Party politics and the environmentwho are generally seen as less dependent on the support of business inter-
ests and more sympathetic to environmental causes. Indeed, environmental
groups have become a leading part of the Democratic coalition; in some
districts, particularly in the western states, the endorsement of key environ-
mental groups and activists can play a critical role in securing the Demo-
cratic Party nomination. One reason for the less enthusiastic, even hostile,
response of the Republicans may be their greater dependence on the finan-
cial backing of large corporations and polluting firms which have been most
critical of the burden imposed by environmental regulations (Kamieniecki
1995 :164). It seems likely that the huge financial contributions by the major
energy producers to the Republican presidential campaign in 2000 encour-
aged President George W. Bush to take a pro-industry stance on issues such
as the Kyoto Protocol, and oil and gas drilling in the Arctic wilderness (The
Guardian,8June 2005).
Although the relative greenness of the Democratic Party presents Ameri-
can voters with a clearer choice than their British counterparts, the signifi-
cance of this partisan cue should not be exaggerated. Most American voters
do not view the environment in as strongly partisan terms as the political
elite: a clear majority of voters consistently detect no difference between
the two parties(Kamieniecki 1995 :163; Guber 2003 :ch.6). The weakness
of American parties dilutes the partisan cues communicated to the elec-
torate.So, too, do the geographical and ideological differences encompassed
bytheloose coalitions that make up the Democratic and Republican Par-
ties. Congressional roll-call voting patterns for environmental legislation
show that Democrats and Republicans do not always vote along party lines,
although instances of Republicans (especially in the eastern states) support-
ing environmental protection legislation and Democrats (especially from
theDeep South) opposing them are becoming less common (see Box5.6).
The Democrats have found it easier to be greener in opposition than
in power. Clinton, despite benefiting from Democratic majorities in both
Houses between 1992 and 1994, did not give priority to environmental
interests. Only after 1994, when confronted by a hostile Republican-majority
Congress that effectively blocked his efforts in all these areas, was he more
willing to speak out – almost as a voice of opposition – against its anti-
environmental measures.
Where partisan differences do matter is in attracting the small environ-
mental issue public to the Democrat banner. These core environmentalists
have traditionally been loyal and committed Democrats; they are much more
likely to identify with and vote for that party (Tatalovich and Wattier 1999 :
176–7). In the 1992 presidential election, for example, this group voted for
Clinton over Bush by a ratio of more than 5:1 (Vig 2006 :108). In short,
they areahighlypartisan sub-group compared to the electorate at large.
Significantly, they seem to prefer the Democrats primarily as a reaction to
the anti-environmentalism of the Republicans, rather than from a positive
enthusiasm for, or confidence in, the Democrats. Before Nader’s intervention