A gas-mask wearing demonstrator during the first Earth Day celebration in 1970. (Associated Press)

 

Happy Earth Day!
To start, a quick quiz:

1. Who said the following quote:

“Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions. It has become a common cause of all the people of this country. It is a cause of particular concern to young Americans, because they, more than we, will wreak the grim consequences of our failure to act on programs which are needed now if we are to prevent disaster later.”

2. Which organization contributed the most money and support to the first Earth Day?

(Yup, you guessed it: you gotta read the post to find the answers.)

A planetary shout-out

From its scrappy beginnings 43 years ago as an effort to teach the public about America’s environmental crisis, Earth Day has evolved into a major international event. It’s now the largest secular celebration in the world, with millions of activists simultaneously participating in countries around the globe.

Right now the earth needs all the love it can get. But even in the face of today’s catastrophic environmental crises, like climate change and the vast destruction of natural habitats, environmentalism has become a staunchly partisan issue in Washington, where lawmakers repeatedly shy away from legislative action to address very urgent problems. This is evident not only in Congress’ failure to enact any comprehensive legislation on climate change, but also in the alarming number of elected officials who consider the mere suggestion of stricter environmental regulation anathema, a plot to kill jobs and weaken our economy. In fact, many lawmakers now consider the Environmental Protection Agency among the most reviled and distrusted agencies in the federal government. This was evident last year, when several Republican presidential candidates repeatedly called for the agency’s termination.

Have Americans always been so apprehensive about environmental laws and regulations? And has it always been so controversial and partisan?

The first Earth Day

Back in 1970, the environmental outlook was not so shiny either.
After decades of unfettered industrial and economic growth in the absence of strong federal environmental laws, America had managed to majorly muck up its air and water resources. Toxic effluent from factories spilling into streams and rivers was not an uncommon site in industrial areas. Countless open spaces and waterways throughout the country had become dumping grounds, and air pollution was so bad, it frequently left urban areas shrouded in thick blankets of smog.

Consider this timeline of events:

• November 1966: In New York City, 168 people die of respiratory-related illnesses over a 3-day period due largely to horrendous air quality.

• March 1967: Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall, announces the first official list of endangered wildlife species in the U.S. 78 animals are named, including the symbol of American itself: the Bald Eagle.

• January 1969: A blowout at an offshore oil rig near Santa Barbara spills upwards of 10,000 gallons of crude oil for 10 days into the Santa Barbara Channel and onto nearby beaches. At the time, it’s considered largest oil spill in American history (sadly, it now ranks third, overtaken by the 1989 Exxon Valdez and 2010 Deepwater Horizon).

• June 1969: A particularly fetid industrial stretch of the Cuyahoga River running through Cleveland bursts into flames (seriously) when oil-soaked debris in the water is ignited by sparks from a passing train.

“If the people really understood that in the lifetime of their children, they’re going to have destroyed the quality of the air and the water all over the world and perhaps made the globe unlivable in a half century, they’d do something about it. But this is not well understood.”

That’s a quote from Senator Gaylord Nelson, a Democrat from Wisconsin, who spearheaded the first Earth Day organizing effort.

Nelson formed a congressional steering committee, invited California Republican Congressman Pete McCloskey to co-chair it and hired 25-year-old Harvard Law School dropout Denis Hayes to direct the undertaking. Borrowing from the Vietnam War protest model, the mission was to organize environmental teach-ins throughout the nation, all during the course of a single day.

With a very limited budget and no email or internet access (didn’t exist yet), Hayes and his small group of young organizers mailed out thousands of letters to high school and college student body presidents across the nation requesting their participation. The group successfully brought together volunteers in dozens of cities and college campuses to organize local events.

Denis Hayes in the Earth Day campaign office (Associated Press)

The Earth Day organizing effort caught on like “gangbusters,” said Nelson.
On November 30, 1969, the New York Times reported: “Rising concern about the ‘environmental crisis’ is sweeping the nations campuses with an intensity that may be on its way to eclipsing student discontent over the war in Vietnam.”

