|
Who Speaks for the West?
The West is changing—fast. Once the bastion of Republican governorships and fiercely
independent regionalism, it has seen a swing toward Democratic control and new ways of
doing things. That shift has brought mixed feelings.
For the old guard, it is unsettling. For the
new regimes—and for observers like Pat Williams and Hal Harper,who are among those
quoted below—the challenges are accompanied by fresh opportunities.
For traditionalists,
belief in the old ways has never faltered, and yet recapturing past dreams seems an ideal that
faces longer odds than in its glory days.
And meanwhile,who speaks for the West? What are
the reasons for the West’s marginality in the national political scene? We asked some experts
and found a broad range of views.
David Sirota, anationally syndicated newspaper
columnist and a spokesperson for the Campaign
for America’s Future (where he serves as cochairman
of the Progressive States Network) told
AC that the West does not have a lot of regional
voices in the political media and that that void has
permitted the national political culture to be dismissive
of theWest.
“The West
does have
a distinct
political
culture.”
“As far as I know, I am the only nationally syndicated
columnist who lives in the intermountain
West,” said Sirota,who makes his home in Denver.
“When my syndicate hired me a couple of months
ago, I think that was part of their reasoning—that
the region is underserved.
“That is unfortunate, but things are changing,
for a lot of reasons. It is growing, population-wise,
which makes it more politically important. It is
also being usedmore as a tourist destination and
as a natural resource extraction location.
I think
these facts have great implications for national
politics because I think theWest does have a distinct
political culture that is different from the
national political culture as presented by the
media. The region is more libertarian but also—
on civil liberties and privacy issues—it is also a
region that is suspicious of powerful institutions
like big corporations and big government. I think
that this presents opportunities and challenges
for both parties.
 “As it relates to the presidential election, it’s
hard to say, but I definitely think that the economic
populism of people like former Arkansas governor
Mike Huckabee and, on the Democratic
side, John Edwards, has a lot of power in
this region.
“You just have to look at Ross
Perot’s numbers in ’92 in the
region to know there is a
large segment of independent-minded voters
who are not the independent
kind of voters
that national political
analysts typically identify.
They typically identify
them as suburban
soccer moms, and typically
that is someone who
is socially liberal and economically conservative. But I think that in the
West, if you look at the Perot voters, you find
someone who is more personally socially conservative,
although libertarian, in their views on how
far their own personal views should be imposed
on others. But they are much more economically
populist, and much more, I think, supportive of
leaders who are willing to confront corporate
power.”
THE CHANGING WEST
By Candy Moulton
Energy, drought, pending and ongoing growth (with the related questions
about lifestyle, open spaces and wildlife corridors), plus forest health, and
“inevitably water” are the issues that dominate the West, says Wyoming Gov. Dave
Freudenthal, current chairman of the Western Governors’ Association.
That association of the chief administrators of the 17 Western states addresses
issues facing the West—carrying them to the national platform by focusing on the
subjects that are important to the region.
As representatives of a vast geographic area that stretches from the plains
across the mountains to the coastal states of Washington, Oregon, and California,
the Western Governor’s Association has a broad set of interests, and its members
represent a diverse population. One common factor is the recognition of the right
of each state to chart its own course—a fundamental principle of the Sagebrush
Rebellion and historically a guiding principle for the peoplewho lived in the West,
from American Indians to Oregon pioneers and those who followed them.
The governors “try not to support federal things that tell other states what they
are supposed to do,” Gov. Freudenthal said. Presently, however, among the governors
there is:
- Broad agreement on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP).
- Real dislike for the way the feds are reallocating their disbursements to
states.
- Agreement there has been abject failure by the feds to fulfill commitments to
the original healthy forests initiative.
The issues of theWest—forest health and fires, energy, the drought and its consequences,
the pending and ongoing growth of this region, lifestyle, outdoor
issues, and inevitably water—are interconnected because economies are interrelated.
For example, California gets its “green” image “by burning natural gas,” Gov.
Freudenthal says, “but that natural gas comes from Wyoming.”
“As you watch the energy policy sort out, there is clearly a fairly wide range of
opinions in this region about that,”Gov. Freudenthal said, “But there is no dispute
that we need to deal with both energy and climate change.”
One big difference between the Western governors—who have independent
and sometimes opposing positions on issues—and federal lawmakers is that in
Washington, D.C., when politicians “decided to disagree, they just quit talking to
each other,”Gov. Freudenthal said.
