Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2008
In the 1950s, the Sierra Club emerged as a leader of the nascent environmental movement. In challenging a proposal to build two dams within the boundaries of Dinosaur National Monument, the Club found its voice as a public advocate for the preservation of wilderness and in the process introduced a new type of politics to old conflicts over conservation. Born out of the Dinosaur dam conflict was a new environmentalism characterized by confrontation with state authorities and emotion-laden appeals to the public for political support. The Sierra Club's success in pioneering these strategies launched it to the forefront of the new movement, elevated its executive director David Brower to icon status among environmentalists, and affirmed the philosophy of Aldo Leopold as the moral compass of the movement. In this essay, I argue that interest group entrepreneurs ought to be considered alongside institutional actors as agents of change within processes of political development. As the case of the Sierra Club demonstrates, the internal organizational politics of a group can be just as important in establishing a trajectory of political development as are processes of policy feedback.
1. Fox, Stephen, John Muir and his Legacy (Boston: Little, Brown, 1981), 218Google Scholar.
2. By politics, I mean the set of ideas, organizations, and institutions that define patterns of conflict, establish policy boundaries, and inform political debates. To say that environmental politics changed implies that patterns of conflict shifted, policy boundaries moved, and political debates were animated by different authority claims.
3. For a trenchant analysis of the development of modern environmentalism, see Bosso, Christopher, Environment, Inc. (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2005)Google Scholar. Echoing similar themes are Duffy, Robert, The Green Agenda in American Politics: New Strategies for the 21st Century (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Kraft, Michael, “U.S. Environmental Policy and Politics: From the 1960s to the 1990s,” Journal of Policy History 12 (January 2000): 17–42Google Scholar; Shaiko, Ron, Voices and Echoes for the Environment (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.
4. Hays, Samuel, Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955–1985 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5. Orren, Karen and Skowronek, Stephen, The Search for American Political Development (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 116–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6. See Lieberman, Robert, “Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change,” American Political Science Review 96, 4 (2002): 697–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7. Hays has consistently identified the postwar years as the period of transition from conservation to environment, however, his emphasis is on the social roots of political change and he identifies changing American values as the primary source of change. See Beauty, Health and Permanence. Most accounts of the rise of environmentalism point to key events in the 1960s, such as the publication of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, the oil spill off the Santa Barbara coast, or the fire on the Cuyahoga River. See, e.g., Dunlap, Riley and Mertig, Angela, eds., American Environmentalism: The U.S. Environmental Movement, 1970–1990 (New York: Taylor and Francis, 1992)Google Scholar.
8. Pierson, Paul, “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change,” World Politics 45, 4 (1993): 595–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9. Capoccia, Giovanni and Kelemen, Daniel R., “The Study of Critical Junctures: Theory, Narrative, and Counterfactuals in Historical Institutionalism,” World Politics 59, 3 (2007): 341–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10. For an overview of the traditional policy feedback perspective, see Thelen, Kathleen, “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics,” Annual Review of Political Science 2 (1999): 394Google Scholar; Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1992), 58Google Scholar; Pierson, “When Effect Becomes Cause,” 595–628.
11. Weir, Margaret, “When Does Politics Create Policy? The Organizational Politics of Change,” in Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Skowronek, Stephen, and Galvin, Daniel (New York: New York University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.
12. One of the implications of this critique of traditional policy feedback models is the possibility that significant intercurrence exists among different feedback processes such that multiple feedback processes may destabilize institutional arrangements as much as they might reinforce them.
13. Pierson, Paul, “Not Just What, but When: Timing and Sequence in Political Processes,” Studies in American Political Development 14, 1 (2000): 72–92Google Scholar; Arthur, W. Brian, Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994)Google Scholar.
14. David, Paul, “Clio and the Economics of QWERTY,” American Economic Review 75 (1985): 332–37Google Scholar; Boas, Taylor, “Conceptualizing Continuity and Change: The Composite-Standard Model of Path Dependence,” Journal of Theoretical Politics 19, 1 (2007): 33–54Google Scholar.
15. Thelen, Kathleen, How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Hacker, Jacob “Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States,” American Political Science Review 98, 2 (May 2004): 243–60Google Scholar; and Schickler, Eric, Disjointed Pluralism: Institutional Innovation and the Development of the U.S. Congress (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar have attempted to remedy this theoretical shortcoming by identifying processes of institutional conversion, institutional drift, and institutional layering, respectively, that explain incremental change over time.
