Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review April 4, 2001 / 11 Nissan, 5761

Amity Shlaes

Amity Shlaes
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

When domestic law arrives by the back door

Bush's focus on American economic growth rather than the environment shows a shrewd grasp of reality -- JUST when you thought the outrage over President George W.Bush's decision to reject the Kyoto protocol could not get any louder, along came Margot Wallstrom.

The European Commissioner for the environment landed in Washington on Monday to lambast Mr Bush for caving in to his father's oil industry buddies when he indicated the new administration would not support the treaty to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Ms Wallstrom accused the US president of naïvety, reiterating her point that he demonstrated "a lack of understanding of political realities".

Ms Wallstrom has it backwards. Mr Bush is responding as he is precisely because he understands political realities. His decision to focus on domestic economic growth rather than environmental concerns may indeed be pro-business. But it is even more pro-democracy. Or, at least, "pro" the interests of the democracy Mr Bush represents: the US. In fact, you can even make the case that Mr Bush is acting more democratically than leaders of nations who push for international co-operation backed only in the broadest fashion by their parliaments.

In the case of the Kyoto treaty, the matter is clear. US law gives Mr Bush the brief of governing in his citizens' interest. No law obliges him to support treaties that have not been ratified by the Senate.

Let the reader forgive an environmental pun: the Kyoto squabble is really only the tip of an iceberg. That iceberg is not the global warming issue but rather what two political scientists, Richard Rose and Edward Page, in Lawmaking through the Back Door, dub "backdoor law". In a paper published by the London-based European Policy Forum today, the pair argue that the great problem of national governance this decade will be the intrusion of international accords that have received insufficient endorsement from citizens of the countries they affect.*

Governments that are party to such accords may back them wholeheartedly. Lobbyists and pressure groups also tend to like them. Convincing a roomful of wise national leaders of something is much easier than selling a cause to a gaggle of moody electorates. But what the authors call "soft laws" are problematic, because voters view them as challengeable.

Consider global warming. Combating it may be a good idea. In recent years, the scientific evidence that industrialisation affects the global climate has mounted. But the case remains unsettled and western powers including the US are hesitant to act without sufficient proof. What is more, conservative politicians in western capitals are concerned that Kyoto imposes less stringent controls on developing countries than it does on the big economic powers. A global standard that is not enforced globally will cut at their competitiveness.

This leaves a sitting American president and sitting American lawmakers with a quandary. They are not sure they have sufficient political capital to make the Kyoto treaty US law, or that they would want to do so even if they did. In the end, President Bill Clinton did not think he could garner sufficient support for the measure. That was why his envoys waffled at The Hague in November.

From Mr Bush, support for the Kyoto Treaty would be even more of an abuse. Mr Bush's campaign position on the environment was clear. He was the anti-regulation guy - in contrast to Mr Gore, the pro-Green guy. A reversal from Mr Bush today would be a betrayal of the citizens who voted for him.

One can also argue that it would be a betrayal of the new interests of US citizens. The White House that cheered on the accord at Kyoto 1997 was acting with the confidence of a country enjoying a boom. Many Americans then felt the economy could absorb tougher rules without serious economic cost. Now the US confronts the possibility of recession. Mr Bush's battle for US energy independence is a forthright recognition that America right now cannot afford luxurious measures. In other words, the president is responding to shifting needs. That is what leaders of democratic countries are supposed to do.

Kyoto, of course, is far from the only example of backdoor law. When German lawmakers killed off the D-Mark in the face of polls showing voters wanted to keep the currency, they too generated tension. When the European Union uses its political power to push Ireland to raise taxes in the name of European fiscal harmony, it is trying to foist an international policy on a domestic populace.

The problem of backdoor law also exists within countries. In the US, a hauliers association sued the Environmental Protection Agency for tightening clean air standards without returning to Congress for approval. They lost - but the point at issue, known in legal circles as "delegation," is legitimate.

