Glen Sussman

The USA and Global Environmental Policy: Domestic Constraints on Effective Leadership

During the past three decades, global environmental policy has increased in salience in international politics. What role has the USA, a principal actor in global affairs, played in multilateral efforts to promote environmental protection? What factors might account for US actions regarding progress or problems related to global environmental policy? In order to answer these questions, I examine the role of three principal actors in the US political system, namely, the American president, the Congress, and domestic organized interests. This discussion is followed by three case studies (the Montreal Protocol, the Convention on Global Climate Change, and the Convention on Biodiversity) that show the role of these political actors in shaping US global environmental policy. When the USA provides leadership, it bolsters multilateral efforts to address global environmental problems. When it fails to offer leadership, it weakens that effort. Either way, domestic political factors (rather than interstate relations) play a central role in shaping US global environmental policy.

The Science and Politics Problem: Policymaking, Climate Change and Hurricanes

In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Fourth Assessment Report that discussed the progress made in our understanding of the impact of natural and anthropogenic activities involving global warming and climate change. On the basis of this report, policy makers and citizens alike now have a scientific basis upon which to assess the problem of global climate change and should be encouraged to implement appropriate national and international actions in response to the warming of the planet. Given this background, this study will: 1) examine the “science and politics problem” as it relates to the subject of this book, 2) provide an overview of the scientific understanding of global warming, climate change and hurricanes, 3) focus on the political factors that influence environmental policy making with emphasis on the United States since it is a dominant global power and major producer of greenhouse gases, and 4) offer a framework that shows the conditions when science is more or less likely to have substantive input into the policy making process as it relates to global climate change.

President George W. Bush: “Pale Green” Responses to the Environment?

George W. Bush suggested during the 2000 campaign for the presidency that he would be an eco-friendly president. During his eight years in the White House, did the president use the power and resources of his office to carry out his campaign rhetoric about protecting the environment? This study examines the Bush approach to environmentalism by focusing on four important perspectives— political communication, legislative leadership, administrative actions, and environmental diplomacy—in an effort to better understand Bush’s environmental record. After a careful evaluation of the Bush presidency and the environmental domain, we offer our judgment about the Bush environmental legacy.

Review of Understanding the Presidency

Now in its fourth edition, Pfiffner and Davidson’s Understanding the Presidency continues to provide informative historical and contemporary perspectives on the American Presidency. The breadth and depth of coverage ensures that the reader gains a better understanding of all important aspects of the Presidency. The first two sections of the book offer selections from the Federalist Papers and contemporary scholars that explain the Constitutional and historical development of the institution. Moreover, a theoretical perspective is presented as Presidents Taft, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, and Lincoln offer their views on Presidential power. Next, the reader is provided with a broad discussion of electoral politics. Presidential candidates are confronted with a difficult challenge—raise huge amounts of campaign funds while successfully moving through the thicket of primary and caucus states, secure the party’s nomination and win the general election against the rival party’s nominee. Yet as Robert Reich argues, the campaign has an upper-class bias as the less well-to-do lack the same kind of access to the candidates as do the wealthy. After obtaining a majority of electoral votes, the Presidential candidate is likely to announce that a mandate for the next four years has been secured. However, Robert Dahl points out all that has been attained is the potential for the new President to push the administration’s agenda. Hugh Heclo writes, the American people are constantly subject to the ‘‘permanent campaign’’ that involves a nonstop effort to secure ‘‘public approval.’’ In the following three sections, the volume focuses on Presidents, the public, and the media; the President’s interaction with appointees and the bureaucracy; and Presidential relations with the other two branches of the federal government. Externally, a President is involved with the mass media as they ‘‘go public’’ in order to push their agenda and to organize a positive image of the administration. Internally, the chief executive heads a vast executive branch, and the modern President, in contrast to earlier Presidents, is much more involved in national policy making. In the process, as James Pffifner argues, the managerial President ‘‘leads better by

Support for television coverage of the legislative process among state legislators: A comparison of iowa, utah, and florida

The amount of media coverage of state legislatures varies across the 50 states, as do levels of public interest and citizen information about state legislative affairs. In order to assess the attitudes of those elected officials who would be most directly affected by opening up the political process to greater media coverage, survey data were collected from state legislators in Iowa, Utah, and Florida. Representatives and senators from these three geographically disparate states were asked to indicate their level of support for gavel‐to‐gavel coverage of their respective state legislatures. The findings of this exploratory study indicate that this type of media coverage is well supported in two of the three states, but that the reasons for support differ considerably. This diversity indicates the need for further investigation, in additional state settings, of the dynamics of intrastate politics in this area of public policy.