Campaign slogans have been amazingly consistent for a century. After Theodore Roosevelt’s “Square Deal,” two-word slogans were the fashion. Wilson pledged a “New Freedom,” FDR a “New Deal,” and Truman a “Fair Deal.” JFK promised a “New Frontier,” LBJ a “Great Society,” Bill Clinton a “New Covenant,” and Ronald Reagan a “New Beginning.” Barack Obama’s three word “Yes We Can” broke the mold, freeing Donald Trump to use four (“Make America Great Again”). But the predominant themes promise some kind of “deal,” most assuming Americans want something “new.” Tom Harkin was stunningly uncreative in proposing a “New New Deal.”
Now that Democrats have recaptured control of the House of Representatives, and Americans are wondering what changes to expect, party leaders are promising yet another – this time a “Green New Deal.” If the table is set for new congressional battles, environmental issues are the centerpiece.
The Natural Resources Committee will be chaired by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), who has already outlined his major priorities: ramping up climate-change debates, and embarrassing the Administration with constant oversight hearings. He calls it “holding the Trump administration accountable.”
With Republicans still controlling the Senate and White House, there will be very little actual legislating. “Rolling back” Trump Administration actions will be attempted often, but accomplished rarely. This is no big change from recent few years, with a mostly dysfunctional Congress unable to pass almost any bill, of any kind, on any subject. Thus, even a majority party in the House remains essentially “the loyal opposition” on most issues.
That is a fairly easy role, by the way. I worked in the Senate when my side was in both the majority and minority over a ten-year period. Being in the majority was harder (you are expected to govern), while the minority had more fun. All a minority can do is throw up road blocks, force votes intended to embarrass the majority, and use the microphone to call attention to favorite issues – not really intending to get anything done, just “lobbing grenades.” The idea is to create contrast on issues they know will register with voters next time around.
In that context, it isn’t entirely clear why Democrats think climate change is the winning issue for them. They know the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is a serious problem has increased since the last time Democrats controlled the House in 2010 (up from 25 to about 41 percent, according to Gallup). Still, it consistently registers nearly last on the list of issues voters say they care most about (far behind immigration, health care, the economy, and dozens of other issues).
Moreover, as my friend Brian Seasholes points out, “polling shows that when monetary costs are associated with climate change policy, Americans react very negatively.” That’s simply because most middle class, blue collar and low-income Americans are not prepared to absorb much higher gas and utility prices. So, many conservatives actually hope Chairman Grijalva will spend most of his committee’s time on climate change. That hope illustrates just how far apart the two parties have evolved on the issue.
Grijalva, however, a 15-year congressional veteran, is not a one-issue leader. His “oversight” priorities will zero in investigations involving former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, and other appointees, who will be asked frequently to attend hearings to explain their “conduct,” starting with an already-planned hearing in February. Questions for Zinke, for instance, will include a real estate deal in Montana, various staff changes (which he had every right to make), and his alleged “suppression and manipulation of science,” (a perennial accusation against any leader who tries to change anything at Interior).
Grijalva and others will push for higher funding for the agencies involved in climate change, particularly highlighting its supposed relationship to wildfires, droughts, and hurricanes. Such funding increases are not likely, though. They will also try to probe the environmental effects of building a border wall, and will propose more locking up of public lands – most of which will fail.
Every member of the Committee was re-elected, though there will be some newcomers because of retirements. Some of those newcomers are leading this “Green New Deal” effort. A recent rally featured 10 new Democrats, with environmental lobbyists, proposing a new committee to make America use 100 percent renewable energy, and kill off the coal, oil, and gas industries. They had such a committee before, of course, which produced the ill-fated “cap-and-trade” proposals of the Obama era.
These new plans, in reality, are not much of a “deal” for working class Americans, and there is nothing “new” about them.
This column first appeared in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel December 7, 2018.
Comments on this entry are closed.