Know anyone who hates the environment? I
don't. We all love pristine beaches, wooded trails, and soaring mountains. We
take joy in sharing these places with our children.
And yes, even Republicans appreciate lakes
and trees. And yet they are widely perceived as "anti-environment."
Why is that?
It's because they are obliged to check the
relentless environmental agenda of the left, which they rightly believe goes
too far. This puts them in a position of always saying "no" to policies
that seem just fine to our minimally informed electorate.
What could possibly be wrong, for example,
with a bill called, say, the "Clean Water for Our Children Act”? Likely plenty, if you read the details. But to
the casual observer it seems as if Republicans just want slightly dirtier
water.
"We are pro-environment, too, just
less so," is not a coherent philosophy.
But as long as Republicans keep merely reacting to the overreach of the
left, that's how it’s going to look.
What Republicans need is a positive
message, a way to champion the environment, one that is understandable and
consistent with conservatism, and clearly delineated from the destructive
approach of the left.
The good news is that such a philosophy
already exists: it's called conservationism. Even better, it is an approach
with deep roots in the Republican Party: Teddy Roosevelt, founder of our
national parks system, was its first political champion.
Decades before eco- became a mischievous prefix, there was conservationism. It is
a pragmatic philosophy. It takes the
view that we all benefit from nature and therefore act as its careful stewards.
It acknowledges that humans and the environment are inextricably linked. A
conservationist preserves a forest, but also judiciously hunts and logs.
A conservationist says, "We have been
given this tremendous gift, and it's up to us to manage it wisely."
Environmentalism, however, is a sterner
affair and qualifies as an ideology, one that views man as outside nature and
its mortal enemy. Progressives get certain memes in their heads—population bomb, climate change, sustainable—and
turn them into religious manias. Rational thought is discarded. They talk about
high-sounding goals, but never weigh the concrete results of their policies.
Yes, it would be wonderful if all our energy
came from hydropower or solar, but conservatives point out the disastrous
economic effects of pursuing such pristine goals in a precipitous manner. To
the environmentalist, this is irrelevant.
Conservationists take a judicious
"cost/benefit" view of nature, while environmentalists do not. Conservationists
husband resources for both use and aesthetic pleasure, while environmentalists
believe that nature has innate “rights” that supersede our own.
Nature is a blessing. It is to be respected
and preserved, but for our own benefit. The cost of everything must be weighed
against the benefits. One hundred years ago, Republicans had this right, and it
is time to look back in order to move forward.