STATE VS. FEDERAL
By JesseMullins
Jr. Hal Harper, chief policy advisor to Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, shared an example of how the Western states are solving problems. “Congresshas been cutting money for theForest Service and yet you can see what is going on with fires,”Harper said. “We need a differen tway to approach forest management and fight forest fires. We need a betterway to fund the Forest Service. “Another area is the timber harvest.
When we design our timber harvests, we have very few appeals,” he said. Harper explained that appeals are objections brought by groups who are dissatisfied with the timber harvesting plans, and generallywhen appeals are brought from the public sector, they are from environmentalist groups. The basis for the appeals are often that the governmental entity that oversees the process is somehow violating the rules.
Harper said that when Montana’s state authorities administrate the plans for timber cuts on state-owned land, they encounter very few appeals. “Butwe find that when the Forest Service is involved [onfederal land in Montana], their timber cuts are almost always appealed, he said. “Because they seem to violate their own rules. And sometimes those appeals are upheld by federal courts.” |
Pat Williams, a former nine-term congressman
from Montana, said that the Rocky Mountain
West has not only been thought of as “flyover
country” geographically, it has been flyover country
politically.
“The party of Reagan thinks that if they tip their
Stetson just enough on their head, that is enough
to convince Westerners that they care,”Williams
said. “The other party thinks that if they come to
Sun Valley once a year and ski down their slopes,
that is enough to convince us [Westerners] to
vote for them. The truth is that neither party has
understood much or cared much about the Rocky
Mountain West. So the question is this: How can
candidates or parties ignore the fastest-growing,
most diverse, and most innovative region in
America and still pretend to be national in scope?”
Williams currently functions as Northern
Rockies Director for Western Progress, which he
identified as a non-partisan, eight-state progressive
policy center.
For most Westerners, the heady era of the
Sagebrush Rebellion (see related item) of the
1980s has remained the bellwether event and the
starting point for discussions on what the West
needs to do to be heard or to assert itself. Williams
takes a different view of that watershed event.
“For a quarter of a century, Westerners have
been encouraged to practice the politics of
resentment, showing anger toward what is and
has always been a legitimate partner, and that is
the federal government. The way we remember
that [resentment/anger] is the Sagebrush
Rebellion. It is thankfully in its descendancy now.”
Williams qualified his remarks by saying that his
comments pertained mostly to the intermountain West.
“When I came back from Congress 11 years ago,
of the eight governors in this [Rocky Mountain]
region, seven were on the far right. Today only three are. So in otherwords, people that have not
bought into the Sagebrush Rebellion and the
West’s anger have elected these governors. You
can be independent without being angry.”
As for the field of candidates in the ’08
Presidential race, Williams said he knows seven of
them. “And to a person they all strike me as
Easterners. [Bill] Richardson [Governor of New
Mexico] is obviously from the West, but frankly
Bill doesn’t sound like a Westerner.The candidates, Williams says, address some
issues in the West but do not do so “with a
Western accent.”
“Westerners know why candidates don’t visit
out here,” he continued. “It’s because there are
not enough people out here and not as many electoral
votes out here. But there are ideas and leaders
and energy, and that is why they should come
out here.
“Those [new] governors Iwas talking about are
an example. For example,Bill [Richardson] actually
has a smattering of Populism to him, as does
Brian Schweitzer [governor of Montana].
Schweitzer didn’t discard his jeans and didn’t
exchange his bolo tie for a silk tie when he came
into office.
If you take a look at these governors,
you see that things are changing out there, moving
toward amore populist/progressive attitude.”
A spokesman for Schweitzer’s office—Hal
Harper, the governor’s chief policy advisor and
legislative liaison—told AC that Schweitzer is “the
first true cowboy governor we [residents of
Montana] have had since 1917.”
Harper called Schweitzer the first rancher to
actually become governor of Montana.
Schweitzer is a Democrat. But Harper says that
party affiliation means less in the West than it
used to.
“I see a change in the way parties and candidates
have related to the people and I see a closer
connection between the governors and the people
of their states and a lessening of the importance
of the party itself,” Harper said. “I think people
are looking past the party to individual candidates. And that is where I see people like
Freudenthal and Schweitzer come clearly into
focus, in presenting the best interests of the people
of their state. These governors are highly
knowledgeable. Schweitzer is a soil scientist.
“Neither
party has
understood
much or
cared much
about the
Rocky
Mountain
West.”
People are demanding that kind of experienced
leadership in theWest. We have big problems we
need to tackle.
“We’re not pushing for another Sagebrush
Rebellion but we are working with the federal
agencies for reasonable and responsible management
of the land the federal government has
under its purview.”
