To the extent that this is happening (4.00 / 2)

it's most likely just an extension of the still too prevalent tendency of many people and organizations on or leaning towards the left to embrace people and organizations on the right (and generally on the hard, not moderate right, which hardly exists these days anyway) in order to appear to be reasonable, pragmatic and bipartisan, and avoid appearing to be or opening themselves up to being accused of being too partisan, obstuctionist and uncompromising. It's likely part of this whole dishonest, unhelpful and frankly silly phoney bipartisanship nonsense that's been promoted by the likes of Broder and Klein, and most awfully exemplified by the likes of Lieberman, or just slightly less awfully by the likes of Daschle when he was majority leader.

I understand the more principled motivations behind such efforts--we should, generally speaking, be seeking common ground with people on the other side of the issues. That's the right, smart and often necessary thing to do. But one, only when done from a position of strength, confidence and principle, and not out of a desire to appear to be less partisan and obstructionist in order to score cheap points with the Broderite crowd. And two, only with adversaries who are able and willing to operate in good faith. And neither is happening in way too many cases of ill advised bipartisanship these days. You can't work let alone compromise with the other side when its only real goal is to crush you politically, and any "concessions" it makes are tactical, superficial and phony. You gain nothing real, while losing much. It's just plain stupid, not to mention unprincipled.

I have no problem with bipartisanship, so long as it's principled, genuine and substantive from BOTH sides, and done from a position of strength, not weakness. That's not what we're seeing in most cases these days, in which Dems continue to cave, with vague promises of getting something in return, and end up getting nothing in return, while giving away so much. They don't even get much praise from the media, who keep making it appear that the "gridlock" in DC these days is due to both sides digging in for partisan gain, when in reality Dems, to the extent that they are digging in, are doing so mainly out of principle, which Pubs, who are clearly digging in, are doing so almost exclusively for political reasons. That's like seeing someone getting mugged and telling both the mugger and muggee to knock it off and grow up. Or something.

Dems and progressives have to stop listening to and trying to please the Broderite crowd by reaching out to people who are simply not going to cut serious and honest deals with them. Or, at least, they should refuse any deals that don't get them clear and immediate gains, and/or give away too much. One can cut deals with bad faith adversaries, but from a position of strength, and not out of the silly desire to appear to be bipartisan for the sake of appearing to be bipartisan. That does not work. In fact it's disasterous. And you'd think that people on our side would have figured it out by now. The deals that Dems cut with Reagan during his second term on issues like Social Security come to mind. Not the ones that they cut with Bush after 9/11--and all too many of whom continue to want to cut, e.g. FISA and Mukasey.

Enough of that already. It's not helping.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 20:24:26 PM UTC

contributing factors (0.00 / 0)

Agreed 100% on the distinctions here re: deal-making, and I'd add that I consider what Boxer and some of the green groups here are doing more in that Daschle category you describe than pure greenwashing as Matt alleges. That said, some thoughts to add:

1) Part of the problem here is that Boxer and others fundamentally and, in part, deliberately miscalculated where they needed to deal. The idea was focused on working with Lieberman, who for all his faults HAS been a longstanding ally and helped push legislative debate forward, and his newfound partnership with Warner-- and rewarding Warner's conversion and apparently genuine desire to get something passed before he retires/as a legacy to his grandchildren. Not bad things to pursue, but as an exclusive strategy stupid because they clearly fear the other side (i.e. Republicans and business interests) more than anything and will advance an inadequate bill just to hold together their existing coalition.

They should have done more to ensure a strong product as opposed to focusing on just moving the process forward. Had Boxer taken charge more, and there been a more significant effort to message and organize around something strong, it might have been a longshot to get the votes for it but it would have been possible; I think Lieberman would have gone along in the end, and Warner might have been workable to offset the likely loss of Max Baucus' vote in committee. L-W theoretically isn't unsalvageable, but realistically nothing is coming out there worth supporting because of this error of vision.

2) Another flaw does come from those pushing in some form for something more science-based-- Sanders, Boxer, Waxman and the unified green groups (including those of varying opinions on L-W) that wrote alternate legislation with stronger goals. Rather than put together something that could genuinely be pushed in the political and legislative debate, the bill they wrote really was a shell; a placeholder without much detail just meant to enunciate a science-based framework for the first time. A powerful thing in itself and still ought to be more aggressively pushed, but definitely did inadvertently cede some of the field to Lieberman to really be the one calling the shots.

(And btw, #2 isn't just my critique-- I'm paraphrasing exactly what someone from Sierra Club said during the Power Shift youth climate summit's panel on congressional legislation.)

---

by: sip1983 @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 21:05:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Very important topic - nuanced information is needed (4.00 / 1)

Matt, Please DO follow up on your elaboration of this topic. Even in bits and pieces it's a challenge to sift out the real actors from the bad actors, given the complexity of funding, supposedly green groups, and the media's unwillingness to support increased transparency via reporting.

