Download The Electoral Disconnect and its Constitutional Implications

Critique: a worldwide student journal of politics
The Electoral Disconnect and its Constitutional
Implications
Ryan Duffy
Boston College
The 113th Congress was among the least productive in modern history1
and most partisan and ideologically polarized ever2. The approval
rating averaged at 15 percent, one of the lowest approval ratings on
record3. Congressional inertia and gridlock manifested itself through a
variety of non-resolved legislative issues. The 113th Congress’s tenure,
lasting from January 3rd 2013 to January 3rd 2015, featured many
impending economic, political, and cultural issues that waxed and
waned in urgency and relevance. From the international threats of
jihadi terrorism and nuclear proliferation to the domestic burdens of
an aging population’s entitlements and deficit reduction, there was no
paucity of pressing issues it faced.
Both international and domestic in nature, one issue that
Congress faced and continues to face carries great constitutional and
democratic relevance: climate change. With no precedent in the history
of American government and no explicit acknowledgement or implicit
references in the Constitution, the issue has proven politically difficult
to address. The Constitution’s bedrock principles, the rule of
democracy and the guarantee of individual rights suggest that Congress
should address climate change. Though the United States has a
responsibility and capability to act on the issue, it has been relatively
ineffective in doing so. This article intends to show, through the issue
of climate change, how Congress has neglected its most critical
responsibility: to represent the will and interests of the American
people.
With the centralization of public policy, a schism between
constituents and their congressmen and congresswomen has
developed, and has widened further from the growing influence
wielded by special interest groups. The schism, which this article will
refer to as the electoral disconnect, negates democratic and
constitutional accountability. An apt example of this disconnect is the
de-stabilization and postponement of climate change legislation. The
Fall 2015
article will focus on how the US Congress has ceased to represent the
interests of everyday Americans and why it is unable to tackle issues
like climate change. First, the article will spell out the constitutional era
models for American government. Then it will examine the evolution
of power and responsibility at the state and national levels, explore the
incursion of special interests into politics, and address the growing
political apathy of the American public. Lastly, the article will employ
the issue of climate change to exemplify the electoral disconnect, that
is, how Congress has ceased to be representative to its constituency.
The Constitution-Era Conversation
Democracy in America, written by America’s first political commentator,
French Statesman Alexis de Tocqueville, was a political almanac of
sorts that categorized the political models and geographic diversity of
the nascent United States. Since de Tocqueville was well-versed in the
traditions of centralized French government highly autonomous from
the will of the people, the advantages and drawbacks of America’s new
political experiment were identifiable to him. He coined the name for
New England local political system “town-hall politics” and admired
it. “The New Englander is attached to his township because… he
shares in its management…he invests his ambition and his future in
it,” and eventually gains “clear, practical ideas about the nature of his
duties and the extent of his rights”4. Thomas Jefferson also saw the
importance of an engaged polity: “a well-informed electorate is a
prerequisite to democracy”5. If this is the case, “They can be trusted
with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as
to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights”6.
The levels of participation and engagement with local government, and
political engagement of constituencies, made the political formula of
the nascent United States functional and highly successful. Ultimately,
while de Tocqueville was enchanted by the local civic and
administratively-savvy polities of New England and their remarkable
52
Critique: a worldwide student journal of politics
capability to self-manage, he noted that the central government was a
necessary corollary.
The system was efficient because the highly engaged citizenry
was able to implement and monitor laws and policies while still
operating as a subsidiary to a central, regulatory government. De
Tocqueville’s passionate embrace of local government and reluctant
acceptance of a national government foreshadowed the latent tension
between the two that would threaten the Union. This antagonism
erupted with the advent of the Civil War, where dissenting political
states with localized interests and differentiated political goals seceded
from the Union. The outcome of the Civil War reified the supremacy
of the national government over state and local subsidiaries.
Centralization since the Constitution
Since de Tocqueville’s visit to America, the national government has
accrued more responsibilities as policy development has centralized.
As this centralization has occurred, Congress has enacted more
sweeping and monumental legislation. Despite the increased autonomy
of Congress, states and localities are essential in using region-specific
and differentiated knowledge to implement the national policies. Since
the Founding Era, though, states seem to have gone from being the
primary proprietors of legislation and management in De Tocqueville’s
“town-hall politics” model to the administrators and implementers.
