Anti-regulation rhetoric backfired by confirming public fears of industry regulatory capture

Evidence

Members of the general public, however, simply rejected the characterization. They accepted the basic premise that environmental threats were serious and substantial, and governmental regulation was, therefore, necessary. Rather than perceiving regulations as posing an equivalent threat, the public saw attacks on environmental regulation as confirming their fears that government would be “captured” by the regulated industry and, at industry’s behest, seek to enrich business at the expense of the public health and the environment. The public’s innate distrust of government and business had been an important factor in environmental law’s genesis in the 1970s. Watt and Gorsuch unwittingly retriggered that distrust and ultimately became its political victims. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 525

Categorization

• XREF: The failed reframing of regulation-as-threat and capture dynamics serve the reader’s institutional-substance purpose and connect with ch13’s claim about state-capture fears. — connects to: Reagan’s environmental attacks tripled green-group membership and quintupled donations — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 528; By the 1970s public distrust of industry had displaced the General Motors maxim. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 433; Audience backlash against attention capture can trigger industry-wide regulation and reinvention — Tim Wu, The Attention Merchants, 72 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Absolutist free-market rhetoric can backfire and persuade readers toward intervention #corroborates (0.95) — Angus Burgin, The Great Persuasion, 91
• Audience backlash against attention capture can trigger industry-wide regulation and reinvention #corroborates (0.85) — Tim Wu, The Attention Merchants, 72