Critics of American environmental legislation charge that the Clean Air and Clean Water acts are classic examples of symbolic politics, in which politicians set goals that are clearly unattainable in order to placate the public. What do you think are the costs and benefits of adopting unrealistically ambitious legislative goals?
I will answer this in regards to environmental legislation and specifically target the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, but I am interested in your opinion in other political arenas/agendas as well...
Talk to me...
Posts
Oh dear
5 hours ago
2 comments:
I haven't really looked into the clean air/water acts. The problem I see with setting unattainable goals is the same as if I were to set them for myself. You soon realize that you can't attain it, so you often quit trying. However, I also think that there is something to be said to have something to strive for - something that you really have to work for.
I agree with Jenny -- If these goals are completely unrealistic, we're not going to even try.
If we could set up some information that said that *points* here is where we are and *point* here is where we WANT to be ... and this *points to path* is HOW we're going to get there with what funds (and how we're getting them) ... Well, something like that would be excellent. And, hopefully, it would even please a good chunk of people.
I, personally, get irritated when I KNOW that politicians are just giving lip service to things. It's condescending and makes me feel like they don't think I'm smart enough to know the difference between anything.
But that's just me. ^_^
Post a Comment