On many occasions the states push back or even lead the national
government on legislation. For the most part, though, the passionate
embrace of politics de Tocqueville adored has eroded as necessity
dictated the build-up of a powerful national government and
centralized system. As the national government has grown it has gained
more relative power and policymaking capabilities vis-à-vis its
subsidiaries.
The growth in Congress’s policy development capabilities has
been facilitated by many events of the 20th century. Watershed
examples include the New Deal, government takeover during World
53
Fall 2015
War II, and the triumph of national government over state and local
governments during the Civil Rights era. This gradual transition has
bestowed much autonomy on the elite politicians, a reality that the
Founding Fathers, specifically the Anti-Federalists, might have hoped
to avoid. With more responsibility shifted to the national government,
political decision-making has become more monumental and less
conducive to state and local discretion. This top-down dynamic of
governing is exemplified through the National Minimum Drinking
Age Act of 1984 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; the
former virtually coerces states to follow its provisions: “The 1984
National Minimum Drinking Age Act, requires that States prohibit
persons under 21 years of age from purchasing or publicly possessing
alcoholic beverages as a condition of receiving State highway funds,”7
while the latter explicitly does: “the Federal Government plays a
central role in enforcing the standards established in this chapter on
behalf of individuals with disabilities”8. This hierarchical style of
lawmaking shows the merits of paternalistic and centralized top-down
legislation: the former rose the drinking age to a more responsible and
safe threshold while the latter secured rights for minorities and
handicapped individuals. With these strengths there are also significant
drawbacks, since state governments are not as able to act with localized
discretion and pursue their differentiated political goals.
Legislation is indiscriminately applied to the entire United
States for issues that do not require national uniformity. Issues where
national uniformity matter—such as military spending, interstate
commerce, and minting currency—are delegated to Congress in
Article 1 of the Constitution. Other issues not explicitly addressed by
the Constitution have become de facto responsibilities of the national
government, such as the guarantee and protection of minority
constitutional rights. The aforementioned Americans with Disabilities
Act represents one such example, since the national government
forced state and local governments’ hand by mandating them to
undergo an initiative they might have been unwilling to pursue
54
Critique: a worldwide student journal of politics
otherwise. Congress’s safeguard of universal, constitutional rights
exemplifies how it can effect change on its subsidiaries, whether
necessary or not.
When Congress sets national regulations all states must abide
by them, even if the regulations are not applicable to their geographic
or political circumstances. One example is the minimum wage: certain
regions of the United States with lower costs of living are forced to
enact a minimum wage that exceeds the minimum amount of money
needed for economic sustenance9. This enactment of a national
standard does not allow for the diversity of circumstances to dictate
the appropriate wage, which means that minimum wages in places with
a low cost of living may be unnecessary and unhelpful to local
economies. This minimum wage example shows the latent tension
possible with centralized policy decision-making, since balance of
power between the levels of government is altered. The national
government’s increase in autonomy—establishing a uniform minimum
wage—reduces the autonomy of state and local governments, who
would be able to gauge a fair minimum wage more accurately.
The centralization of policy development has not negated the
power of states and localities. Even though the size and scope of
national government has grown, state and local levels of government
are still very robust. Since the early 20th century, they have led the
national government on questions of woman’s suffrage, abortion,
same-sex marriage, and marijuana decriminalization. In recent years,
as some states have pushed forward with marijuana decriminalization
initiatives, they have acted in defiance of both national and local levels
of government. State governments can and do project their interests
onto the national government, though this pushback has become the
exception rather than the norm. In de Tocqueville’s time, the states
and localities were their own legislators and administers while the
central government was a passive and uninvolved overseer. Now the
model is more one of top-down rulemaking; Congress legislates and
55
Fall 2015
manages while the states and localities interpret and administer the law
with their local knowledge10.
At the time of the Founding, the national government did not
engage in the multitude of activities that it does today. The size and
scope of Congress’s policymaking abilities have increased since the
writing of the Constitution, as watershed points in history have
necessitated a centralization of public policy. The corollary to this
centralization has been the wider latitude of discretion afforded to
Congress on issues with which they have historically had little
engagement.