Hayes, who was interviewed in the recent PBS documentary Earth Days, recalls the sentiment:

“Lord knows what we thought we were doing. It was wild and exciting and out of control and the sort of thing that lets you know you’ve really got something big happening … What we were trying to do was create a brand new public consciousness that would cause the rules of the game to change.”

 

In all, 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, marking the single largest demonstration in U.S. history.

Recalls Hayes: “It was a huge high adrenaline effort that in the end genuinely changed things. Before (that), there were people that opposed freeways, people that opposed clear-cutting, or people worried about pesticides, (but) they didn’t think of themselves as having anything in common. After Earth Day they were all part of an environmental movement.”

A rally in Philadelphia as part of the first Earth Day celebration (AP)

And that brings us to the second question of the quiz: The group that was most supportive – financially and otherwise – of the first Earth Day organizing effort was the United Auto Workers.

An organization not generally known for championing environmental causes, the UAW donated money, provided volunteers across the country, and paid the printing costs of promotional materials.

UAW President Walter Reuther pledged his organization’s full support for Earth Day and for subsequent environmental legislation.

In one speech, he said:

“The labor movement is about that problem we face tomorrow morning. Damn right! But to make that the sole purpose of the labor movement is to miss the main target. I mean, what good is a dollar an hour more in wages if your neighborhood is burning down? What good is another week’s vacation if the lake you used to go to is polluted and you can’t swim in it and the kids can’t play in it? What good is another $100 in pension if the world goes up in atomic smoke?”

UAW-sponsored flier

Soon thereafter, General Motors’ president Edward Cole promised “pollution free” cars by 1980 (that didn’t quite pan out).

The era of environmental regulation

Before we get to that, here’s the answer to the first question of our little quiz. The quote was by none other than (drum roll, please):
President Richard Nixon … during his State of the Union address in 1970.

Yes, that Nixon, best remembered as the conservative Republican who appealed to the “silent majority,” prolonged America’s involvement in Vietnam, and resigned in disgrace over the Watergate scandal.

Nixon, however, also oversaw and approved the most sweeping environmental regulations in the history of our nation – the very ones responsible, in part, for the fresh air and clean water we enjoy today.

Even before the first Earth Day, Congress and the president began taking action. On January 1, 1970, Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act, which among other things, required environmental impact statements for major new projects and developments.

Environmentalism had never been one of Nixon’s big political priorities, but his administration recognized the growing media attention and public pressure around the issue. In other words, he realized that pushing forward strong environmental regulation was, at that point, a prudent political move.

Three months later, President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

By the end of 1970, he had signed an extension of the Clean Air Act. Now considered the single most important piece of air pollution legislation in American history, it required the newly formed EPA to create and enforce regulations on airborne pollution known to be hazardous to human health, and, among other things, led to the universal installation of catalytic converters in cars.

By the end of 1972, the Clean Water Act, the Pesticide Control Act (which banned DDT), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act had all been signed into law by Nixon. A year later, he signed the Endangered Species Act and soon thereafter the Safe Water Drinking Act.

Most of these bills were approved with bipartisan support in Congress, some almost unanimously.

In a televised speech in 1972 Nixon said:

“I have sent to Congress today a sweeping set of proposals to clean up our nation’s air and water. This is the most far reaching and comprehensive message on conservation and restoration of our natural resources ever submitted to the Congress by the President of the United States. We are taking these actions not in some distant future, but now, because we know that it is now or never.”

By and large, the regulations worked. Environmental conditions vastly improved. America had been on the brink of ecological disaster, and we did something about it while we still had the chance.

The next decade — through the presidencies of Republican Gerald Ford and Democrat Jimmy Carter — was somewhat of a heyday for environmentalism in America. Which is not to say that there weren’t strong voices of opposition and major lingering environmental problems. Nonetheless, during this era legislators on both sides of the aisle agreed that protecting the environment simply made the most sense.

