Abstract

One lesson that stands out from the 2004 elections is that the environmentalist stance is due for an overhaul. Few voters treated the environment as a decisive issue. John Kerry and other pro-environment candidates had little or nothing to say about it, presumably for fear that strong comments could cost votes. Fifteen years ago the first President Bush matter-of-factly declared himself an environmentalist. Today, few Republicans and many Democrats would accept the label only with qualifications, if at all.

Substantial credit for this anti-green shift goes to the capable and well-funded environmental opposition, which has been aided by journalists unwilling or unable to navigate polemical minefields. But just as much credit (or blame) belongs to the environmental movement itself, which is fragmented, incoherent, and disinclined or unable to defend itself against opposing claims. People are confused about what the cause seeks to accomplish and about the resulting costs. They worry also about the effects that environmental rules will have on liberty, private property, and the nation's ability to compete internationally.

pdf

Share