By the mid-1990s consensus environmental legislation had become politically impossible.

Evidence

The immediate-term political impact was palpable. Virtually none of the Republican leadership’s proposed reforms survived the Democratic attack. In addition, to guard against voter backlash, Republicans joined Democrats just before the 1996 elections to secure passage of significant safe drinking water and food quality legislation. The longer-term impact within the decade, however, was the wholesale political polarization of the environmental legislative agenda. Meaningful legislative debate and compromise essentially disappeared in both chambers. The political battle lines between the parties had, in effect, been drawn on environmental protection. For the first time in the three-decade-long history of modern environmental law, consensus legislation was no longer a politically viable option. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 677

Categorization

• XREF: Pays off ch19 (Contract with America rollbacks failing) by explaining that the rollbacks’ defeat came at the lasting cost of killing consensus legislating. — connects to: Anti-environmental Republicans rose to congressional leadership only in the 1990s as veterans. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 674; Three institutional changes caused the 1990s environmental-lawmaking collapse. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 667; The 1990s produced almost no major new federal environmental statutes. — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 663 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• The liberal-hegemony consensus ended because it could no longer be politically sustained #expands (0.85)
• Environmental lawmaking polarized completely along party lines by the 1990s. #expands (0.80) — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 685