Since no one seems to be willing to read the arguments being presented by the radical left that I keep linking to, let me bring this one topic right into the thread for discussion.

It is one of the question/answers--just one-- from the 'Monkeywrench Hope' interview I linked to above & in the "Can We Do Better..." thread.

It's addressing "stark difference" argument Kerry supporters keep regurgitating on the differences between Bush and Kerry on the environment (which Kerry's supporters keep touting as one of the "main differences" between the candidates). I've broken it up into more readable paragraphs than the original.

---------------------------------------------------

Joshua Frank:

Jeff, thanks for agreeing to this interview. So many progressives I've talked to, who admit John Kerry offers no alternative to the Bush Administration on almost every issue -- often justify their support for the Kerry ticket by saying that there is at least a stark difference between Bush and Kerry on the environmental front.

They point out such things as Bush's disregard for science, his horrible forest plan, his roll-back of Bill Clinton's roadless rule -- while they see Kerry as an environmental crusader who has received ringing endorsements from all the major environmental groups.

Having covered environmental politics since the early 1990s, how do you respond to this rationale? Do you agree that indeed there are major differences between Bush and Kerry regarding the environment?
-----

Jeffrey St. Clair:

Let's get some things straight up front. The environmental movement bears very little relationship to the "major environmental groups." The big groups, aka Gang Green, function politically as little more than a green front for the Democratic Party. Of course, they inflate Kerry as an environmental crusader. They would say, and indeed have said, the same thing about any Democratic nominee. That's their job. They do it very well, indeed. They should, because the Beltway Greens aren't really environmentalists any more in the way we used to think of enviros 15 or 20 years ago. These aren't activists, but lawyers and lobbyists, mainly from Ivy League schools, overwhelmingly white and liberal, who could (and perhaps will) just as easily be lobbying on health care, abortion rights, trade policy. They come packing with a PhD in deal making. There's no driving commitment to wilderness or burning rage about cancer alley or passionate concern about the fate of the grizzly. It's all very congenial, nicely compensated, prefabricated and totally uninspired.

The irony, of course, is that the better this new breed of eco-lobbyist do their job (i.e., act as a kind of mercenary force against the Republicans), the less seriously most rational people (except the perenniably gullible) take them. With good reason. There's more threat inflation being waged by the Big Greens, than by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. Does Bush want to pursue corporate-driven environmentally hostile policies? Of course. Is Kerry an environmental crusader? Of course, not. And there's the lie.

In it's zeal to become a Beltway player, the Big Greens have ceased to be truth-tellers. For example, the Greens say Bush has turned his back on the Kyoto protocols. True enough. But they neglect to say that Kerry turned his back first, voting against Kyoto while he was a senator and Clinton was president.

This is to say that Bush was tight with Ken Lay and covered for Enron. Right on. We all know Bush, the inveterate nick-name dropper, dubbed Lay "Kenny Boy." But they overlook the fact that Lay and the Kerry's are also very good friends and frequent dining companions. Moreover, Ken Lay was recruited by Teresa Heinz Kerry for a seat on the board of her environmental foundation, where he was assigned the task of heading the foundation's global warming task force.

They charge that Bush, fully marinated in crude oil, wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Horrible, but true. They say that Kerry opposes this. And that's true, too. But they elide the fact that Kerry told Teamster's president Jimmy Hoffa that while he won't drill in ANWR, he does plan to drill "everywhere else like never before." Where would everywhere else include? The coastal plain of Alaska, offshore waters of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, the Rocky Mountain Front, the red rock country of Utah, the deserts of New Mexico, the Powder River Basin of Wyoming.

There's more. Kerry met with the American Gas Association a few weeks ago and pledged his support for a Trans-Alaska-Canada Natural Gas Pipeline that will cut across some of the most incredible tundra and taiga on Earth -- a project that will dwarf the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. No one among the Beltway Greens even squeaked. This amounts to a grand and debilitating hypocrisy.