WASHINGTON D.C. - The inimitable Dick Morris, who predicted a Democratic sweep the weekend before the election, now argues that Democrats should push environmental issues as a means of regaining the political initiative. In fact, Morris says Al Gore would have won the 2000 presidential election had he pushed environmental issues harder. As the architect of Bill Clinton’s political revival following the 1994 election, Dick Morris’s political perceptions are not to be lightly dismissed. But one must wonder whether Morris has taken up his old toe-sucking habits, or whether he isn’t in fact baiting the Democrats to further desuetude.

It is hard to imagine Al Gore being more associated with environmental enthusiasm than he was in 2000. He would likely be in the White House today had it not been for the Kyoto protocol. In 2000 Gore lost West Virginia, which nearly always goes Democratic in presidential elections (Michael Dukakis won West Virginia in 1988, and Clinton won it twice), because the normally-Democratic voters in coal mining communities voted in droves for George W. Bush, knowing that Gore means to put them out of business.

Of course, in an election that ended in a tie, one can point to dozens of small issues that might have turned a state a different way. However, it is hard to imagine an old pro-growth, pro-union Democrat like Hubert Humphrey or John F. Kennedy embracing a policy that threatened the livelihood of so many unionized voters.

The results of the recent election suggest that the green vote is a paper tiger. The Sierra Club and league of Conservation Voters spent heavily on independent “issue ads” (the kind that are now banned--at least until the Supreme Court speaks--under the new campaign finance law) in several senate races, especially New Hampshire, and lost in nearly every case. Land conservation measures appeared on ballots across the country and generally did well, but then not many people are truly motivated to oppose more parkland and open space. On the other hand, the most high-profile ballot initiative in the nation, Oregon’s proposal to require labeling of genetically modified foods, got crushed 70-30.

Public opinion surveys reveal a cognitive dissonance about the environment. Huge majorities tell pollsters that the environment is a “very important” issue, but people usually say nearly every issue--crime, education, taxes--is “very important.” But in open-ended surveys usually less than five percent say it is the most important or decisive issue for determining their vote. Among these voters, Democrats enjoy a huge advantage as the party thought best able to safeguard the environment. But Democrats surely have these same voters for other reasons; it is not clear that they gain many votes from being green.

On the other hand, poll results from previous years reveal an odd phenomenon: when more voters say that the environment is the most important issue, the Democratic polling advantage starts to disappear. Exit polls from Florida, for example, show that Jeb Bush ran nearly even with Democrat Bill McBride among voters who said the environment was the most important issue. This suggests that Republicans have little to fear from the issue so long as they have a sensible environmental policy agenda.

Steven Hayward is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco and the author of The Age of Reagan--The Fall of the Old Liberal Order, 1964-1980. He can be reached via email at shayward@pacificresearch.org.