, received some criticism for choosing to release the paper at the meeting of the Environmental Grantmakers Association (as the name implies, this is where the money is), the essay was generally well-received as a wakeup slap across the face of environmentalists (rather than a more awkward jab to the gut). While their style and ideas may be controversial, the sentiments of Shellenberger and Nordhaus are not questioned within the community. (In fact, with their breakthrough essay, they join the elite ranks of other no nonsense, apolitical, business-friendly, eco-conscious, post-hippie, post-postmodern theorists and practitioners, such as Michael McDonough [no, not the former New York Fed President] and Michael Braungart who ask us to imagine a world where waste is nutrient, completing the big green circle to attain “Cradle to Cradle” living.) Instead of seeking small incremental victories with specific legislation, which they say has marginalized the movement, they believe only a grand cultural shift will pull us out of the global warming death spiral. Specifically, they want to “reframe” the issues to make them positive goals which acknowledge and cooperate with corporations and farmers.

Reframe? Where have I heard that before? That’s right, reframing the issue is the central theme to the Democrats comeback paradigm, introduced and promoted by the well-renowned Berkeley linguist and ad hoc Democratic spiritual adviser George Lakoff. Although slammed in two consecutive issues of The Atlantic, Lakoff’s new hit book, Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives, has given hope for liberals who feel the majority is being snookered by a persistent minority that controls the debate with talking points and The Factor. Less fluffy are Lakoff’s social models, laboriously constructed in Moral Politics, which thoughtfully support two extreme family models to describe conservatives and liberals: “strict-father” and “nurturant mother.” Importantly, the book is fairly convincing in demonstrating why each model supports certain issues, and why stances on issues as disparate as abortion and gun control are what they are for each side (somewhat of a Grand Unified Theory Of Disunity). Less convincing are the models application to real people; most people subtly combine aspects of each side in a way that is anything but transparent. Lakoff’s political objectives, however, are to show that liberals must understand how to talk to people, or more importantly how to frame debate in such a way that they cannot lose, something he feels they are on the stinky end of right now.

Putting the “neuroscientific hooey” of Lakeoffian framing aside, environmentalism is ripe for the picking and ready for a makeover. Neo-conservative politicians have shied away from the issue (that apocalypse thing will clean things up pretty good like, I reckon), but even 52% of evangelical Christians support strict environmental protection. And who better to sell a progressive energy plan to the Republicans than Mr Bush? The administration could promote it as a way to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil while directing that spending to domestic businesses. He could even reduce the resistance from the biggest opponents, big oil companies, by promising steady cash flow from grant money for research and development, thus guaranteeing their financial success for several CEO-generations to come. Whether this is an economically sound idea does not matter significantly to the public, it has the auspice of a political winner: short-term growth with the long-term possibility of strengthening the nation.

Why would Mr Bush reverse course, you ask? Mr Bush wants to win widespread support without compromising his beliefs. Some issues, like abortion, are always divisive because there is no compromise. The environment is not one of those issues. The Democrats have fumbled and the Republicans can run with it, creating an effective environmental strategy on their terms. Mr Bush could unveil the compassionate half of his 2000 campaign slogan with policy too good for the environmentalists to refuse, creating new allies in places no one ever thought possible. He need not be remembered as the president who failed to act on one of the most important issues of this century, but could be seen as a pioneer (dare we say cowboy) in world preservation, all without having bowed on his social agenda.

But Mr Bush would have to gain support from his colleagues in the Congress, and old-thinking takes longer than four years to change. Even with many obstacles, Mr Bush could be successful were he motivated enough. His actions suggest he is far from making environmentalism a priority. The question is, Why not?