AHC: Conservationist Conservatism

[John Fredrick Parker]

At what point did concern for the environment become a "liberal" issue in America, and complete disregard for the concerns of the ecologically conscious become an element of "Conservatism"? And how might it be avoided, so that people listing the environment as a top concern aren't considered "liberal" for it, possibly even leaning "Conservative" as a group? Is this even possible, while still preserving the rest of Fusionist Conservatism's dominance (what we call "Modern Conservatism" today)?

 

[vultan]

Problem is, conservationism as a political issue calls for the state to intervene in order to protect the environment. Except in isolated instances, big government has always been an anathema to conservatism.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Environmentalism can just be about people, as individuals, and business, as free enterprise institutions, and without the government telling them to do it, being pro-environmentalist.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

JTBC, so long as they show general concern for the environment (or at least genuine desire of getting the environmental vote), there's flexibity on the kinds of policies conservatives can actuly pursue. For example, even Ron Paul talks about "making polluters pay" as being consistent with a Free Market solution to environmental concerns -- so support of a Carbon Tax might be sd along those lines.

Environmentalism can just be about people, as individuals, and business, as free enterprise institutions, and without the government telling them to do it, being pro-environmentalist.

This is also a good point -- and yet just about any environmentally conscious choice a person can make (buying an electric or hybrid car; recycling; vegetarianism, or even just avoiding factory meat; etc) is typically stereotyped as "hippie" or "liberal elite" behavior by the media of the right and those who listen to it. So even that much would be a real change from OTL.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

This is also a good point -- and yet just about any environmentally conscious choice a person can make (buying an electric or hybrid car; recycling; vegetarianism, or even just avoiding factory meat; etc) is typically stereotyped as "hippie" or "liberal elite" behavior by the media of the right.

I think a lot of that comes from Conservative media and talking heads and Republican party consensus coming out against it as a talking point and labeling it something bad and specific to Liberals, just as much as it is about people on the left doing all that stuff. What came first, the chicken oir the egg, I don't know, though I do feel it is Republican PR that made it this much an anti-conservative issue. I mean science is science. It shouldn't be a debate. It isn't a debate.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I think a lot of that comes from Conservative media and talking heads and Republican party consensus coming out against it as a talking point and labeling it something bad and specific to Liberals, just as much as it is about people on the left doing all that stuff. What came first, the chicken oir the egg, I don't know, though I do feel it is Republican PR that made it this much an anti-conservative issue. I mean science is science. It shouldn't be a debate. It isn't a debate.

Is there a PoD that would allow the GOP (in its otherwise modern form) to accept the science?

 

[Russian Sailor]

Problem is, conservationism as a political issue calls for the state to intervene in order to protect the environment. Except in isolated instances, big government has always been an anathema to conservatism.

Well now adays, in the early 20th century people like Roosevelt (whom big businesses believed to be quite conservative) where also very big environmentalist.

Maybe....if you have a shift of business opinion when it comes to environmentalism than you will have conservatives also be in favor of environmentalism. Maybe if there is a larger degree of land disputes, between businesses.

Another way could be to redefine the political landscape in the U.S. If you can get liberals to be defined as (Modern day libertarians) and Conservatives be defined as what liberals are regarded as today (in economic terms).

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Another way could be to redefine the political landscape in the U.S. If you can get liberals to be defined as (Modern day libertarians) and Conservatives be defined as what liberals are regarded as today (in economic terms).

Since there are plenty of other threads on that, I'd like to avoid that approach here if possible.

 

[mad_monk13]

To me, it appears to be where and how the environmental drive is pushed. Most conservatives are for local and personal conservation, such as mulching, recycling, and what not. It's when it's mandated federally and looks more like stripping liberties, they get bristly.

You would need a POD where the conservatives fight back against the national blanket law with local and state laws. Or more local and state say in the national lands. Perhaps extensive hunting rights as a hook to draw them in?