The Decline in Public Interest and Incursion of Special Interests
De Tocqueville praised the inclination of Americans to form
associations and celebrated these groups as a key element of
democracy. To him, they contributed to the democratic character of
the American political system: “In no country in the world has the
principle of association been more successfully used, or applied to a
greater multitude of objects, than in America”11. These groups were
formed to tackle social and political issues and reflected a strong
democratic culture, yet they have taken a very different—and
undemocratic—turn in recent years. With the political changes of the
past few decades, many powerful special interest groups and
corporations have been able to underwrite, bankroll, and influence
costly political campaigns to promote their agenda. Since the most
sweeping and influential public policy is adopted and drafted by
Congress, interest groups target individual representatives to promote
their agenda and influence the legislative process. Interest groups and
corporations, due to their specialized and technical knowledge of
specific issues, are regarded as experts by members of Congress and
allowed to draft and influence legislation. Additionally, media has
increasingly turned to subjective rather than fact-based reporting,
which contributes to the political obscurity between constituents and
Congress. From special interest groups and partisan-saturated media
56
Critique: a worldwide student journal of politics
stem legislation that represents the determination and agenda of special
interests, rather than the constituents of Congress.
The most politically potent issues and causes are centered with
the groups that have the most capital and willingness to effect change.
Wealthy interest groups and corporations have increasingly held sway
in elections by attaching conditions to campaign money and gaining
favor with political candidates. In the past 40 years, Congress and the
Supreme Court have provided avenues for increased private spending
in elections. In the 1970s Congress passed amendments to the Federal
Election Campaign Act (FECA), which set contribution limits and
spending caps for candidates. In 1976, with the case Buckley v. Valeo,
some of these amendments were challenged as violations to free
speech rights. The Supreme Court ruled that individuals and groups
“are free to spend as much as they want to promote the candidate and
his views,” so long as they explicitly refrain from using the terms “vote
for,” “defeat,” or “elect”12. In 1979, amendments were made to FECA
that created a loophole allowing individuals, unions, and corporations
to give unlimited amounts of money to parties for “party-building”
purposes. In the past 15 years, the Supreme Court has declared the
production of ads paid for by corporations or unions in the weeks
leading up to elections, unlimited spending of corporations and unions
for political campaigns, and unlimited individual donations to federal
campaigns and political parties constitutional. As a result of these
amendments and rulings, wealthy and powerful individuals, unions,
special-interest groups, and corporations have been given the
opportunity to unduly influence elections.
As special interests have gained influence at the national stage,
constituencies have become recalcitrant and unengaged. The infusion
of special interest capital into national government has been
coterminous with a decrease in political confidence among voters. In
2014, Congress’s approval rating averaged at 14%, and yearly approval
averages have not exceeded 20% for the past five years13. In the 40
years before 2008, Congress’s job approval only dipped below 20%
57
Fall 2015
twice (in 1979 and 1992)14. This downward trajectory is a result of low
productivity and ideological polarization. Political gridlock and highlypartisan politicking are influenced and exacerbated by special interest
politics and are unrepresentative of the political views and divides
between the average, centric-oriented Americans. Additionally, over
the past 50 years, voter turnout has not been sufficiently robust: on
average, roughly two-fifths of the United States eligible voting
population did not turn out for presidential elections and nearly threefifths for midterm elections15. These figures, coupled with low
Congress approval rating16, suggest that the American electorate is
collectively disappointed and unengaged17.
The decrease in Americans’ political efficacy, coupled with
federal legislation that is more unilaterally applied and less contoured
to local realities and specific circumstances, have disconnected
constituents from their congressmen and congresswomen. As Thomas
Jefferson noted, a prerequisite to political rule is the mandate of the
people. Citizens appear less interested and confident in a national
government that has broad powers and capital-backed interests. This
disconnection between average Americans and their political
representatives has created a vacuum of political legitimacy.
This schism—the electoral disconnect—has weakened
democratic procedures and ushered in an era characterized by the
prioritization of special interests and polarized ideology.
Contemporary America is nominally more democratic today than at
the time of the Founders; all ethnic and gender constituencies, barring
felons and non-citizens, have been enfranchised. While this does
signify a more democratic system, in actuality democracy has been
crippled by the incursion of special interests into politics: the corollary
of this incursion is the influx of capital and divisive ideology. Ideas that
are backed by money receive higher precedence than those without
money, and groups deeply-committed to a single idea will go to greater
lengths to transpose their wishes onto representatives—regardless of
whether these groups reside within the constituencies of the
58
Critique: a worldwide student journal of politics
representatives they are seeking to influence. As a result, private
interests can override citizens in other constituencies, and certain
issues are institutionalized without public backing. The electoral
disconnect has developed from the co-existence of a powerful
Congress, an unengaged citizenry, and groups willing and able to
influence political agendas.
