David Sirota has a great post today about a trend I spent a good deal of time researching this past semester: the shift out West of hunters, outdoorsmen, and ranchers from the Republican to Democratic parties.
Reading this, I realize that I never followed up on a promise to put together a big post on the subject following the end of the semester. Sorry about that. I'm currently out West myself, and will be for another few weeks, but I swear... when I get back home that post will be forthcoming. In the meantime, check out what Sirota has to say for a brief preview.
UPDATE: This is from a NYTimes story linked to in Sirota's post. The quote just perfectly sums up what's happening out West:
| "The word from Washington is drill, drill, drill, and now they've basically destroyed our ranch," said Tweeti Blancett, a coordinator for George Bush's presidential campaign in San Juan County, N.M. "We've been in a firestorm down here. A lot of Republicans are upset."
The 32,000 acres of public land that Ms. Blancett and her husband, Linn, have long used for grazing cattle is now riddled with gas wells and pipelines. Petroleum byproducts have poisoned the water, she said, killing animals and causing the fertility rate to plummet. The couple has hired Karen Budd-Falen, one of the best-known lawyers in fights over federal land policies. They have sued to try to force the federal Bureau of Land Management to clean up the land. Ms. Budd-Falen got her start working against environmental restrictions with the Mountain States Legal Foundation, an intellectual incubator for such property rights stalwarts as James Watt, the former interior secretary under President Ronald Reagan. |
The Sagebrush Rebels that helped sweep Reagan into power by realigning the Western states have begun turning against their own party. I cannot imagine a better example of the effects of overreach than this. And the best part is, the Republicans are absolutely clueless about their own history:
| "It's complicated, because what you have is a collision of two strong Republican ideals: respect for property rights and the need for a national energy policy," said Rachael Sunbarger, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Republican Party." But I don't think anyone changes their party affiliation over a single issue." |
That's exactly 100% wrong. The history of the interplay between Western land-use policy and party affiliation is one of an endless series of realignments over the issue. Here's a perfect example of why:
| Ms. Jacobsen said she registered as a Republican in the last election, but now considered herself an independent because of this issue. She said her property value fell by $300,000 in the last assessment because of the nearby gas development. |
You've got to be crazy to think people won't switch party affiliations based on something like this.
As good as this article is, however, they missed on critical piece. First, an excerpt:
| The other major issue involves drilling on large pieces of public land that have long been used by outdoor enthusiasts.
"It's tough to beat the federal government," said Gordon Johnston, a lifelong Republican and three-term county commissioner in Sublette County, Wyo. "But there are a lot of us who feel we have to fight them, because they're wrecking this land." |
The "outdoor enthusiast" piece is the critical part of the puzzle. As I discovered this past semester, the economic impact of outdoor recreation is roughly 3 to 4 times larger than resource extraction throughout the West. In the 1970's and early 1980's, the two were roughly equal, but since that time, energy has stayed flat while recreation has skyrocketed. Oil and gas are no longer the mainstays of the western economies. And the people of the West know that. But does this administration? Hardly. And that may be one of their greatest legacies.
As I said above, I'll have more on this when I return from vacation. It's a largely overlooked phenomenon, but one with potentially huge consequences. Good to see the NYTimes is starting to take notice.
UPDATE II: And then, this today from the LA Times:
| WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted today to give federal regulators the last word on the location of liquefied natural gas terminals, despite objections from governors, including California's Arnold Schwarzenegger, that states should be an equal partner in deciding where the controversial facilities are built.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) led a bipartisan group of senators in an attempt to add to energy legislation a provision that would give governors an opportunity to veto projects they consider a safety risk. The measure was rejected 52-45. The House-approved energy bill includes a similar provision that would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the final say over where the terminals are built, virtually ensuring that the measure will be included in any final bill that emerges from Congress. The vote would seem to run counter to the Republican-controlled Congress' tendency to support states' rights. |
That last sentence is just absurd. What in the recent history of the Republican-controlled Congress has supported states' rights?
Leaving that aside, its yet another example of land use issues fracturing the coalition that Reagan built. Brilliant!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: THAT COMING REALIGNMENT.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.alexwhalen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2050
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Leave a comment