In 1979, just before the price of a barrel of oil hit $30, President Carter had solar panels installed on the White House roof in support of his Federal Solar Research Institute. He said: “We must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources.”

 The end of the green honeymoon

And then, with the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980, the environmental honeymoon came to a swift conclusion. By the end of the first year of his presidency, Reagan had issued an executive order giving the Office of Management and Budget (OMB ) the power to regulate environmental proposals before they became public. He also cut the EPA’s budget by almost half. In his second term as president, Reagan even took the symbolic action of dismantling the solar panels on the White House roof.

And since then, a unified political drive to protect the environment has never quite been revived.

The benefit of tangible problems

Organizers of the first Earth Day had a key advantage: the problems they were trying to tackle were clearly visible and impacted everyday life. Kids couldn’t swim in public lakes and rivers because they were too polluted; parks and open spaces were strewn with trash; people were getting poisoned by pollution in the air. And because of those very tangible problems, there was a clear and urgent connection made between environmental policies and quality of life.

Today, many of the issues at play are perhaps even more threatening – on a global scale – but also more abstract. The idea, for instance, that human action can be the cause of a couple of degrees increase in the global temperature, and that in turn can cause massive disasters is a much harder idea to convey to people who haven’t yet felt the impact.

Interestingly, though, in the wake of the many natural disasters that swept through the U.S. in 2012, the percentage of Americans who said they believed in the concept of climate change has risen slightly. And in his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama broke his long-held silence on the issue and urged Congress to begin to address the problem.

This minor shift in public opinion has clearly not been enough yet to inspire any substantive legislative action in Washington. But it does suggest that when faced with the threat of environmental disaster, Americans grow more willing to accept the idea of regulation. That’s at least, what led to major changes in the 1970s.

What degree of environmental degradation will be powerful enough to inspire real change today?

Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Wait … Californians actually voted to tax increase their own taxes?

Get outta here!

Like most Americans, California residents don’t look too kindly on the notion of raising taxes. In fact, voters have rejected statewide tax measures the last seven times they’ve been on the ballot!

So in many ways, it’s pretty miraculous that on Tuesday 54 percent of California’s electorate approved Proposition 30, which temporarily increases sales tax for everyone by a quarter cent and raises income taxes for those making over $250,000. The measure, which Governor Jerry Brown crafted and threw himself behind, is expected to raise about $6 billion a year and prevent massive cuts to the state’s already beleaguered public education system.

Here’s how it’ll affect you:

Brown staked much of his political reputation on winning what became a bitter, hard-fought, and incredibly pricey fight; both sides waged a relentless ad war, collectively spending more than $120 million.

“I know a lot of people had some doubts and some questions: Can you really go to the people and ask them to vote for a tax?” Brown told supporters at the victory party late Tuesday night. “Well here we are. We have a vote of the people – I think the only place in America where a state actually said, let’s raise our taxes for our kids, our schools, for our California dream.”

And he was right. In a state where voters haven’t approved a tax hike in almost three decades, the very real threat of huge cuts to education appears to have actually resonated with voters.

The consensus seemed to be: “Yes, taxes suck, but some things are just too important to lose.”

The temporary nature of the tax, also, likely made the measure more palatable to voters.

Interestingly, it was younger voters who turned out in force on Tuesday in support of the measure. Voters ages 18-29 – who Brown and his campaign targeted – made up almost 30 percent of the electorate and were critical in pushing the measure through.

The Background

In 1992, 18-year-old Kimber Reynolds was attacked by two men who attempted to steal her purse outside a restaurant in Fresno. One of the men shot her in the head. She died 26 hours later. The  25-year-old shooter – who was killed shortly thereafter in a police standoff – was described by police as a hardcore drug user who had been repeatably jailed on gun and drug charges, and who just two months earlier had been released from state prison where he served a sentence for auto theft.

After his daughter’s death, Mike Reynolds began fighting for a statewide tough-on-crime policy to keep potentially violent criminals off the streets. His effort gained widespread support following the kidnapping, rape and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas just eighteen months later.

