What does the apparent pick of U.S. Senator Ken Salazar for Interior secretary in the Obama administration mean for public lands management? Well, surely it can't be worse than what's transpired the past eight years, can it?
(I say "apparent" pick because the nomination hasn't been officially announced. Rather, the senator's name was "leaked" to the press, surely to generate some media mojo for the administration.)
Some are despairing over the Colorado Democrat's selection, wishing instead that Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva would have gained the nod. Others are relatively happy, noting that there were lesser names in the mix, folks who might have done public lands management worse than Sen. Salazar might.
As I noted in a comment elsewhere on the Traveler, the senator comes with pluses and minuses. He was among the senators who supported a rule change to allow concealed weapons permit holders to pack in national parks and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges. Does Sen. Salazar really believe that's proper, or did he take that stance merely to garner home-state support? We won't know until we see whether the Obama administration moves to rescind the rule change.
As for pluses, as director of Colorado's DNR Mr. Salazar "authored the Great Outdoors Colorado Amendment, which created a massive land conservation program of which he became chairman. Salazar also created the Youth in Natural Resources program to provide for environmental education in public schools. In his cabinet role, he established reforms that forced mining and oil operations to better protect the surrounding environment."
He also was the first Senate Democrat to speak out against Paul Hoffman's handiwork with the Management Policies and he cosponsored legislation to fund the NPS centennial.
But then, as another commenter who read the senator's Wikipedia entry noted:
As Colorado's Attorney General, Salazar actively opposed endangered species listing of the black-tailed prairie dog, which, despite its population declines, is still listed as a "pest" by Colorado.[2]
In 2005, Salazar voted against increasing fuel-efficiency standards (CAFE) for cars and trucks, a vote that the League of Conservation Voters notes is anti-environment. In the same year, Salazar voted against an amendment to repeal tax breaks for ExxonMobil and other major oil companies. [3]
In 2006, Salazar voted to end protections that limit off-shore drilling in Florida's Gulf Coast.[4]
In 2007, Salazar was one of only a handful of Democrats to vote against a bill that would require the US Army Corps of Engineers to consider global warming when planning water projects.[5]
According to Project Vote Smart, Ken Salazar received a 25% vote rating for 2007 by the Humane Society of the United States [6], a 0% vote rating for 2005-2006 for Fund for Animals [7], and a 60% vote rating for 2007 by Defenders of Wilderness [8].
And yet, Sen. Salazar has been cautious when it comes to tar sands and oil-shale exploration, something that could really impact parks in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado.
Representative Grijalva no doubt would have been a more outspoken Interior secretary, someone who would come into office with a well-drafted agenda, but is that always the best tack to take in politics? Does the new team in Washington need to swing far to the left after the past eight years of the Bush administration swinging far to the right, or is there a deserved call to be more moderate?
Over at the National Parks Conservation Association, which understandably doesn't want to get off on the wrong foot with the 53-year-old Mr. Salazar, President Tom Kiernan had this to say about the selection:
“Ken Salazar understands that our national parks are national treasures, and his strong, demonstrated commitment to these significant places foretells his success as Secretary of the Interior.
“Sen. Salazar has been an outstanding leader in national park protection in the U.S. Senate. He has championed the strengthening of the parks’ Management Policies, advocated to address the parks’ chronic funding needs, led the introduction of the National Park Centennial Challenge, and worked to harness the educational power of our national parks for our children and grandchildren. He has also championed appropriate expansion of the National Park System.
"Our national parks will be in great hands with Ken Salazar.”
No doubt if this nomination is officially tendered, and Mr. Salazar is confirmed, there will be much scrutiny on his actions in the months ahead. And I'll wager that there will be much to applaud, and more than a little to complain about.
Comments
Getting back to Frank C and Jim B's points earlier, I think there is a big difference between a "Moderate" like Salazar in this upcoming Obama Administration, and what we have seen previously. There is the possibility that Obama will generally support a pro-environmental stand, and therefore Salazar would lean in that direction. How many people in the upper levels of the Department of the Interior would be White House people, and how many slots would Salazar himself be able to select? That becomes critical in policy direction.
In the past Administration, VP Cheney had a thumb on the scale with everything going on there. The Obama administration will not have such a malign agenda.
On the other hand, Obama said next to nothing on the environment when he ran, except regarding global warming initiatives. He has questioned Yucca Mt. My understanding is he said next to nothing on the National Park Service, except continuing to take on the maintenance backlog.
I think what Obama is really focused on is a sense that the American people are disgusted by partisan, disfunctional government. I am guessing he sees the world very much as an urbanist, with experience in Hawaii, and in the third world.
I would guess Obama would want a reliable vote in Salazar's seat, perhaps more reliable than Salazar has been for the Democrats. My guess is he wants all political perspectives to think Obama will give their interest a fair shake, and for the American people to think he is balanced. Ending America's political disfunction is Job One. He may have calculated he wanted someone at Interior who had executive experience running a state natural resource department in the west, with experience working cooperatively with Developers. My guess is, on the big issues the White House will direct the overall perspective and Salazar would be the willing ambassador.
For all this to work, Mr. Obama would need to know he can get a (more) reliable senate democratic vote out of Colorado, and have Salazar on his team in Interior. This seems to me is consistent with how the President-elect is moving in all policy areas.
