NEWS: PRESS RELEASE ARCHIVE

Values increasingly at core of environmental debate

By Robert Schlesinger, The Boston Globe
Sunday, 7/5/2001
Page A 3 (Copyright 2001)

WASHINGTON - As the environment advances to the forefront of national issues, President Bush faces the challenge of mastering the politics of environmentalism while Democrats step up a strategy of focusing on values.

Democrats and environmentalists are increasingly convinced they can use the issue to undermine confidence in Bush even among voters who generally support the president.

"That's the next place we're going to go on this debate," said Deb Callahan, president of the League of Conservation Voters. "We're going to take the environmental debate to values. That's clearly where George W. Bush's strong positives come from; they're derived from values."

At the same time, with polls showing majorities of Americans disapproving of Bush's energy and environmental policies, the president has intensified efforts to highlight environmental initiatives.

That tack was on display last month, as Bush traveled to Alabama to promote his proposal to boost funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the administration announced rules to toughen pollution standards for coal-fired plants.

So far, however, Bush has been unable to sell most voters on either his energy plan or his vision for cooperation on environmental matters - a situation exacerbated by splits in his party and what Republicans see as hostile news media.

"It is a problem for us, and we have to do a better job of communicating to the suburban voters," said US Representative Richard Pombo, a California Republican. "That's a hard thing to do in terms of a 30-second sound bite."

Democrats hope to make it harder by illustrating what they say is a values gap for Bush on the environment.

At the most basic level is the appeal to the common values of conservation.

"It represents our willingness or failure to be a good steward of our natural environment," said US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York. "That's a values idea that goes back to biblical times, whether we care for the earth around us and the living things on it."

More aggressively, critics will try to paint Bush as flip-flopping on environmental issues, most notably going back on his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. That theme will be merged with the accusation that Bush has taken a page from President Reagan's public relations book by staging press events in scenic vistas while enacting policies that endanger them.

"That disconnect is a values issue, because `Do as I say, not as I do' is hard to accept, and I think many people are saying, `No, we'd better watch what you do, not just what you say,' " Clinton said.

Finally, critics will charge that Bush's environmental values are not in sync with those of average Americans because he and Vice President Dick Cheney are beholden to industry - principally Big Oil.

"It gives Democrats the opportunity to make the case that because Bush and Cheney are so tied to Big Oil that they are out of step with the values of ordinary Americans," said Brad Bannon, a Democratic pollster based in Boston. "You can talk about issues until the cows come home, but when push comes to shove, voters make voting decisions about personal gut feelings of the candidates."

The strategy of moving issues from specific policy debates into a values context has gradually moved the environment up from the second tier of issues, political observers say.

"The issue had been seen as purely . . . `It's a good thing to do, but not essential,' " said Doug Schoen, a Democratic consultant who worked for President Clinton. "What we were trying to do is say that it's an essential core issue of public policy and it's important to people's values."

Environmentalists are starting to grasp this.

"There's been an evolution on where the public is on the environment, and I think the Bush administration's principal problem is that they haven't realized that times have changed," said Phil Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan argued that the criticisms are worn. "You're hearing the same kind of attacks from the same groups that criticized him during the campaign," McClellan said. "There's a concerted effort on their part to pollute [Bush's] proven record of safeguarding the environment."

But some Republicans concede that Bush must improve his communication and update his message to match the new political reality.

"While pushing the policies that they believe are best and are balanced, they need to take a page from Bill Clinton, as hard as that is, and be more political about it," said Mark Miller, executive director of the centrist Republican Leadership Council.

Republicans, however, are also hindered by a split in the party over environmental issues.

"What's the Republican play on it? I'm not entirely sure, and I think that's been part of the problem," said one administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "To the degree that there's been a tactical advantage to the Democrats, it is a function of the fact that they have a much clearer sense of what they want to do on that issue."

The issue cuts through the Republican Party geographically: Northeasterners favor federal laws protecting the environment, while those from the West, where much of the land is owned by the federal government and the effect of many of these laws is more keenly felt, prefer a more cooperative approach. While Democrats have the same divisions, they are not as pronounced.

"There are two groups within the White House that are fighting it out as we speak, and it's very difficult," said Representative Christopher Shays, a moderate Republican from Connecticut. "This president is trying to find middle ground, but you end up making everybody angry at you."

Robert Schlesinger can be reached by e-mail at schlesinger@globe.com