In 1994, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 184, known as the “Three Strikes and You’re Out Law,” which Reynolds helped author. In effect ever since, the law has significantly increased the length of prison sentences for second and third time offenders who had a serious or violent original conviction  Even if repeat convictions are minor – such as petty theft or drug possession – a second strike offense now results in double the normal prison term. A third strike gets a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life. Of the roughly 24 states with a three strikes type  law, California’s is widely considered the harshest.

Californians remain sharply divided over three strikes. Advocates like Mike Reynolds are quick to note the dramatic decrease in crime statewide since it was enacted: by 2004, the statewide violent crime rate had gone down by half.

But opponents argue that the law unfairly imprisons scores of low-level offenders for excessive periods at a huge expense to taxpayers. In the decade after the law’s passage, the state prison population increased by roughly thirty percent, and the prison budget skyrocketed. Today, of the more than 41,000 second and third strike inmates in California’s prisons, more than half are serving elongated sentences for non-violent crimes. Of these, more than 6,000 are for drug-related offenses.

All attempts to reform three strikes, including a ballot proposition in 2004 have failed. But on Nov. 6, California will again reconsider the issue, and vote on Proposition 36, a measure that which would significantly revise the three strikes law, resulting in shorter sentences for many non-violent, non-serious offenders.

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that if Prop 36 passes, it will save California roughly $70 to $90 million annually. Opponents of the proposition, however, warn that doing so will severely compromise public safety.

Additional Multimedia Resources

three-part series, and interactive timeline on California’s three strikes law.

(Most inmates in county jail awaiting trial or serving time for a misdemeanor, or who are on probation, can still vote, according to the California Secretary of State’s voting guide for current and former inmates).

And this raises an important question: is voting a privilege that should be denied to people who commit crimes, or is it an inalienable right?

Most states in the U.S. seem seem to agree with the former idea. In fact, only two – Maine and Vermont – allow their prisoners and parolees to continue voting.

According to The Sentencing Project, 5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote – disenfranchised -  in 2008 due to a felony conviction. That figure is expected to rise to nearly 6 million for this election, including 1.4 million African-American men.

Among disenfranchised felons, nearly 75 percent are not actually behind bars at all – most are either on parole, probation, or have completed their sentences altogether.

Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Virginia have the nation’s strictest felon voting restrictions, in which felons permanently lose their voting rights.

Where do you stand?

Source: ACLU

Additional Resources

• ProCon.org
• National Conference of State Legislatures

More resources on the two tax propositions

What’s the deal with “the safety net”? The presidential candidates spend a lot of time talking and arguing about it, and the Democratic and Republican party platforms both seem to have pretty different perspectives on the role it should play in our lives.

So what is it? And who needs it? And why’s it gotta be such an issue?

In short, the safety net is a general term for the many government-funded social welfare programs intended to keep lower-income citizens from falling through the cracks – things like food stamps and subsidized health care. But the thing is, these programs aren’t cheap, and deciding how much of our tax revenue should go to pay for them is always a major point of contention – especially in hard economic times. Liberals often argue that providing necessary public services to society’s lower classes is not only the moral path, it’s actually good economic policy, in that it helps lift folks out of poverty and into more economically productive roles. Conservatives, though, often contend that the safety net is another example of big government reaching too far into our private lives. It’s and inefficient and financially irresponsible system that makes poor use of our hard-earned tax dollars, and creates a cycle of dependency, not independence.

So who’s right?

Check out the video, produced for The Lowdown by the folks at Explainer Music.

There once was a time not so very long ago when people actually functioned without television (gasp). And then, just like that, it arrived … and spread like wildfire.

In 1948 less than one percent of American homes had TVs. By 1954 – a mere six years later -  more than half of all American’s had a boob-tube in the house. By 1958, that rate had soared to over 80 percent,  and today hovers at about 97 percent.

