Site Presented By
Friday, Oct 10, 2008
A growing chasm divides moderate and right-wing Republicans over a broad range of issues -- environmental policy chief among them.
Jan 15, 2004 | On Monday, former U.S. EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman published an uncharacteristically opinionated commentary in the New York Times lamenting the Bush administration's disregard for moderate Republican viewpoints. Though gently worded, the Op-Ed stands as the closest thing Whitman has made to a confession that she abandoned her post over an ideological clash with her superiors -- not because of homesickness, as she claimed in her resignation letter. More important, Whitman identified the fault line of radicalism that has begun to rupture the GOP -- a growing chasm dividing moderate and right-wing Republicans over a broad range of issues, environmental policy chief among them.
"President Bush [is] arguably one of the more conservative presidents in recent history," Whitman writes. These days, under his administration, "many moderate Republicans feel ... less certain of their place in the party." Meanwhile, "many conservatives act as if they wish we moderates would just disappear." She goes on to chide the administration for appealing to an ever-smaller votership and alienating moderate voters. "We too often follow the advice of political consultants to appeal not to a majority of the electorate but only to the most motivated voters -- those with the most zealous, ideological beliefs." Whitman did not hesitate to fault Democrats and environmentalists for engaging in similarly exaggerated polemic for the same calculated political reasons, but implied that as the party in power, the GOP has more to lose than the Dems in alienating its majority.
Whitman is not alone in her concern over this rift between middle-of-the-road and far-right Republicans. A growing number of prominent party members -- including Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine -- have squared off against the Bush administration on its environmental policies, casting votes on issues ranging from the Bush energy plan and Superfund to global warming and CAFE standards that directly challenge the administration's pro-industry, anti-regulation attitude.
Many fear that the Republican Party as a whole might pay dearly for the Bush administration's radical approach to environmental issues. "The irony is that while the Bush administration's environmental policy is designed largely to strengthen their campaign strategy, it could do just the opposite," Chafee told Muckraker. "Look at a map of all the states Bush won in 2000 -- the red states are mining states, they are timber-producing states, they are ranching states, many of which have a very strong opposition to environmental laws. But that doesn't represent the interests of most of the swing states. And even the mentality in the traditionally Republican states is changing -- states like Idaho, where people are beginning to understand that there has to be a balance."
Chafee also cautioned Republicans to remember that Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader took more than 2 percent of the popular vote in the 2000 election; assuming those voters -- many of them rabid enviros -- go for the Democratic candidate this time around, Republicans will get even more of a run for their money.
Theodore Roosevelt IV -- great grandson and namesake of the president who is often hailed by environmentalists and Republicans alike as the godfather of conservation -- also voiced concerns that Bush's radical environmental policies could threaten his reelection in 2004. "If you look at the elections, between 40 and 45 percent of the people are Republicans and Democrats that vote consistently, but the swing vote is getting larger and larger," said Roosevelt. "We're losing out on that swing vote for a number of reasons -- one's the environment, another's the economy, and they're both interlinked. Bush's environmental policy undermines a sustainable economic program. It's brilliant short-term, but in the long term it won't work."
Martha Marks, president of Republicans for Environmental Protection, argues that the Bush administration has "totally blown it" on environmental issues. "All my life I never thought there was anything oxymoronic about being a Republican who supports the protection of the environment, but today that notion is derided as a joke," said Marks. "Most Republicans call themselves conservatives, but a true conservative must inherently conserve. "
Marks added that it's not just the moderate swing vote she's worried about; a substantial segment of her members are the devout Christians to whom Bush is trying to appeal. "We have a growing number of extremely religious men and women who are very dedicated to the Republican Party but who believe that government must help protect -- not destroy -- God's natural creation," she said. Like Whitman, even they are increasingly disenfranchised and alienated from the party leadership. "Many of our members feel that the Bush administration's approach to environmental policy doesn't just damage the common good, it's immoral," she said.
Get Salon in your mailbox!