Not all observers regard the Sagebrush
Rebellion as a bad thing. And if it is possible for
observers such as Harper,Williams, and others to
deplore the “politics of resentment” and the
methods of the Sagebrush Rebellion, for others
those tendencies underscore some larger principles
that areworth retaining.
A more conservative stance than that shown by
the foregoing observers comes from Chris
Edwards of theWashington-based Cato Institute,
a public policy think tank. Edwards cited federalism[
the division of power between state and federal
authorities] as an issue of central importance
to Westerners. The Sagebrush Rebellion was
largely contended along lines of federalism. Some
candidates in the ’08 campaign have spoken up
for states’ rights—Ron Paul and Fred Thompson
among them.
“Ron Paul [Republican candidate for president]
is certainly a strong believer in federalism,”
Edwards says. “He’s a Libertarian who talks
about the Constitution being a guiding light
to him. He cites the 10th Amendment
for its provision that the federal government
is to have few and limited
functions, with most everything left
to the states.
 “I wouldn’t trust [Rudy] Giuliani or
[Mitt] Romney [both Republican candidates]
to bemuch interested in federalism.
[Note: Romney hasmade statements about
being in favor of states’ rights.] On the
Democratic side, I suppose Bill Richardson,
who is actually more of a moderate, politically,
would be a candidate who would
appeal to theWest, being fromtheWest.
He comes across as intelligent.
“Fred Thompson does seem to have a central
understanding of the American ideal of federalism
that Reagan and our founders believed in.
That is, that the primary authority formost activities
ought to be the family and local and state governments.
That idea held for 150 years. But it all
came crashing down with FDR [and Roosevelt’s
New Deal]. Today’s candidates are all about foreign
policy and tax cuts. Reagan [by contrast] was
arguing that the federal government shouldn’t be
spending on—for instance—education. At all. He
was for closing down the Department of
Education. So that kind of thinking used to be part
of the Republican Party.
Different parts of the
country have different economies, different cultures,
and for both of those reasons,
Republicans—and Libertarians—used to believe
in federalism.
“Look at the issues—water usage, for instance.
Dams and water projects. For decades, of course,
that was run out of Washington. But why shouldn’t
Arizona, for instance, run its own water policy?
If you run it out of Washington, it ends up that
whoever is on the important committees for
water infrastructure gets to send stuff to his state.
If you’re an elected official for Louisiana, you can
fund projects for the Mississippi River. If in
Nevada, you can send money for projects for the
Hoover Dam. Administering such things from
Washington makes no economic sense.
Legislators in the East may know nothing about
the needs of cattle ranchers in theWest
.
“It becomes a freedom issue,” Edwards said.
“Reagan was big on this. Liberals like to centralize
power from local to state, then fromstate to federal.
That eliminates competition. It standardizes
everything and everyone, and doesn’t allow for
diversity.
“If people in Vermont want higher taxes, want
more governmental control of schools, more welfare,
they should be able to do it at home but not
impose those controls on people in Wyoming,
Montana, and so forth.”
|
Sagebrush Poli Sci
by Candy Moulton
In late September theWestern Governor’s Association called upon
Congress to address wildland fire concerns and long-term issues
about forest health and sustainability as well as impacts on federal
budgets. In October unprecedented wildfires swept across Southern
California, underscoring the issue. Earlier in the wildland fire season
similar devastating fires had burned across Montana, Idaho, Oregon,
and other regions.
Like the health of indicator species—sage grouse, spotted owls, and
a variety of other animals and plants—the lands of theWest,with their
forests, prairies, and grasslands—are themselves indicators of the
health and vibrancy of the region.
When drought affects rangelands,
ranchers face consequences, but so do wildlife managers and people
who enjoy recreational pursuits on public lands. When metropolitan
areas like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Denver explode with new population
they must deal with one of the most important issues ever facing
people in theWest: Where will they get water?
These public land issues are not new. In fact they can be traced to
the development of the area for human populations back to the earliest
records. Admittedly during the early generations of American
Indians there was no delineation between “public” and “private”
lands, primarily because almost all tribes historically did not believe in
individual land ownership; rather all landwas held in common.
But the
tribes did recognize territory and prior to any Western expansion by
fur trappers, emigrants, and homesteaders the tribes themselves
shifted around their territories. Of course with the encroaching
Americans and immigrants, the Indians were displaced. One common
factor for all was the idea of individual rights.