16. Robertson, David Brian, “Madison's Opponents and Constitutional Design,” American Political Science Review 99, 2 (May 2005): 225–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17. Lieberman, Robert, “Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change,” American Political Science Review 96, 4 (December 2002): 698CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18. Weir, “When Does Politics Create Policy?”
19. For a similar perspective on motivation, see Fenno, Richard F., Congressmen in Committees (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973)Google Scholar.
20. Social movement theorists have made this point most explicitly. See, e.g., McAdam, Doug, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982)Google Scholar.
21. Clemens, Elisabeth S., The People's Lobby: Organizational Innovation and the Rise of Interest Group Politics in the United States, 1890–1925 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997)Google Scholar.
22. Arrow, Kenneth J., “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing,” Review of Economic Studies 29 (1962): 155–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23. See also Arthur, Increasing Returns, 112; Pierson, “Not Just What, But When,” 76.
24. Carpenter, Daniel, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.
25. Heaney, Michael, “Brokering Health Policy: Coalitions, Health Policy, and Interest Group Influence” Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 31, 5 (October 2006): 889Google Scholar; Heinz, John P., Laumann, Edward O., Nelson, Robert L., and Salisbury, Robert H., The Hollow Core: Private Interests in National Policy Making (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Carpenter, Daniel P., Esterling, Kevin M., and Lazer, Daniel M., “Friends, Brokers, and Transitivity: Who Informs Whom in Washington Politics,” Journal of Politics 66, 1 (February 2004): 224–46Google Scholar.
26. Pierson, Paul, “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics,” American Political Science Review 94, 2 (June 2000): 254CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27. There is an important distinction to be made between this notion of fit and that described by Theda Skocpol. For Skocpol, the fit between organizational capacities and institutional opportunities explains the relative success of different types of social actors. Similarly Stephen Engel suggests that the fit between organizational identity, issue salience, and institutional venue determines whether or not a particular group will be able to participate in the political process in a particular venue. I am suggesting that the fit between institutional arrangements and organizational capacities generates a self-reinforcing process of policymaking that persists over time. See Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, 54; Engel, Stephen M., “Organizational Identity as a Constraint on Strategic Action: A Comparative Analysis of Gay and Lesbian Groups,” Studies in American Political Development 21 (Spring 2007): 74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28. Capoccia and Kelemen, “The Study of Critical Junctures,” 348.
29. Because the focus of this article is on the organizational politics of change, the following analysis centers on the strategies and tactics developed by the Sierra Club as it rose to prominence in the 1950s. Less attention is paid to the origins and early development of the Sierra Club and to the later institutionalization of environmental politics. However, since these elements of interest group politics are clearly linked, discussions of relevant theoretical and empirical considerations bookend the central narrative.
30. The qualitative methods field has blossomed in recent years to the extent that there is no such thing anymore as a “qualitative approach.” This is particularly the case in comparative politics. See, e.g., Mahoney, James, “Qualitative Methodology and Comparative Politics,” Comparative Political Studies 40, 2 (2007): 122–44Google Scholar; Bennett, Andrew and Elman, Colin, “Qualitative Research: Recent Developments in Case Study Methods,” Annual Review of Political Science 9 (2006): 455–76Google Scholar; Brady, Henry E. and Collier, David, eds., Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004)Google Scholar; Mahoney, James and Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003)Google Scholar. Within qualitative methods, counterfactual analysis has itself burgeoned, though it has found more of a home in studies of international politics than in American politics. See Fearon, James, “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science,” World Politics 43, 1 (1991): 169–95Google Scholar; Lebow, Richard Ned, “What's So Different about a Counterfactual?” World Politics 52, 4 (2000): 550–85Google Scholar; Tetlock, Philip and Belkin, Aaron, Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996)Google Scholar. In American politics, see Chwieroth, Jeffrey M., “Counterfactuals and the Study of the American Presidency,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 32, 2 (2004): 293–327Google Scholar; Hacker, Jacob, “Learning from Defeat: Political Analysis and the Failure of Health Care Reform in the United States” British Journal of Political Science 31, 1 (January 2001): 61–94Google Scholar.
31. See Fearon, “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science”; Capoccia and Kelemen, “A Study of Critical Junctures”; Lebow, “What's So Different about a Counterfactual?”