 

[history nerd]

To me, it appears to be where and how the environmental drive is pushed. Most conservatives are for local and personal conservation, such as mulching, recycling, and what not. It's when it's mandated federally and looks more like stripping liberties, they get bristly.

You would need a POD where the conservatives fight back against the national blanket law with local and state laws. Or more local and state say in the national lands. Perhaps extensive hunting rights as a hook to draw them in?

I would agree with this, once you start placing restrictions on hunting, fishing, camping, and motor sport it gets people a bit upset, basically the difference between tourist based conservation like the Progressives loved so much and modern green conservation where whole areas are set aside with no money making function. When you set aside land for a park businesses tend to be ok because the lack of logging or whatever is made up for by tourist dollars, when you set it aside completely there's a bigger issue, this adds to the perception that "easterners" don't care about what westerners want. stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_commons doesn't help.

 

[Expat]

To those who think this is about federal overreach I respectfully disagree. Certainly the conservation vs preservation debate is important but they have nothing to do with the historical circumstances under which environmentalism became a leftist position.

There's a reason conservatives are touchy about this, and that is because they have a right to express love of country through love of the actual country since they're more likely to live in the wilder parts of it (this is just demographically true, and as a leftist hippie environmentalist I admit it.)

Since at least the GWB presidency we've seen a return to conservationism on the right, and I think that's what history nerd and mad_monk13 are talking about. But that POD is going to occur very late in the game and it can only occur after the original battle lines were drawn- that is, tree-huggers on the left, bunny-poisoners on the right.

The OP seems to want to talk about when those battle lines were drawn and stopping the split THEN, not ending it now. Is that a fair statement?

IMHO, the only way to get environmentalists on the right is if you can get the business community to look at the long-term health of the market rather than the short-term health of the market.

How the hell do you do that? Beats me. I've seen TLs on the board that kick off a paradigm shift with natural and man-made disasters that force people to take stock. But amicable foresight from the beginning without dumping an 10-month oil fire on the Grand Canyon? I don't see it. Unless we get into the realm of personality AH- some guru comes along and shakes up corporate mentalities.

 

[Tank Cdr]

The problem is that it has become a political issue and the politics of it are what people focus on. I am politically an independent, but I have more conservative values than liberal ones and I believe in taking care of the environment. However, I believe more in personal responsibility to do so than I believe that I should give yet more power (to be abused) and more money (to be wasted) to the federal government. I make personal efforts to be environmentally conscious and I really don't need a bunch of laws and regulations to make me. I want my children to have a clean, safe environment to live in, it really should not be a liberal or a conservative issue. It should be common sense!

 

[Expat]

In the interest of fairness I feel like I should talk about how the left of the 1950s might reform to allow for environmentalists on the right, rather than just thinking about how business can reform.

One obvious way is for the left not to push so far. But how to slow that down, I'm not sure.

 

[history nerd]

Since at least the GWB presidency we've seen a return to conservationism on the right, and I think that's what history nerd and mad_monk13 are talking about. But that POD is going to occur very late in the game and it can only occur after the original battle lines were drawn- that is, tree-huggers on the left, bunny-poisoners on the right.

.

I can't speak to what mad_monk13 is talking about but that is certainly not what I was referring to I was referring to the fact that conservation at the time it was first popularized was a republican invention Teddy Roosevelt almost single-handedly invented the parks system and while he was a Progressive I think conservationism could have been maintained in the republican party.

Here in SD everyone loves state parks, that's where we get our money and tourists from, but only is people can drive through it, hunt in it, fish in it etc. A really good case study involving pro-business tourist minded conservative conservationism would be the Black Hills and the work of Peter Norbeck to both preserve the environment and attract tourists through things that arguably damaged (or at least didn't preserve) the environment like Mt.Rushmore.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Capitalist-Productivist mindset is also the problem. 'Wild nature' not being 'harnassed'(?) and 'productive', and laws to protect environement fought for profits.

You need a strong state to defend environemnt, strict laws and all, for it's a neutral arbiter of things, and in a Demos Krates utilmatly, *us*.