-- Eqbal

---

by: eqbal00 @ Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 21:03:29 PM UTC

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

I'd love to see a breakdown of environmental orgs.  I know Matt likes Step it up and Power Shift, and I think Sierra Club, more than even ED, is a downright conservative organization.  Beyond that, I don't really know much about the major players.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 22:11:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sierra Club (4.00 / 1)

Is one of the most partisan and progressive of the well known mainstream ones. They've done netroots outreach and regularly collaborate with other wider progressive movement orgs.

That's just my take though. Maybe you're right.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 00:43:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hm (0.00 / 0)

I'm going mainly by the near takeover of the organization by right-wing racist membership and their endorsement of Lincoln Chafee.  I additionally have the perception of them as a group that supports the interests of a somewhat conservative wealthy membership who are intersted in preservation and not much else.  I know they are focused on global warming now, so maybe that's less true, or maybe it never was.

I think for all orgs of national scope, it's going to be a mixed bag (see Emily's list).  I didn't mean to suggest they were hopeless or useless, just that my overall perception is that they are a conservative group with conservative membership.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:07:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The takeover attempt (0.00 / 0)

Actually says a lot about the organization, but I'd analyze it differently (full disclosure: I was one of the "good guy" candidates who was elected that year, and still serve on the Club's board of directors).  Of all the big environmental groups, what sets Sierra Club appart is our grassroots infrastructure.  We have statewide chapters and local groups, all of them run by volunteers.  There's a strong cultural belief in the organization that we should be volunteer-run, which is why the board members have to run for election.  ED and NRDC, for instance, could never have been taken over because they don't elect their boards democratically.

That made us vulnerable to the takeover attempt.  We have about 750,000 potential "voters," of which 30-40,000 are engaged in some part of the leadership structure and therefore can be thought of as having relatively high information.  Turnout is traditionally 8-10%, so that leaves room for outside interests to petition their way onto the ballot, write a crafty ballot statement, and then make their way onto the board.  In 2004, the anti-immigration crowd had managed to already do that with a couple of people and a clean sweep in that election would have given them a majority.  In response, a group of active members put together an internal election campaign that increased voter education and heavily increased turnout.  I came in fifth in that election (top 5 are elected) with over 100,000 votes.  The top anti-immigration candidate had around 16,000 votes, I think.

The near-takeover happened because, well, our volunteer leadership was focusing on American elections more than Sierra Club elections.  When we had to focus on the internal elections though, the membership sent a pretty resounding message that the anti-immigration crowd could go take a hike (Does that qualify as a pun?  God I hope not...)

We *do* have a policy of supporting candidates based on their individual environmental voting record, and that has led to a few endorsements over the years that I know a number of progressives aren't fans of.  I think there are good arguments for and against that endorsement strategy.  At least we didn't endorse Lieberman last time out...

It's also true that a number of our activists, particularly the old-school ones, are interested in wilderness preservation.  That's part of having the long-term volunteer base.  We have leaders who joined the organization in the 70s and 80s primarily to protect wilderness. They built up a lot of talent and organizational knowledge, so they're still here and still working on the same issues that have always motivated them.  The new guard these days is mostly working on climate change, and we have local- and state-level action going on all over the place around climate issues.  We've also got a student-run arm called the Sierra Student Coalition which is one of the main players in the Energy Action Coalition that put on Powershift a few weeks ago.

Thanks for raising climate issues on the site, Matt.  Glad to see you guys getting into it.  And you're right, there's a lot to think about strategically around greenwashing, particularly as we move forward on climate legislation.  Environmental issues tend to have enough technical complexity that the line between "majoritarian solution" and "political cover for the assholes" can be blurry.

---

by: sierradave @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 02:35:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You do realize that as far as the.... (0.00 / 0)

...environment, specifically the scientific and legislative approaches to dealing with humanity's impact on same, goes that the EU and China are now leading the way do you not?

WTF? You reply...well so would I have done before I did the research for and posted:

You want poison with that toy?

I'd say that 100% of the 'environmental' organizations in this country are useless astroturf and while giving the illusion of working on the issues involved are in just as much need of reform as the corrupt rotten house of 'Versailles'.

Check it out.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 00:47:01 AM UTC

There's more to environmentalism than lead in toys (0.00 / 0)

and China has some of the dirtiest power plants in the world.  They still haven't caught the US because their economy is still smaller.  But China has a horrendous environmental record.  As soon as they stop qualifying as a 'developing' country in international treaties, they will stop signing onto any update of Kyoto, just like the USA.

---

by: Valatan @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:30:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Knee-Jerk reaction much? (0.00 / 0)

Go read the post. Dig in the links. Like most Americans you don't know jack about what's going on.

I believe Mark Twain has your sort of attitude in mind when he said:

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:41:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I read the post (0.00 / 0)

and the posted story was entirely about lead in toys.  The second link in the story you linked to mentioned something about household chemicals in the title, but once again, that has little to do with China's overall pattern of industrialization, from the three gorges dam to their extremely dirty burning electrical plants. 

Europe has only broken their dependece on coal by diverting a large percentage of their electricity to nuclear.  So they have averted the global warming issue by creating another host of issues.  The main problem is that it's not reasonable to say that one country is 'good on the environment' because 'the environment' isn't a single issue, really.  There is a whole host of policy that falls under that umbrella, and household chemcials/runoff/etc. is only one subset of that.