That’s according to University of Wisconsin Journalism Professor James L. Baughman, who documents the rapid rise of TV in American life. “No other household technology,” he writes, “not the telephone or indoor plumbing, had ever spread so rapidly into so many homes.”

It didn’t take political campaigns long to catch on to the enormous power this new technology offered; the green light to instantly infiltrate the living rooms of millions of Americans, more directly, personally, and visually than ever before. (Franklin D. Roosevelt was actually the first U.S. president to appear on TV – in 1939 as part of a World’s Fair exhibition in New York – a broadcast that reached a handful of TV sets in the vicinity).

The very first TV campaign ads were launched in the 1952 presidential race. Leading the charge was Republican candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower (and his running mate Richard Nixon). The campaign spent roughly $1.5 million on ads, twice that of Democratic opponent Adlai Stevenson. The first series of spot ads, called “Eisenhower Answers America,” featured a seemingly average citizen asking a laughably scripted and leading question, to which Eisenhower frankly responded, staring directly into the camera, utterly devoid of emotion or charisma. The campaign soon followed up with the now legendary “I Like Ike” animation, as well as a newsreel style clip. The ads helped Eisenhower trounce his opponent. He became the first Republican to take the White House in 20 years.

The Living Room Candidate, a project of the Museum of the Moving Image, is an impressively thorough and well curated repository of presidential campaign ads in every election since 1952. Here are 10 of the heaviest hitters (note the wide variations between negative/fear-inducing and euphorically positive):

Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “I Like Ike” (1952)

In a recent article about the birth of political consulting firms, New Yorker reporter Jill Lepore wrote: “Eisenhower was so unfamiliar with recording equipment that once, in front of a microphone, which was on, he grumbled, “How the hell does this thing work?” But, like everyone running for office after him, he was coached, and groomed, and buffed, and polished. And made up.”

Eisenhower won with 83 percent of the electoral vote

John F. Kennedy’s “Kennedy For Me” (1960)

At 43, John F. Kennedy was to become the youngest elected candidate in U.S. history. Attacked by his opponent Richard Nixon as inexperienced, this jingle ad helped turn Kennedy’s youth into an asset, someone who is “old enough to know and young enough to do.”

Kennedy won with 56 percent of the electoral vote.

Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Daisy Girl” (1964)

Part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 re-election bid, this became among the most famous campaign commercials of all time. It ran only once as a paid advertisement – during an NBC broadcast of Monday Night at the Movies on September 7, 1964 – but was enough to scare the pants out of the electorate and help paint his Republican opponent, Barry Goldwater,  as a dangerous right-wing extremist.

Johnson won with 90 percent of the electoral vote.

Hubert H. Humphrey’s “Laughter” (1968)

Even though Democrat Hubert H. Humphrey ended up losing the election to Richard Nixon, this ad still packed a punch in its attempt to portray Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s relatively unknown running mate, as a political neophyte, so inexperienced as to be, well, laughable. The ad was created by Tony Schwartz, who also made Johnson’s “Daisy” ad.

Nixon won with 56 percent of the electoral vote.

Richard Nixon’s “McGovern Defense” (1972)

In a re-election bid against Democratic challenger George McGovern, Richard Nixon’s campaign  very effectively emphasized the notion that Republicans represent military strength and the concern that a Democratic commander-in-chief would severely cut defense spending and place America in a dangerously vulnerable position. At this point, the U.S. was still enmeshed in the Vietnam War, and defense remained a pivotal issue.

Nixon won with 97 percent of the electoral vote.

Ronald Reagan’s “Morning In America”

This is part of a series of ads collectively known as “Morning in America” that use idyllic scenes of productivity and suburban life to suggest that President Reagan had successfully restored American optimism and revived the economy from the prolonged period of high inflation and unemployment that persisted under his Democratic predecessor Jimmy Carter. The ads helped Reagan defeat his Democratic opponent Walter Mondale in a landslide.

Reagan won with 98 percent of the electoral vote.