From these political developments, a deeply divisive and
polarized political system beholden to special interests has emerged.
While it may seem that the country as a whole is politically polarizing
beyond compromise, it is important to note the Congress-constituency
synecdoche at play. When considering polarization, Americans should
be disentangled from their Congress because the latter does not
represent the former and the two bodies do not necessarily have
comparable aims. The gridlock and deep partisan divide of the 113th
Congress does not accurately reflect the divide in ideology between
Americans. Congress’s inability to forge bipartisanship is a testament
to how “institutionalized” special interests have become in national
politics18. Actors, most notably single-interest groups; a partisansaturated media; and hefty campaign-donors exert undue power on the
political system by investing significant amounts of time, attention, and
capital into affecting their representatives’ political agenda.
Unbeknownst to the public, Congressional discourse is “disembodied”
from their best interests. James Davison Hunter best describes this
phenomenon when he makes the case that because of electoral
detachment, “public discourse is more polarized than the American
public itself”19.
The New Congressional Accountability System and Climate
Change
The electoral disconnect, the constitutionality of the factors that give
rise to it, and its consequences are perfectly exemplified through the
issue of climate change. From a constitutional perspective, the issue
threatens Americans’ inalienable rights, and representatives are making
59
Fall 2015
decisions at the expense of their constituents. Democratically speaking,
the debate has been influenced by special interests to the point where
minority interests are promoted at the expense of a majority of
American citizens. A schism exists between what a well-enlightened
citizenry should want and what their representatives actually want. This
schism partially exists because of a special-interests sponsored
campaign to deny the existence of climate change, a phenomenon
which is accepted almost unanimously among climate scientists20.
Ultimately, the issue has been undemocratically influenced, and the
proceedings of Congress are unconstitutional because of the real
endangerment of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—safety,
freedom, and wellbeing—that climate change carries.
Climate change is a systemic phenomenon that can result in
the destruction of property and lives. There is empirical evidence that
corroborates the proposition that changes in global climate patterns
are attributed to man and his institutions21. There is also copious
evidence of its deleterious ramifications: natural disasters are
intensified22, drought is exacerbated23, and crop yield is lessened24. All
of these issues pose a threat to Americans’ inalienable rights and thus
necessitate a political response. Despite this, Congress has, for the
most part, proceeded in a recalcitrant and reckless manner by blocking
international treaties to reduce emissions and postponing climate
change legislation.
Future consequences of climate change include wildfires of
increased frequency and intensity, sea level rise, declining water
supplies, heat-related health impacts, flooding, and erosion25 . These
ramifications pose a risk to the welfare of every state in the United
States, most notably those with high-density coastal communities. The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) concluded
that if left unchecked, climate change will continue to impose massive
economic and environmental hardships on the United States26. For
current and future occupants of the earth, there will be systemic
changes that will affect everyone’s safety and well-being. Therefore, it
60
Critique: a worldwide student journal of politics
is appropriate to construe climate change as a threat to the inalienable
rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” guaranteed by the
Constitution.
Political recognition of the existence of climate change and the
direct impacts on safety and wellbeing it carries is a natural first step
towards attempting to stop it, yet many in Congress appear unwilling
to accept the phenomenon due to bad-faith debates of its existence or
an aversion to short-term costs. These politicians, who prefer
expedient political favor and short-term economic gain, are
mortgaging the rights and welfare of their constituents. For example,
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas recently said “For the last 17 years, there’s
been zero warming”27. This comment was made some 4 months before
record storms and floods killed over 30 in Texas and Oklahoma.
Some congressmen and congresswomen, who refer to
themselves as climate skeptics, doubt the existence of climate change
or any anthropogenic connection to it. Included in this cohort are
leaders in the Senate including Senator John Cornyn, Senator Jim
Inhofe, Congressman Fred Upton, and Senator Mitch McConnell. The
authenticity of their doubts is questionable; over the last few decades
the scientific community has strengthened its certainty that climate
change is happening and is induced by man. Contrary to the beliefs of
the politicians referred to above, 97 percent of climate scientists agree
that “climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due
to human activities”28. As indicated, this phenomenon is a systemic
reality that has affected, and will continue to affect, the American
citizenry negatively.
