[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
SG-W:/ NYTimes Column on Bush, Nader, land use and the environment
- Subject: SG-W:/ NYTimes Column on Bush, Nader, land use and the environment
- From: Rober98@aol.com
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 11:26:21 EST
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
Let me try that again, I hope without the stray formatting codes.
Today's New York Times has a column, headlined The Last Green Mile, by
regular columnist Thomas L. Friedman, which may be of interest to readers of
Here's the link (may require FREE registration):
Here's the text:
The Last Green Mile
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
With the odds increasing every day that George W. Bush will be declared the
43rd president, a couple of things are becoming clear: Bush voters are the
likely winners. Gore voters are the likely losers. And all those people who
voted for Ralph Nader and the Green Party are the likely really big losers.
Why? Just do the math. Assuming a very narrow victory for Mr. Bush, and a
50-50 split in the U.S. Senate, it's highly doubtful that on the big policy
issues - tax cuts, Social Security, education, foreign policy - a Bush
administration will be able to do much more, or much less, than a Gore
Where Mr. Bush will have the biggest impact is not through the
macro-politics, but through the micro-politics - on all those issues that
reside just below the radar, on all those issues where the hundreds of
assistant secretaries, agency heads and department chiefs, whom the Bush team
will appoint throughout the government, will have the discretion, guidance
and desire to impose a conservative ethos.
And what are those issues? Well, let's see - things like how environmental
regulations are interpreted, where oil wells can be dug in Alaska, what sorts
of lands the Interior Department sets aside for conservation, how worker
health and safety rules are enforced or expanded, how labor laws are
interpreted, how gun control is dealt with, how aggressively fuel efficiency
standards are pursued, how assiduously global population control programs are
supported and to what extent the U.S. works to curb the "greenhouse" gases
that are causing global warming.
There is actually another name for all these environmental, social and labor
issues: "The Nader Agenda." These are all the issues that Ralph Nader and his
supporters professed to care most about. Well, guess what? All their issues
are going to get the short end of the stick from a Bush-staffed bureaucracy,
which will be heavily influenced by the oil and gas industry, the National
Rifle Association and the anti-abortion lobby.
Just think about one area - global warming. Instead of having as president Al
Gore, someone who would have made it a priority to rescue the failed Kyoto
climate change treaty, we will probably have a president and vice president
both of whom came from the energy business and don't even believe global
warming is for real. Mr. Bush's chief of staff will be Andrew Card, who spent
the last seven years as chief lobbyist for the auto industry, fighting
tighter fuel economy, air pollution and global warming regulations. So Mr.
Nader helped deliver a president from the oil industry, a vice president from
the drilling industry and a chief of staff from the auto industry. Have a
Indeed, when we wake up 20 years from now and find that the Atlantic Ocean is
just outside Washington, D.C., because the polar icecaps are melting, we may
look back at this pivotal election. We may wonder whether it wasn't the last
moment when a U.S. policy to deal with global warming might have made a
difference, and we may ask why the party most concerned about that, the
Greens, helped to elect Mr. Bush by casting 97,000 Nader votes in Florida.
Nader's voters forgot what Nader's Raiders always remembered: Government is
not just about the big bills and legislation. It's also about lots of little
things, decided by lots of little bureaucrats whom each party brings to
Washington when it takes over.
Throughout the campaign, the egomaniacal Mr. Nader - who makes Ross Perot
look selfless by comparison - justified taking away votes from Mr. Gore by
arguing that there really wasn't much difference between him and Mr. Bush.
And, like a good Leninist, Mr. Nader also didn't seem to mind destroying the
Democratic Party to save it. Well, maybe there didn't appear to be much
difference between the two men - but there was a huge difference between the
hundreds of key people Al Gore and George Bush would appoint to staff their
administrations. And those hundreds of people will make thousands of
decisions that one day will add up to a very big difference.
If you need any proof of that, look at Florida. Look at how many key
decisions were taken by "little people" who resided below the radar screens -
local judges, senior state officials and local election supervisors. They are
the gears of government, and in a Bush administration they are the ones who
will be interpreting and regulating everything the Naderites care about. As I
said, have a nice day.
smartgrowth-washtenaw: Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
Postings to: email@example.com For info, send
email to firstname.lastname@example.org with a one-line message body of "info