32. Hacker, “Learning from Defeat,” 81.
33. Fearon, “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science,” 193.
34. Fearon, Ibid., 169.
35. Pierson, “Not Just What, but When.”
36. Sheingate, Adam, “Political Entrepreneurship, Institutional Change, and American Political Development,” Studies in American Political Development 17, 2 (October 2003): 185–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37. Salisbury, Robert H., “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 13 (1969): 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
38. Gray, Virginia and Lowery, David, The Population Ecology of Interest Representation (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 1996), 71Google Scholar; see also Walker, Jack, Mobilizing Interest Groups in America (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991)Google Scholar.
39. Salisbury, “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups,” 12.
40. Arthur makes this point most explicitly, as does Pierson. Large set-up costs are one of the four main sources of path-dependent processes that Arthur identifies. With respect to the forces that create “lock-in” effects, Arthur writes, “Capital assets … are not transferable or easily reversed, and here repositioning is costly.” See Arthur, Increasing Returns, 112–18; Pierson, Politics in Time.
41. Allin, Craig W., The Politics of Wilderness Preservation (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Fox, John Muir and his Legacy.
42. For Sierra Club history in general, see Cohen, Michael P., The History of the Sierra Club, 1892–1970 (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1988)Google Scholar; Fox, John Muir and his Legacy; Jones, Holway R., John Muir and the Sierra Club (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1965)Google Scholar.
43. Fox, John Muir and his Legacy.
44. Richardson, Elmo, Dams, Parks, and Politics (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1973)Google Scholar.
45. William Devall, “The Governing of a Voluntary Organization: Oligarchy and Democracy in the Sierra Club,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon, 1970.
46. The relationship between the Sierra Club and the two principal agencies that it came into contact with, the National Park Service and the Forest Service, was not always smooth. But generally Sierra Club leaders and agency officials found ways to compromise, usually by finding alternative locations for ecologically destructive endeavors. See, e.g., Schrepfer, Susan, “Establishing Administrative Standing: The Sierra Club and the Forest Service, 1897–1956,” in Miller, Char, ed., American Forests: Nature, Culture, and Politics (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997)Google Scholar.
47. Jones, John Muir and the Sierra Club.
48. Devall, “The Governing of a Voluntary Organization.”
49. There is little in the way of interest group literature that examines the way interest group leaders operate in this respect. The sociological tradition is the richer vein to mine here. One of the best collections of perspectives on social movements is McAdam, Doug, McCarthy, John D., and Zald, Mayer N., eds., Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996)Google Scholar. See also, Clemens, The People's Lobby; Snow, David A., et al. , “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation,” American Sociological Review 51, 4 (August 1986): 464–81Google Scholar.
50. Arthur, Increasing Returns, 112.
51. Carpenter, The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy .
52. Clemens, The People's Lobby.
53. We will also see diminishing returns associated with political moderation. Good relations with agency officials became less useful and, as the Sierra Club increased its membership, the willingness to accommodate conservative voices within the organization lessened considerably.
54. Sierra Club Records, “Dinosaur National Monument (Colo. And Utah), 1938–56,” Carton 64, Folder 14, BANC MSS 71/103 c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley; Martin, Russell, A Story that Stands like a Dam: Glen Canyon and the Struggle for the Soul of the West (New York: Holt, 1990), 52Google Scholar.
55. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Devereaux Butcher to Sierra Club,” March 4, 1950, Carton 64, Folder 15.
56. Sierra Club Records, “Internal Memo,” March 21, 1950, Carton 64, Folder 15.
57. Martin, A Story that Stands Like a Dam, 51.
58. These trips became widely available beginning in the summer of 1953. See Martin, A Story that Stands Like a Dam, 58.
59. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from JW Penfold to Richard Leonard,” November 29, 1950, Carton 64, Folder 16.
60. McPhee, John, Encounters with the Archdruid (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1971)Google Scholar. See especially McPhee's interviews with the geologist Charles Park.
61. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from David Brower to Philip Hyde,” March 30, 1952, Carton 64, Folder 18.
62. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from William Voigt, Jr., Executive Director Wilderness Society to Richard Leonard,” January 12, 1953, Carton 64, Folder 19. Reportedly, this facility would have been used to develop the hydrogen bomb. See Harvey, A Symbol of Wilderness, 90.
63. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Howard Zahniser to David Brower,” January 21, 1953, Carton 64, Folder 19.