Re Frank C's response to my earlier post:
"Go along and get along" are vastly different.
I certainly wasn't suggesting we should "go along" with anything contrary to the best interests of parks, but I agree that for groups such as NPCA, it's important to try to "get along" with the new Secretary, until his or her actions require otherwise. If pro-park groups can't establish good communications - and a willing audience - with the Secretary and his staff, the opportunity to influence policy in the department will be greatly diminished.
As to critical statements about new political appointees, the above also applies. Those who feel there is a potential problem for the new Secretary based on previous voting records and actions should certainly be free to speak out - but they need to consider what they'll gain by doing so. I seriously doubt an "outcry" at this point will change the Obama team's choice for Secretary, so there's a trade-off between speaking out about past voting records as a matter of principle and starting out with an antagonistic relationship with the person who holds enormous power for good or bad in terms of our parks and other resources.
Frank C - I agree 100%. Unfortunately, that's tended to be the situation in recent years.
Only time will tell if that changes under the new regime. Even with the best leadership, I continue to believe that wisdom dictates you shouldn't kick the anthill unless it's your goal to break up the picnic.
DEAR FRANK C:
The issue in politics for you, for others, I submit, is being effective. That means either creating an advantage, or winning.
Otherwise, what is the point, other than shaking your fist at the sky or some other form of self-expression.
Dear Frank C:
reading suggestion: Saul Alinsky. Either of his 2 books. He is not a fan of "awareness" per se. He believes in organization.
If there really is a basis to attack Salazar at this early point, and you are trying to make something happen, you need a narrative that would engage a lot of people. Usually in America, that means you usually need to be pretty pragmatic, because no time or specific activities from Salazar have been identified that could be used as a "hook" to drive a lot of people toward concerted action, or identification with an issue.
You don't need all the public, but you need a critical mass, and you need to be focused, as JimB seems to be saying. Americans have become inured to those they perceive as attacking for the sake of attacking, and the word of these people, even if right, gets quickly dismissed. That is what I meant by "shaking your fist at the sky." As Alinsky notes you need discipline and a coherant strategy if you want to remove wool from people's eyes.
Plus, the public at large seems to be very positive overall on Obama's behavior since the Election, and I think inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
Frank C: I agree with you on ridicule and Alinsky: ridicule is the weapon of the weak. I don't really think Alinsky was a Marxist or had any kind of belief structure, actually. It seemed to me his value as a political thinker was understanding the power of organization, rather than Movements. He had no use for Movements. Many liberals, environmentalists, and romantic right-wingers can become enthralled in Movements. Alinsky is not alone in this: on the left, right or in some more nuanced dimension inhabited by thinkers.
Alinsky has many flaws, chiefly among them the lack of faith in (or even understanding of) altrusism. What he really was, was a labor organizer, a street-level theoritician. I think he was more preoccupied with respect for powerless individuals and in power for the underclass, more than Freedom. He would probably have hated the comparison, but I think he shared Theodore Roosevelt's belief in Countervailing Power. At the time, the moneyed class would roll right over most every body else, unless the common people could have enough structure, and disciplined supporters to stop them.
I only bring it to your attention because I think JimB hit a nerve, in me at least. I think people who care about parks need to stop ranting, and learn to be effective. The thing I thought was useful about Alinsky in this, is his unsentimental belief in effectiveness. I think the tactics and preoccupations of the '30's do not fit in our world, but have useful lessons.
One similarity between the 1929 and our time is the gap between rich and everybody else, and the leverage extracted by private financial interests over everybody else. Including over parks and environment. It takes a pretty silly person not to see that the threat today to freedom and a healthy future comes much more from these private financial power centers than government, except to the extent that government serves these interests, not the majority.
As we have seen, this unbridled power even threatens the fools who exercise it. Witness the collapse of the economy, and the confused priorities and "solutions" of these financial elites. As far as Beamis' stuff is concerned, I think government can be a threat, but I think the majority needs to learn to be a force in keeping government civil, democratic and focused on a sustainable future. I find primitive freedom-loving emotionally appealing, but there is no freedom or future if there is no way to govern the greedy and powerful.
Frank C.,
Although I am as wary as anyone of the weaknesses & foibles of Government, I don't see any unusual crisis at the moment, and feel no unique urgency to respond to their depredations.
It's like the lions & zebras out on the Serengeti. The lions eat the zebras. Have, for quite a long time now. Is it unfair? One could say, I suppose. Is it tragic, when the mare zebra goes down, then her colt starves & dies too? Sure it is.
But is it the end of the world? Certainly not - in fact, it's how the world works ... and in fact, it does work, has for a very long time, conflict & tragedy & all.
The real problem with governments, is that they are "institutions". All institutions, formal and informal, show a related pattern of internally-arising malignancy. The self-limiting & destructive proclivities of institutionalization have been clearly displayed ever since hunter-gatherer groups coalesced into societies thousands of years ago. "Government" is nothing more than another example in a broad & familiar array of predatory institutional actors in society.
But we still have zebras ... and we still have human society.
Vigilance: it works for zebras, and it works for citizens.
Ted Clayton