Political Realignment and the Environmental Movement
Either declare which side you are on or be presumed opposition
The conventional wisdom about Democrats’ and Republicans’ racial politics over the last century or so seems to go something like this: Lingering hostility towards Republicans over the Civil War created a “solid South” for the Democrats. The GOP’s more business-friendly stance also sent working class people to the Democrats, creating an uneasy and unstable coalition comprised in part of minorities and unreconstructed racists. The fractures were visible even in signature achievements like Social Security,* and the coalition split apart for good over civil rights legislation in the 60s. Helped along by the Southern Strategy, conservative whites flocked to the Republican party starting in the 70s, and the two parties sorted into bases that had fewer ideological contradictions.
It’s tempting to put other issues in that narrative, maybe because it’s fun to contemplate the drama of major parties splitting apart and re-sorting in response to seismic shifts. It’s more fun than contemplating a major party adapting to new circumstances and including new partners incrementally, anyway.
That bias acknowledged, it seems at least possible that climate change and environmental issues might be in the process of creating an unsustainable coalition for the Democrats. While there’s long been a kind of low-grade disgruntlement with certain Democrats in areas where the extraction industry looms large – those who tread lightly around coal interests in Ohio or West Virginia, oil drilling in Louisiana, etc. – the growing awareness of human-influenced climate change and the cost/benefit analysis of unconventional extraction is creating sharp new divisions.
Since I’ve been paying particular attention to fracking in my neck of the woods, I know how communities are having to accommodate a process that brings little benefit to most citizens. On an issue like, say, water supplies, blandly comparing the amount used to the total amount in a state or region is deceptive. The real impact is felt at the community level, and the relative dearth of political leadership on that creates a vacuum.
In its absence, ad hoc coalitions have started to form (“It’s as if bed and breakfasts, birdwatchers, bicyclists, beef producers, and Bambi killers united against big oil”), traditional environmental groups have come under increased scrutiny, and representatives who try to play both sides are being called out. With the oil and gas industry increasingly willing to do whatever it takes to win, politicians are less and less able to be on the fence. Either declare which side you are on or be presumed opposition.
Earlier this year Chris Hayes made the case for a connection between slavery and fossil fuels. He looked more at economic parallels, but the impact on the political landscape could be just as huge. The comparison isn’t perfect, of course: there isn’t a sizable Democratic constituency primed to bolt to the Republicans over the issue. The tension here has more to do with politicians wanting to remain cordial with moneyed interests. Still, it’s an issue that will create increasing dissonance between higher ups and the base, which creates room for new leaders. That may come from unapproved challengers within the party, or it may develop organically outside it. But either way, it looks like something that will only get more, not less, urgent – and that might cause some fundamental realignments.
Political realignment and the environmental movement
Cross posted from Pruning Shears.
Either declare which side you are on or be presumed opposition
The conventional wisdom about Democrats’ and Republicans’ racial politics over the last century or so seems to go something like this: Lingering hostility towards Republicans over the Civil War created a “solid South” for the Democrats. The GOP’s more business-friendly stance also sent working class people to the Democrats, creating an uneasy and unstable coalition comprised in part of minorities and unreconstructed racists. The fractures were visible even in signature achievements like Social Security,* and the coalition split apart for good over civil rights legislation in the 60s. Helped along by the Southern Strategy, conservative whites flocked to the Republican party starting in the 70s, and the two parties sorted into bases that had fewer ideological contradictions.
It’s tempting to put other issues in that narrative, maybe because it’s fun to contemplate the drama of major parties splitting apart and re-sorting in response to seismic shifts. It’s more fun than contemplating a major party adapting to new circumstances and including new partners incrementally, anyway.
That bias acknowledged, it seems at least possible that climate change and environmental issues might be in the process of creating an unsustainable coalition for the Democrats. While there’s long been a kind of low-grade disgruntlement with certain Democrats in areas where the extraction industry looms large – those who tread lightly around coal interests in Ohio or West Virginia, oil drilling in Louisiana, etc. – the growing awareness of human-influenced climate change and the cost/benefit analysis of unconventional extraction is creating sharp new divisions.
Since I’ve been paying particular attention to fracking in my neck of the woods, I know how communities are having to accommodate a process that brings little benefit to most citizens. On an issue like, say, water supplies, blandly comparing the amount used to the total amount in a state or region is deceptive. The real impact is felt at the community level, and the relative dearth of political leadership on that creates a vacuum.
In its absence, ad hoc coalitions have started to form (“It’s as if bed and breakfasts, birdwatchers, bicyclists, beef producers, and Bambi killers united against big oil”), traditional environmental groups have come under increased scrutiny, and representatives who try to play both sides are being called out. With the oil and gas industry increasingly willing to do whatever it takes to win, politicians are less and less able to be on the fence. Either declare which side you are on or be presumed opposition.
Earlier this year Chris Hayes made the case for a connection between slavery and fossil fuels. He looked more at economic parallels, but the impact on the political landscape could be just as huge. The comparison isn’t perfect, of course: there isn’t a sizable Democratic constituency primed to bolt to the Republicans over the issue. The tension here has more to do with politicians wanting to remain cordial with moneyed interests. Still, it’s an issue that will create increasing dissonance between higher ups and the base, which creates room for new leaders. That may come from unapproved challengers within the party, or it may develop organically outside it. But either way, it looks like something that will only get more, not less, urgent – and that might cause some fundamental realignments.
