Pataki versus Romney as environmentalists
The announcement by New York Governor Pataki that he will not seek reelection has occasioned much reflection on his legacy. One consistent theme in the media coverage has been how much of an “environmentalist” Pataki has been. It’s interesting to contrast this coverage with what Massachusetts Governor Romney, another presidential hopeful, will receive soon. Both men have chosen profoundly different strategies regarding conservation. Pataki has chosen to play the environmentalist, and least in terms of protecting openspace upstate. He has consistently mentioned his land protection program in press releases and briefings, and made it a central point of his announcement on Tuesday. His strategy appears to be to use the conservation issue to appeal to a broad section of Democrats and Republicans, knowing only a few hardcore member of the Republican base will disapprove. Romney, in contrast, has greatly reduced land conservation activities in the Commonwealth, compared with his predecessors. He has instead focused much of his political attention on the “traditional” hot button issues for Republicans: the death penalty, abortion (although his waffling backfired), and opposition to gay marriage. His strategy seems to be to appeal to the Republican base, and not worry too much about mainstream voters, who by a large margin care about conservation issues.
Which strategy will be more effective in a presidential race? Well, Romney will have less trouble in the primaries, simply because Pataki will have to justify his environmental tendencies. Pataki, in contrast, would have a useful asset in any general election: a major Democratic trump card, environmentalism.