George H.W. Bush’s “Revolving Door”

This crushing ad attacked a program that Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis had supported as governor of Massachusetts allowing prisoners to be released on weekend furloughs. The ad capitalized on the case of Willie Horton, one of the program’s participants, who ended up committing murder and rape while on furlough. The black-and-white ad successfully cast doubt on Dukakis’ ability to govern, striking a major blow to his campaign.

Bush won with 80 percent of the electoral vote.

Bill Clinton’s “Man From Hope” (1992)

An edited down version of a much longer biographical film shown at the 1992 Democratic Convention, it’s widely considered among the most compelling biographical ads ever made. Emphasizing Clinton’s small town roots it conveys the candidate’s strong work ethic, wisdom and sense of humanity.

Clinton defeated Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush with 69 percent of the electoral vote.

George W. Bush’s “Windsurfing” (2004)

The most effective and memorable ad of the 2004 election, it successfully drove home the argument consistently used by the Bush campaign that his Democratic opponent John Kerry was a “flip-flopper” who followed the political winds.

Bush won with 53 percent of the electoral vote.

Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can” Web Ad

Among the most unconventional campaign ads to date, it was only available on the web and produced by Will.i.am of The Black Eyed Peas and Jesse Dylan, Bob Dylan’s filmmaker son (as opposed to professional campaign consultants). The ad put music to Obama’s New Hampshire Primary concession speech (after he lost the state to Hilary Clinton). It features a succession of over 30 celebrity performers singing his words. First posted on YouTube, the video quickly went viral, with over 26 million views in just a few days. It lead to an online fundraising boom and a new wave of momentum for Obama’s campaign.

Obama beat Republican John McCain with 68 percent of the electoral vote.

Watch Map Center: What If the Battleground States Go Red? on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

Because nearly every state in the nation has a winner-take-all presidential electoral system (except Nebraska and Maine), the outcome on election day in most states is fairly predictable. No Republican presidential candidate, for instance, has won California since 1988, and there’s no sign of that trend changing anytime soon. So it wouldn’t be the smartest move to put your money on Mitt Romney here.

Likewise, Texas hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1976. So Barack Obama’s chances of winning over the Longhorn State this election? Pretty slim.

Of course, on the rare occasion there have been some monumental upsets. Take Indiana, which hadn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, but in 2008 picked Obama (albeit narrowly and ephemerally: the state is back to it’s solid red roots this year).

The majority of the presidential race is downright predictable.

So where’s the suspense? Where’s the action?

A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the election, so in most elections, the race comes down to the battleground states: those toss-ups that are divided pretty evenly between Republicans and Democrats and have lots of unpredictable independent voters.  It’s these states that typically have been the wildcards in recent elections, the one’s with the power to literally “swing” the outcome of a presidential race, and the places you’ll very likely find the candidates in the weeks and months leading up to the election.

As in 2008, the biggest swing states this year (the one’s with the most electoral votes, that is, and a history of vacillating) are Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and North Carolina. All of them chose Obama in 2008, and current polls show him retaining a slim lead in most. The individual outcomes, though, still remain very much up in the air.

There are a ton of good interactive electoral maps out there (so I’ll restrain myself from creating another one). I particularly like the Los Angeles Times interactive, which provides an electoral calculator, a clear breakdown of past election results, and an interface users to play with different swing state scenarios.

latimes.com

270ToWin, which I’ve referenced in past posts, also has a great set of maps and resources, including state-by-state historical voting patterns. The site includes an interesting electoral college prediction calculator based on current polling numbers.

Additionally, the BBC has a great interactive to learn more about battleground states, their populations, and the most compelling issues that might sway voters there.

So, then, what are the main factors that determine how a swing state might lean in a given election? There are many, of course, but among the most influential is the economy equation, A lot of voters evaluate the sitting president’s performance on current economic conditions (even if those trends had already taken shape prior to a president assuming power). Because the U.S. economy continues to be sluggish, and unemployment rates are particularly high in key swing states like Ohio, many of the on-the-fence voters who chose Obama in 2008 will likely be quite a bit harder to win over this time around.