64. Fox, John Muir and his Legacy; Miles, John C., Guardians of the Parks: A History of the National Parks and Conservation Association, (New York: Taylor and Francis, 1995), 167Google Scholar.
65. Cohen, The History of the Sierra Club.
66. Marshall, Robert, “The Problem of Wilderness,” Scientific Monthly (February 1930): 141–48Google Scholar. The article was reprinted in the Sierra Club Bulletin 31 (May 1947): 43–52.
67. Leopold, Aldo, A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There (New York: Oxford University Press, 1949), 224–25Google Scholar.
68. Nash, Roderick, Wilderness and the American Mind (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Calicott, J. Baird, ed., Companion to a Sand County Almanac: Interpretive and Critical Essays (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987)Google Scholar.
69. Poore, Charles, “Books of the Times,” New York Times, August 6, 1949, 13Google Scholar. In one of many rejection letters that Leopold's book received before it was published, one unsatisfied reviewer wrote, “What we like best is the nature observations, and the more objective narratives and essays. We like less the subjective parts—that is, the philosophical reflections, which are less fresh, and which one reader finds sometimes ‘fatuous.’ The ecological argument everyone finds unconvincing; and as in previous drafts, it is not tied up with the rest of the book.” Quoted in Meine, Curt, Aldo Leopold: His Life and Work (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988), 509Google Scholar.
70. Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind.
71. David R. Brower, Environmental Activist, Publicist, and Prophet, an oral history conducted 1974–1980, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1980, 65; Cohen, The History of the Sierra Club, 117.
72. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Howard Zahniser to David Brower,” January 21, 1953, Carton 64, Folder 19.
73. See, e.g., United States Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, “Secretary of the Interior-Designate Douglas McKay,” Confirmation Hearings, 1953.
74. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Conrad Wirth to Harold Bradley,” January 27, 1953, Carton 64, Folder 19.
75. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Martin Litton to David Brower,” July 12, 1953, Carton 64, Folder 20.
76. Sierra Club Records, Richard Leonard commenting in margin of “Letter from Martin Litton to David Brower,” July 12, 1953, Carton 64, Folder 20.
77. Sierra Club Records, “Memo from Richard Leonard to Bestor Robinson, C.R. Gutermuth, Jack Barnard, David Brower, Lewis Clark, Harold Crowe, Alex Hildebrand, Einar Nilsson, Bus Hatch, Jess Lombard, Martin Litton, Fred Packard, Joe Penfold, Olaus Murie, Howard Zahniser,” July 31, 1953, Carton 64, Folder 20.
78. The Sierra Club strategy was outlined in a memo from David Brower to John B. Elliott, then President of the California War Memorial Park Association. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from David Brower to John B. Elliott,” December 18 1953, Carton 64, Box 22.
79. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Horace Albright to Richard Leonard,” December 18, 1953, Carton 64, Folder 22.
80. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from John B. Elliott to David Brower,” Carton 64, Folder 22.
81. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from David Brower to Al Gustus,” January 6, 1954, Carton 64, Folder 23.
82. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Alfred A. Knopf to Richard Leonard,” December 21, 1953, Carton 64, Folder 22.
83. Harvey, A Symbol of Wilderness, 177–78.
84. Cohen, The History of the Sierra Club, 162.
85. Sierra Club Bulletin 35, 8 (September 1950): 6.
86. Schrepfer, Susan R., The Fight to Save the Redwoods: A History of Environmental Reform, 1917–1978 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983), 177–78Google Scholar.
87. Cohen, The History of the Sierra Club, 141.
88. Alex Hildebrand, “Sierra Club Leader and Critic: Perspective on Club Growth, Scope, and Tactics, 1950s–1970s,” an oral history conducted 1980–1982, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1982, 14.
89. Farquhar, Francis, “Sierra Club Then and Now,” in Voices for the Earth: A Treasury of the Sierra Club Bulletin, ed. Gilliam, Ann (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1979)Google Scholar.
90. On this relationship, see Richardson, Dams, Parks, and Politics.
91. At this point, conservationists were willing to sacrifice Glen Canyon to keep the dams out of Dinosaur, a position they would later come to regret. See Martin, A Story that Stands Like a Dam, 60–63; Harvey, A Symbol of Wilderness, 191–95.
