„There is nothing so American as our national parks. The scenery and wildlife are native. The fundamental idea behind the parks is native. The parks stand as an outward symbol of this great human principle”. These sentences are not extracted from the platform of the American Green Party – they are from a quote of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd President of the United States, a Republican. In his thinking, “conservation was closely tied to American Values” (Sussman/ Daynes/ West 2001: 169). During his governing period, environmental care was directly incorporated in governmental action – various agencies and bureaucracies were established to deal with this topic.
Today, the United States reject major international environmental treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol, requiring participants to reduce green house gases below the 1990 level by 2012. The Bush administration has presented plans to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a swathe of land in northeast Alaska, populated by migratory birds, wolves and caribou. The House of Representatives had already approved these plans, the Senate rejected them. In voting George W. Bush their 43rd President, a majority of the American people made their cross for a candidate with a green record tending to zero.
But not only does environmental policy seem to have left the political agenda on a larger scale, observers more and more get the impression that the American people seem to care lesser for environmental aspects than ten or twenty years ago – only considering, among many other factors, the increasing number of polluting light trucks and SUVs on American roads. So can we conclude that, considering the fact that the parties fight for the support of the American mainstream, both Democrats and Republicans have banned environmental politics from their platforms?
This paper is to figure out to what extent the field of environmental policy still is a factor in the American political landscape and what ideological and sociological factors are at play in this process and in the party-internal treatment of the topic.
At a glance
- Grade: 1.7 (1.0 is the best grade)
- Compares Hays’ regional analysis with Lester’s state environmental policy typology
- Examines Clinton’s environmental agenda alongside the 104th Congress
- 11 sources in the bibliography
Table of Contents
1. General Introduction
1.1 Introduction and problem identification
1.2 Approach of this term paper
2. Environmental policy in the American discourse
2.1 Ideological determinants
2.2 Areas of Tension
2.2.1 Economic efficiency vs. Ecology
2.2.2 Sociogeographical variances
2.2.2.1 Traditional labour versus modern production
2.2.2.2 Translation into politics
3. Parties and Positioning in the field
3.1 Republicans: home for anti-environmentalists
3.2 A “green” voting record in Congress: the Democrats
3.3 The Green Party and environmental organizations
4. Historical Perspective: Presidential performance
4.1 “The Green Decade”
4.2 The Eighties: Reagan and Bush
4.3 Clinton and the 104th Congress
5. Conclusion and outlook
Aims and Themes
This term paper asks whether political parties in the United States remain vehicles for environmental politics, how they position themselves in this field, and how ideological and sociological factors shape their approaches. It relates tensions in environmental policy to party positions and examines historical presidential performance.
- Ideological attitudes toward environmental protection
- Economic interests and environmental regulation
- Regional industries and state environmental policy
- Republican, Democratic and Green Party positions
- Environmental organizations and political influence
- Presidential approaches from the 1970s through the Clinton administration
Excerpt from the Book
2.2.2.1Traditional industries versus modern production
There is no easy answer to the question where in the United States environmental concerns find the most acceptance and where they are rejected by the public. As a matter of fact, anti-environmentalism in the United States is relatively widespread – Samuel P. hays calls these people the “environmental opposition” (2000: 109). A comparison between the areas where these people live and party strongholds would probably give some results of pro/ anti –environmental tendencies in everyday policymaking. A North- versus-South-pattern as well as a City- versus-Countryside-pattern do not adequately answer this question concerning the problem this paper deals with. Though both patterns provide answers, not much about the people who are forming the environmental opposition would be conveyed. It can be assumed that there is a direct relation between these people and their socialisation and their voting behaviour, i.e. the party – if it is only one - that represents them.
A source for the environmental opposition is “based on the long history of the American economy in farming and grazing, lumbering and mining” and other traditional industrial branches, for example the chemical industry. “Associations representing these economic sectors are the most vocal and active in organizing and sustaining the environmental opposition” (Hays 2000: 110, 111). Many coalitions have developed around the extractive industry, such as the “wise use movement” and “Property rights” groups, seeking ways into legislation through political and economic activists who defend outdated and often dirty means of production against environmental protection acts and modern industries. Their ideological background is based on the ideas of physical labour, to be a part of the “real, traditional America” and that nature and the environment were given to man to be exploited for his progress and prosperity. They feel environmental legislation to be a threat to core American values and their “way of life”.
Samuel P. Hays distinguishes between three areas in the United States – post-industrial regions with modern industries and “stronger environmental cultures” such as “New England and nearby New York and New Jersey, the Upper Great Lake States, Florida and the West Coast” and regions bound to old traditional manufacturing and raw material refinement such as the “western Gulf states, the Plains states and the Rocky Mountain states” (Hays 2000: 110). The Rocky Mountain states are – more than the other states with traditional production – at the moment in a state of transience. Here, old industries are largely being replaced by more service-oriented modern industries such as tourism. Indeed, the traditional pollutant industries are overwhelmingly located in the West, in the South and in more rural areas.
Chapter Summaries
1. General Introduction: The introduction frames the question of whether American parties still represent environmental concerns and explains the paper’s approach.
2. Environmental policy in the American discourse: This chapter explores ideological assumptions, tensions between economic activity and environmental protection, and regional patterns of industry and state policy.
3. Parties and Positioning in the field: The author examines Republican and Democratic positions, congressional voting, the Green Party and environmental organizations.
4. Historical Perspective: Presidential performance: This chapter considers environmental politics under presidents from Nixon through Clinton and the role of Congress in shaping their agendas.
5. Conclusion and outlook: The conclusion assesses the parties’ environmental profiles and considers factors affecting the future of environmental politics.
Keywords
United States, environmental politics, political parties, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Green Party, environmental policy, political ideology, regional differences, traditional industries, congressional voting, environmental organizations, presidential politics
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this work about?
It examines the place of environmental politics in the American party system and the factors influencing party positions.
What are its central themes?
Its themes include ideology, economic and environmental tensions, regional differences, party competition, environmental organizations and presidential policy.
What is the main research question?
The paper asks whether American parties remain vehicles for environmental politics and how ideological and sociological factors affect their positioning.
What method does the author use?
The author analyzes and compares published political research, regional classifications, state environmental policy and historical accounts of party and presidential activity.
What does the main discussion cover?
It considers tensions surrounding environmental policy, the positions of major and minor parties, and presidential performance from the 1970s through the Clinton years.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Environmental politics, American parties, ideology, regional differences, congressional voting and presidential policy are among its principal keywords.
How does the paper examine regional differences?
It compares Samuel P. Hays’ account of regional economic structures with James Lester’s classification of states by environmental commitment and capacity.
What role do environmental organizations play in the discussion?
The paper considers organizations such as the Sierra Club as participants in electoral funding and efforts to influence policymakers.
Why does the author discuss Clinton and the 104th Congress?
That period provides a case for examining presidential environmental initiatives alongside a Republican-controlled Congress.
- Quote paper
- Lars Dittmer (Author), 2005, Are the parties in the United States still vehicles for environmental politics? How do they occupy this political field, and what ideological and sociological aspects affect this process?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/49287