That concept led to a Western States’ revolution of sorts that began
in the 1960s, put up a head of steam in the 1970s, vented during the
1980s and 1990s, but still simmers today.
The seed for the Sagebrush Rebellion germinated in Nevada, where
some 87 percent of the land was owned by the federal government and
managed by such agencies as theU.S. Bureau of LandManagement and
the U.S. Forest Service.
In the 1960s Nevadans set forth the position
that federal public lands should be returned to state control.Theywere
quickly backed by otherWestern states,which also had significant percentage
of lands under federal authority. This Sagebrush Rebellion had
its first important measure enacted in 1976 with the approval of the
Federal Land Policy andManagementAct (FLMPA). This lawprovided
for federal lands to be retained in federal trust, butmore importantly, it
established opportunity for participation by affected citizens in rulemaking,
decisionmaking, and planning with respect to the public lands.
Further, land use management plans would be developed with citizen
participation also allowed and necessary in that process.
While nearly nine out of every 10 acres in Nevada and Alaska are
under federal control, overall in the 12 states from the Rocky
Mountainswest six of every 10 acres on average are under federal government
control. The support for the Sagebrush Rebellion came from
those states and the people who rely on a resource based economy:
farmers, ranchers,miners, loggers, developers, and other states-rights
advocates.They set forth evidence they believed supported their position
that federal ownership adversely affected local economies aswell
as usurped states’ rights.
Although stressing the importance of states’ rights a decade earlier, itwasn’t until the late 1970s that states took legislative action to solidify
their position.
Nevada legislators approved a “Sagebrush
Rebellion” bill in 1979 and other states quickly followed suit. The legislation
commonly called for a way states could control certain lands
within their boundaries.
“The Sagebrush Rebellion is an extremely complex, controversial
and emotional bundle of issues,” observed Utah Gov. ScottMatheson
in 1980. Over the years those issues have included public land grazing
allotments, mineral development, withdrawal of land for military
installations and wilderness, closure of selected public lands to hunting
and fishing, the proposed MX Missile defense system, and even
state speed limits.
But at the heart of the issue—always—has been the land. The federal
government owns more than half the land in the West. As Former
Colorado Gov. Richard D. Lamm, noted in a 1980 release, “This vast
federal holding means we are not our own landlords.We cannot control
our own destiny.”
With the election of Californian Ronald Reagan to the WhiteHouse
in 1980,Western states thought they had a champion for their cause.
While campaigning in Boise, Idaho, he had stated: “The next administration
won’t treat theWest as if it were not worthy of attention. The
next administration will reflect the values and goals of the Sagebrush
Rebellion. Indeed, we can turn the Sagebrush Rebellion into the
Sagebrush Solution.”
Following his landslide electionwin, Reagan fired off a telegramto a
“Sagebrush Convention” underway in Salt Lake City sending “best
wishes to all my fellow ‘Sagebrush Rebels’” and pledging to work
“toward a ‘sagebrush solution’…to ensure that states have an equitable
share of public lands and their natural resources.”
His appointment of James Watt—a proponent of nearly all the
states had been arguing for—as Secretary of the Interior bodedwell, or
so the Sagebrush Rebels thought. But Watt’s appointment caused
quick polarization of issues, pitted resource proponents against environmentalists,
caused Reagan to back away from his former position,
and eventually led to Watt’s resignation.
All along the States have claimed they could bettermanage the public
lands, ensuring productivity, economic stability, and providing
access for users of all kinds. Some pointed out thatmostWesternstates
had budget surpluses,while the federal government ran a deficit.
Often at the forefront of the “Sagebrush Rebellion,” Nevada was
again in the news in 1996when officials inNyeCounty asserted that the
state, not the federal government, owned national forest and other federal
land.The issuewent to theU.S.District Court, which ruled that the
land belonged to the federal government, but the court recognized
shared jurisdiction between both federal and state governments. This
meant states nowhad a court-ordered authority to be involved in decisionmaking
processes for all those acres of federal lands.
That is not the end of the Sagebrush Rebellion, however. It lives on
in places like Colorado, where the political landscape has shifted so
now there is a desire to restrict development on some public lands in
order to preserve their wild, scenic, and recreational uses.
Candy Moulton has reported on public land management, natural resource,
energy, agriculture, forest health and other Western topics for the past 30
years for a number of newspapers and magazines published primarily in the
West. She is a regular contributor to American Cowboy. |
FOR MORE ON CANDIDATES WHO SPEAK FOR THE WEST, CLICK HERE
<< BACK
TO MAIN PAGE
|