92. Brower, “Environmental Activist,” 122.
93. Harvey, A Symbol of Wilderness, 213–17.
94. Brower, “Environmental Activist,” 123.
95. Martin, A Story that Stands Like a Dam, 66.
96. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Martin Litton to Richard Leonard,” September 19, 1953, Carton 64, Folder 22; also quoted in Cohen, The History of the Sierra Club.
97. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Ansel Adams to Richard Leonard,” October 8, 1954, Carton 1, Folder 21.
98. Sierra Club Records, “Memo from David Brower to Nathan C. Clark,” October 21, 1959, Carton 1, Folder 25.
99. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Bestor Robinson to John Marr,” July 20, 1953, Carton 64, Folder 21.
100. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Bestor Robinson to Richard Leonard,” July 23, 1953, Carton 64, Folder 21.
101. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Richard Leonard to Olaus Murie and Howard Zahniser,” August 20, 1953, Carton 64, Folder 21.
102. See Zeller, Belle, “Regulation of Pressure Groups and Lobbyists,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 319, 1 (1958): 94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
103. Sierra Club Records, “Conservation Policy Guide, Part XI,” 2, Carton 6, Folder 8.
104. Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 501(c)(3).
105. Sierra Club Records, “Conservation Policy Guide, Part XI,” 2, Carton 6, Folder 8.
106. Ibid., 3.
107. Ibid., 4.
108. Harvey, A Symbol of Wilderness, 260.
109. Devall, “The Governing of a Voluntary Organization.”
110. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Alfred A. Knopf to David Brower,” February 1, 1955, Carton 66, Folder 3.
111. DeVoto, Bernard, “Shall We Let Them Ruin Our National Parks?” Saturday Evening Post (July 22, 1950), 42Google Scholar.
112. The public relations offensive saw articles get placed in dozens of major news outlets, including more than twenty in the New York Times. Bernard DeVoto continued to raise awareness in his column in Harper's Magazine, Eleanor Roosevelt opined about Dinosaur in her syndicated column, and former New Dealer Raymond Moley opposed the dams in his newspaper column. Editorials and essays from newspapers across the country joined the chorus to protect Dinosaur National Monument. See Harvey, A Symbol of Wilderness, 236–37.
113. Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 215.
114. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Harold Bradley to Ansel Adams,” January 8, 1959, Box 1, Folder 2.
115. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from William Voight, JR. to Arthur Carhart,” May 2, 1955, Carton 65, Folder 18.
116. Sierra Club Records, “Telex from Fred Packard to David Brower,” May 20, 1955, Carton 65, Folder 18.
117. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from David Brower to Joe Penfold,” June 3, 1955, Carton 65, Folder 18.
118. Ibid.
119. Sierra Club Records, “Press Release,” November 1, 1955, Carton 67, Folder 17.
120. Sierra Club Records, “Letter from Howard Zahniser to Olaus Murie,” November 4, 1955, Carton 65, Folder 20.
121. Bestor Robinson, “Thoughts on Conservation and the Sierra Club,” an oral history conducted 1974, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1974, 23.
122. David R. Brower, “Environmental Activist,” 139.
123. Cohen, The History of the Sierra Club, 128.
124. Cohen, Ibid., 216.
125. The Club would grow from around 7,000 members in 1950 to over 100,000 members by 1970.
126. Schrepfer, The Fight to Save the Redwoods; Smith, Thomas G., “John Kennedy, Stewart Udall, and New Frontier Conservation,” Pacific Historical Review 64, 3 (August 1995): 329–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cohen, The History of the Sierra Club, 352–58.
127. Johnson, Erik and McCarthy, John. D., “The Sequencing of Transnational and National Social Movement Mobilization: The Organizational Mobilization of the Global and U.S. Environmental Movements” in Porta, Donatella Della and Tarrow, Sidney, eds., Transnational Protest and Global Activism (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005), 81Google Scholar.
128. Hansen, John Mark, Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991)Google Scholar.
129. Harris, Richard A. and Milkis, Sidney M., The Politics of Regulatory Change: A Tale of Two Agencies, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996)Google Scholar.
130. Fearon, “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science,” 169–95.
131. Harris and Milkis, The Politics of Regulatory Change.
132. Hays, Beauty, Health and Permanence, 52.
133. Carpenter, Daniel P. and Sin, Gisela, “Policy Tragedy and the Emergence of Regulation: The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938,” Studies in American Political Development 21, 2 (September 2007): 149–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
134. Sheingate, “Political Entrepreneurship, Institutional Change, and American Political Development.”
135. Ibid.