Backdoor law is often seen as a matter of leftwing concern. Left-leaning pressure groups demand that industrialised countries forgive the debt of less developed nations, arguing that it was agreed without popular consent. But as Graham Mather, the European Forum's president, points out, the case against backdoor law can be made just as easily from a liberal perspective. New regulations from an international authority are unlegislated impositions. And what seems valuable for the sake of harmonisation in places such as Brussels looks untenable in practice in Dublin or Warsaw.

Some of the conflict over backdoor law is due to differences in political tradition. To top-down Europe, the US may seem populist, a place too much dominated by short-term political impulse. To American eyes, Europe may appear captive to the cause of multilateralism and suffering as a result from a democratic deficit.

What is clear is that whenever anyone holds forth about "political reality", the question must also be asked: Whose?

JWR contributor Amity Shlaes is a columnist for Financial Times . Her latest book is The Greedy Hand: How Taxes Drive Americans Crazy and What to Do About It. Send your comments by clicking here.


03/30/01: A Lexus tax cut suits the jalopy driver
03/27/01: The unchallenged dominance of King Dollar
03/20/01: Natural selection of an intellectual aristocracy
03/16/01: The hidden danger of a regulatory recession
03/14/01: Is the American condition that boring? Why so many Oscar nominated movies aren't set in America
03/07/01: Trampling on the theory of path dependence
03/05/01: Fighting the good fight
03/01/01: It is time for Fannie and Freddie to grow up
02/27/01: IT's important
02/22/01: The guilty conscience of America's millionaires
02/14/01: The benefits of helping the 'rich'
02/09/01: The Danger and Promise of the Bush Schools Plan
02/05/01: Crack and Compassion
01/31/01: Debt is good
01/29/01: Clueless
01/24/01: A gloomy end for a half-hearted undertaking
01/17/01: The challenge of an ally with its own mind
01/15/01: An unexpected American family portrait
01/10/01: A fitting legacy for America's beloved dictator
01/08/01: The trick of tax 'convenience'
01/03/01: Time to stop blaming Greenspan over taxes
12/11/00: So smart they're dumb
12/06/00: How economic bad news came good for Bush
12/04/00: The Boies factor
11/30/00: "The inevitable demands for recounts erupted like acne…"
11/28/00: Fair play and the rules of the electoral game
11/23/00: The shining prospect beyond a cloudy election
11/21/00: Try the Cleveland model
11/16/00: A surprising winner emerges in the US election
11/09/00: Those powerful expats
11/07/00: What's right for America versus what works
11/02/00: Time to turn off big government's autopilot
10/30/00: Canada beating America in financial sensibility
10/26/00: When progressiveness leads to backwardness
10/24/00: The most accurate poll
10/19/00: The Middle East tells us the hawks were right
10/17/00: The split personalities of America's super rich
10/10/00: 'Equity Rights' or Wake up and Smell the Starbucks
10/04/00: Trapped in the basement of global capitalism
09/21/00: The final act of a grand presidential tragedy
09/21/00: Europeans strike back at the fuel tax monster. Should Americans follow?
09/18/00: First steps to success
09/13/00: America rejects the human rights transplant
09/07/00: Minimum wage, maximum cost
09/05/00: Prudent Al Gore plans some serious spending
08/31/00: A revolution fails to bring power to the people
08/28/00: A reali$tic poll
08/21/00: "I Goofed"
08/16/00: Part of the union, but not part of the party
08/09/00: Silicon Alley Secrets
08/02/00: Radical Republicans warm up for Philadelphia
07/31/00: I'll Cry if I Want To
07/27/00: Cold warrior of the new world
07/25/00: The Estate Tax will drop dead
07/18/00: Shooting down the anti-missile defence myths
07/14/00: A convenient punchbag for America's leaders
07/07/00: How to destroy the pharmaceutical industry
07/05/00: Patriots and bleeding hearts
06/30/00: Candidates beware: New Washington consensus on robust growth stands the old wisdom on its head
06/28/00: White America's flight to educational quality
06/26/00: How Hillary inspired the feminist infobabes

© 2000, Financial Times