Notable leaders, including US President Barrack Obama, Pope
Francis, and US navy admiral Samuel J. Locklear III have all referred
to climate change as the biggest threat to “long-term security”29. The
potential to curb climate change and its effects exists with the option
to replace carbon emitting energy sources, accounting for climate
change’s externalities, or enacting cap-and-trade policies. Despite the
constitutional rationalization of attaining these measures, entrenched
61
Fall 2015
special interests promote denial campaigns to stave off reform and
thereby obstruct democratic accountability.
Curbing climate change is an issue which merits national
uniformity and is therefore meant for the national government; the
collective effort of its subsidiaries is insufficient for the enactment of
sweeping climate-action and fossil-fuel mitigation reform. Climate
change is simultaneously a regional and a macroscopic issue—it will
affect and endanger nation, states, and localities with the same
destruction. Therefore, in accordance with the Constitution’s
safeguard of inalienable rights, Congress should attempt to curb
climate change’s causes and mitigate its effects. Congress is neglecting
its core responsibilities: to represent the will the American people and
to protect their rights and welfare.
Certain Congress members are disseminating false information
and accommodating special interests rather than that of their
constituencies. The oil, coal, and natural gas industries have
entrenched interests antagonistic to any climate regulation because it
will threaten their runaway wealth accumulation30. For example, the
Koch brothers alone have committed millions of dollars to denying
climate change and to de-railing reform31. These industries’ credo is
clear: nature is a resource for prosperity, regulation of the environment
threatens free enterprise, and it would be economically indefensible to
change paths now. Unfortunately, their credo does not account for the
negative externalities the current system imposes on the public, and
thus, as it is promoted politically over the constitutional goal of
protecting inalienable rights, electoral accountability is negated.
As a result of this electoral disconnect, some representatives of
Congress are acting in the interests of special groups or individuals
rather than in the interests of their constituencies and states. The
interference of capital and special interests into national level politics
distorts democracy, since the politicians being influenced may not be
representatives of the groups or people paying and supporting them.
When representatives accept money from those in the fossil- fuel
62
Critique: a worldwide student journal of politics
industry or any other industry with an active interest in postponing
action to curb emissions, they are directly violating their democratic
mandate to serve the interests of their states and constituencies. Since
climate change is a threat to every citizen of the United States, this
means that congressional representatives have offered to mortgage the
rights and safety of their constituents and act in a myopic nature
according to the will of the moneyed interests. Accountability to short
political windows, economic expediency, and special groups are
replacing Congress’s mandate to serve the People’s best interests.
Climate change denial tactics obscure fact and disillusion
Americans. An indisputable issue like whether changes in climate
patterns are caused by man is debated in Congress by politicians who
are funded by groups and corporations with enormous stakes in the
conversation. Political provocateurs have jabbed that the intensity of
recent winters disprove the notion that the climate is changing; Glenn
Beck posited “I don’t think it takes a genius to see through the ‘more
snow is proof of global warming’ claim”32 while Sean Hannity stated
“It’s one of the most severe winter storms in years, which would seem
to contradict Al Gore’s hysterical global warming theories”33. Bill
O’Reilly referred to the science of climate change as “guesswork”. At
best, these claims are misguided and made by those unfamiliar with
climate science, but at worst they are an attempt to justify
congressional inaction and the preservation of the status quo at
everyone’s expense.
Jefferson and de Tocqueville stipulated that a pre-requisite for
democracy was an informed and engaged citizenry. Denial tactics
negate transparency in the government for the advancement of special
interest agendas. A knowledgeable and involved constituency can
calculate its best interests and keep political representatives beholden
to its agenda. The advancement of any special agenda through the
percolation of false information threatens the political clout and
knowledgeability of voters and reduces a democracy’s legitimacy. As
Thomas Jefferson warned, if the government is to effectively protect
63
Fall 2015
the rights of its citizens, they must engage it and give consent to its
decisions. The electoral disconnect represents the dangers of a
democratic, representative government no longer representing the
interests of Americans or protecting their rights. Climate change
underscores the perils of the electoral disconnect. The schism between
a non-engaged citizenry and a special interests-laden Congress has
ushered in an era of irresponsible lawmaking and a failure to represent
and protect the interests of all Americans.
Endnotes
Sherfinski, David. 2014. "113th Congress Narrowly Avoids ‘Least Productive’
Status: Report." Washington Times, December 29.