---

by: Valatan @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 05:31:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow. You over 13? (4.00 / 1)

I'm guessing not. Saying that China is leading the way in environmental protection is like saying Barry Bonds is leading the way in clearing his sport of performance enhancing drugs.

My God some of the things that get written and people actually believe!

---

by: ColoDem @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:57:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's China got to do with it? (4.00 / 1)

We shouldn't be worrying about what China isn't doing about the environment, but about what we're doing. We shouldn't expect them to do anything till we have. After all, the West committed 100+ years of unfettered pollution while at the same time keeping China under its colonial dominance. We can't expect them to take the lead on the environment know, when they are still trying to catch up industrially.

The Warner-Lieberman bill sucks. How could something from two Republicans be good? Its a start; it won't pass, especially since the House is likely to pass something widely different. But its a start, here's where the fight begins, we need to make sure the discourse on environmental issues is steered in the right way, with the right focus and the right mind-set. Chances are comprensive climate legislation won't pass till 2009, and that's a good thing, because it gives us that time to keep framing the debate and agitating for those things that need to get done (and what's 2 years when we've been polluting for 2,000?)

---

by: communitybased @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 14:25:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now, THAT, I agree with. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Valatan @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 16:09:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is really quite silly (0.00 / 0)

Not EVERY problem in our society is traceable to liberals not being tribal enough, or "tough" enough, or hard enough on conservatives.

If you'd think about it for just a minute, imagine what would inevitably happen if an environmental group -- or any issue group for that matter, on any side -- were to identify itself completely not just with one party, but one wing of one party. The Christian Coalition did that, and they're now irrelevant, if not actually defunct. The reason is that most public poliy issues are long-term projects, and reversible. And in the particular case of the environmental movement, once things get bad enough, you can't recover. So obviously, if the environmental movement were tied closely to progressive Dems (assuming philosophically you consider environmentalism liberal anyway, which is debatable, since many if not most of the movement's founders were profoundly conservative) they would do great things as long as progressive Dems were in power. When conservatives gain power again, the losses would be catastrophic. Any serious campaigner for social change -- ESPECIALLY environmental -- cannot afford that kind of feast or famine result.

Now part of your point is very valid. I DO think environmental groups like NRDC and Environmental Defense do the movement a great disservice by sucking up corporate dollars all day and night. That means they can't take tough positions on issues. But associating with Republicans ... that's just smart.

And by the way, Sierra Club and LCV, the two political environmental groups, do NOT take corporate money. Far as I know.

---

by: ColoDem @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 01:54:36 AM UTC

An interesting phenomenon (0.00 / 0)

In global-warming and other environmental lawsuits, all of the enviro groups work together and fight industry tooth and nail.  Sierra Club, NRDC, ED, Rainforest Action Network, Public Citizen, Conservation Law Foundation, PIRG, etc. all work together. (see CBD v. NHTSA, Green Mountain Chrysler et al. v. Crombie (Vt.), and Massachusetts v. EPA.)

But in national politics/legislation, you get a lot more compromise and you see groups like NRDC and ED allying with corporations and industry.

Why is that? In large part it's because the legal system rewards hardline oppositional positions, but the federal legislative process rewards backroom compromising.

---

by: The Cunctator @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 16:16:47 PM UTC

greenwashing vs. inadequacy/caving (0.00 / 0)

Excellent points here, and just to add in the interest of details-- Schwarzenegger has similarly gotten his green image from standing firm on all of these ground-shifting legal proceedings(though he has undercut some of the more cutting-edge global warming work being pursued by AG Jerry Brown's office, particularly in the area of trying to compel smarter growth) and from his work on persuading other state leaders and forming regional and international compacts. He's definitely not someone to be held up as a paragon of complete and utter leadership-- he's also vetoed some strong legislation while signing other items, and of course there's the transportation funding problems Matt mentions. And environmental groups definitely need to recognize that more rather than just simply patting him on the back. But calling his identification with fighting global warming pure "greenwashing" is wrong-- on some counts, he's earned it.

One thing that struck me about this post, which I agree with mostly on the legislative front, is that it (inadvertently I think) makes a mistake almost similar to the recent NY Times article stupidly conflating Gingrich, Bjorn Lomborg, and the "Death of Environmentalism" duo (the latter of whom have been cited positively by many in the broader progressive movement and in the youth climate movement) as "climate moderates." Schwarzenegger is many things, but he's not equivalent to Gingrich on this issue by far. The Governator and his ilk are not in line with what really needs to be done, but neither are they simply deflecting the issue the way Gingrich and Lomborg are.

That said, I think that the youth climate movement is the place to look for a good attitude on the issue of greenwashing and inadequacy. They're willing, as I saw firsthand at the recent Power Shift summit, to nod along with and engage in selective and appropriate praise of leaders doing the right thing, but at the same time youth are also unafraid to look even at firmer allies like Pelosi and Markey and loudly chant "We want more!" They're pragmatic, but won't allow themselves to become a party to greenwashing and rightly so.

---

by: sip1983 @ Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 20:10:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]