 

[Expat]

I can't speak to what mad_monk13 is talking about but that is certainly not what I was referring to I was referring to the fact that conservation at the time it was first popularized was a republican invention Teddy Roosevelt almost single-handedly invented the parks system and while he was a Progressive I think conservationism could have been maintained in the republican party.

Here in SD everyone loves state parks, that's where we get our money and tourists from, but only is people can drive through it, hunt in it, fish in it etc. A really good case study involving pro-business tourist minded conservative conservationism would be the Black Hills and the work of Peter Norbeck to both preserve the environment and attract tourists through things that arguably damaged (or at least didn't preserve) the environment like Mt.Rushmore.

I really don't think we're disagreeing but I also don't feel like I'm explaining myself very well (which is the definition of "my problem, not yours.")

Once upon a time, liking open spaces made you an environmentalist. Conservatives never stopped fulfilling this criteria- look at Reagan for example.

But at some point liking open spaces was no longer enough to be considered an environmentalist.

"Environmentalist" became a dirty word on the right for some good reasons and some bad reasons. You've pointed out some excesses in the movement yourself, and the conservation vs preservation debate is pretty central to this. Stopping a dam to save the mud worm is a frequently cited "excess."

But environmentalists also pointed out a lot of uncomfortable facts that businesses didn't want to hear. Let's mention Silent Spring here. Let's bring up the rise of energy policy as an actual thing. It's staggering to think how recent a thing an *energy policy* even is- Teddy Roosevelt's energy policy? "More wood on the fire, this wildebeest isn't cooking through!"

It got to the point on the right where turning down any business venture for environmental reasons became verboten. You can talk about how unfairly practical conservationists on the right have been treated- I am *with* you. But you can't deny that there is a political-business axis in the Republican party that actively lobbies against environmental issues.

Now, today, they tend to make it about federal overreach, but that's today. We're looking for a way to stop the right-left split from occurring. And the split occurred over a bigger issue than just "I love open spaces." It was more about public health than anything else.

So how do you get conservatives to side with public health over business?

 

[history nerd]

public health over business... well it ain't gonna become bi-partisan so you gotta make liberals pro-business some how... except now they aren't really liberals are they? classical liberals sure, not durn stinkin 'murican liberals though

Someone already said not to make this a liberal = libertarian thread so it may not be possible. I guess I could see it if there was a distinct pro-business party separate from conservatives or if there is no new left and liberal remains more blue collar unionist.

 

[bguy]

Barry Goldwater was a major environmentalist. Have him lose the Republican nomination in '64, then win it and the Presidency in '68, and you might get there.

 

[Expat]

public health over business... well it ain't gonna become bi-partisan so you gotta make liberals pro-business some how... except now they aren't really liberals are they? classical liberals sure, not durn stinkin 'murican liberals though

Someone already said not to make this a liberal = libertarian thread so it may not be possible. I guess I could see it if there was a distinct pro-business party separate from conservatives or if there is no new left and liberal remains more blue collar unionist.

Yeah I agree with you, I don't see a way.

Classic British 19th century Tories could form a rural environmentalist right that rejects public welfare and have the other party (Liberals or Whigs or whatever you want to call them) embrace public welfare and have that evolve into public health. But that means no party of business. And that's just absurd!

Although actually...the OP says nothing about splitting off libertarians and KEEPING left-liberals.

The question is how to translate this into an American context. I'm stymied again, especially with a post-1900 POD. I could see Jeffersonians playing the Tory role...you'd have to really stretch the Federalist Party to make them the party of public welfare, though. But the good news is that, as elitists, if they decide it's their duty to look after people they don't really need a good reason to do it.

But my favorite pre-1900 POD for making capitalists care about the environment is just having Adam Smith emphasize natural capital more in his writings. Then you've got the whole system treating nature as a balance sheet from the beginning (protect the "capital" of nature and live off the "dividends.")