2 "The Polarized Congress of Today Has Its Roots in the 1970s." 2014. Pew Research
Center RSS. June 12.
3 Blumenthal, Mark and Ariel Edwards-Levy. 2015. “Congress’ Approval Rating
Remains Dismal.” The Huffington Post, January 14.
4 Alexis De Tocqueville. 1840. Democracy in America Chapter V.
5 “Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price.” 1789. January 8. Available at
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/60.html
6 Ibid.
7APIS - The 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act.
8 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Public Law 101-336. 108th Congress,
2nd session (July 26, 1990).
9 "Why Some Economists Oppose Minimum Wages." 2014. The Economist. January
22.
10 As a result of policy centralization, states and localities are protective of, and
directly accountable to, their constituencies, while Congress is the level of
government increasingly targeted by special-interest lobbying efforts. State
accountability is shown by the efforts of states in recent years to lead the national
government on certain social issues or push back on unfavorable national initiatives.
11 Alexis De Tocqueville. 1840. Democracy in America Chapter VII
12 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1. 1976.
13 Riffkin, Rebecca. 2014. “2014 U.S. Approval of Congress Remains near All-Time
Low.” Gallup. December 15.
14 Ibid.
1
64
Critique: a worldwide student journal of politics
"Voter Turnout." FairVote.. Available at
http://www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101
16 Blumenthal, Mark and Ariel Edwards-Levy. 2015. “Congress’ Approval Rating
Remains Dismal.” The Huffington Post, January 14.
17 Kohnle, Ian. 2013. "Angry, Yet Apathetic: The Young American Voter” Harvard
Political Review, December 4.
18 Grossmann, Matt. 2007. "Institutionalized Pluralism: Advocacy Organization
Involvement in National Policymaking." Paper presented in Annual Meeting of the
American Political Science Association.
19 Hunter, James Davison, and Alan Wolfe. 2006. Is There a Culture War? A Dialogue
on Values and American Public Life. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center, p. 30.
20 “The consequences of Climate Change” Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.
Available at: http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
21 Oreskes, Naomi. 2004. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change." Science v.
306, no. 5702, p. 1686; Thomas, Chris D. et al. 2004. "Extinction Risk from Climate
Change." Nature v. 427, no. 6970, pp.145-148; Parry, Martin, Jean Palutikof, Clair
Hanson, and Jason Lowe. 2008. "Squaring up to reality." Nature Reports Climate
Change, pp. 68-71.
22 Van Aalst, M. K. 2006. The Impacts of Climate Change on the Risk of Natural
Disasters. Disasters, v. 30, pp. 5–18.
23 “Climate Change Indicators in the United States.” Environmental Protection Agency.
Available at http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/
24 Seifert, Cristopher and David Lobell. 015, ‘Response of Double Cropping
Suitability to Climate Change in the United States’, Environmental Research Letters,
vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1-6.
25 “The consequences of Climate Change” Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.
Available at: http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
26 Ibid.
27 Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Fox News Interview. 2015.
28 W. R. L. Anderegg. 2010. “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences vol. 107, no. 27, pp. 12107-12109.
29 Park, Madison. 2015. "Obama: No Greater Threat to Future than Climate Change”
CNN, January 21; Winfield, Nicole. 2015. "Pope Francis On Climate Change: Man
Has 'Slapped Nature In The Face'" The Huffington Post; January 15; Bender, Bryan.
2013. “Chief of US Pacific Forces Calls Climate Biggest Threat” The Boston Globe,
March 9.
30 Klein, Seith. 2012. "Inequality Undermines Collective Action on Climate Change."
Behind the Numbers, May 24.
31 Carrk, Tony. 2011. "The Koch Brothers: What You Need to Know About the
Financiers of the Radical Right." Center for American Progress, April 4.
65
15
Fall 2015
Glenn Beck, 2010. Fox News, February 10. Cited in DiMaggio, Anthony. 2010.
“Conspiracy” Science” Mass Media and the Conservative Backlash on Global
Warming" Monthly Review, March 10.
33 Armbruster, Ben. 2010. “Hannity: Snow Storms ‘Seem To Contradict Al Gore’s
Hysterical Global Warming Theories’. Think Progress, February 9. Cited in DiMaggio,
Anthony. 2010. “Conspiracy” Science” Mass Media and the Conservative Backlash
on Global Warming" Monthly Review, March 10.
32
66