Enviros: Don't Put Your Eggs in One (Dem) Basket
When Obama swept into office, the environmental lobby unwisely chose to pin all their hopes and dreams on the Democratic Party.
Two years ago, Barack Obama imprudently declared that his accession to power would mark the moment “when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal.”
Liberals sporting “1-20-09” bumper stickers imprudently believed him.
The way that miffed liberals have been muttering about 44 lately, one might expect to see a few pasting “1-20-13” stickers on their Priuses before long.
And that was before Press Secretary Gibbs suggested that some of the administration’s critics on the “professional left” have been indulging in exotic smoking materials.
Rather than dwell on Gibbs’ pithy remarks, members of the “professional left” – at least those who inhabit the environmental movement - should reflect on observations from two of the Senate’s most visible Republicans a few days previous.
They might learn a few lessons about the fate of climate change legislation in the 111th Congress, which moved from inevitable on 1-20-09 to circling the drain a scant 18 months later.
Lesson No. 1 – Don’t put all your eggs into one basket.
When Obama swept into office accompanied by large Democratic majorities in Congress, the environmental lobby, many of whose activists inhabit the port side of the political spectrum, slipped into their strategically unwise habit of pinning all hopes and dreams on the Democratic Party.
They didn’t expect the D’s to be quite so feckless. And, they didn’t remember that the worm always turns and today’s political tide is tomorrow’s target when those pesky voters are in a throw-the-bums-out mood.
It pays to make friends on both sides of the fence. It costs when you don’t.
As Lindsey Graham put it: “They don’t have much infrastructure on the Republican side. So, when you hear the environmental community is mad at you, everyone says, ‘Tell me something new.’ It’s not like a support group you lost.”
Lesson No. 2 – Legislation that has bipartisan support has a better chance of gaining traction than legislation that doesn’t.
The day before President Obama's birthday, Mitch McConnell dropped by the Oval Office for some one-on-one face time. McConnell broadly hinted that he and 44 were talking turkey about moving legislation in 2011, when Republicans will surely have a larger caucus in the Senate.
Nuclear power, for example. McConnell said he and the president both support building more nukes, which could be the centerpiece of a bipartisan energy bill.
When the Senate’s partisan complexion is more even, both sides are more inclined to deal, leading to “more balance” as McConnell put it. And, leading to better odds of enacting legislation, as the history of game-changing environmental statutes bears out.
Better odds, but not necessarily certainty. Any prediction of what Congress might do in 2011 and $1 will buy you one cup of bad coffee.
Big caveat here. For McConnell and his charges to emulate the legislative statesmanship of political forebears like Howard Baker and John Chafee, they would have to unlearn their seriously bad habit of letting the nation’s problems fester while they try to score political points that impress few outside the Beltway and media cognoscenti.
That said, there are good reasons for the environmental movement to reflect on the climate legislation pratfall and put some meat on the bones of its stated bipartisanship. The 112th Congress will be here before we know it.