From the early April edition of The North Woods Call
Rush Limbaugh calls me an “environmental wacko.”
I’m one of those people who believe in saving energy, preserving wild areas, and treating the earth as a finite resource that should be handled with care. I get alarmed when I hear about air pollution, “fracking,” food contamination, and open-pit strip mining in the Upper Peninsula.
Rush seems to hate this. He likens me to a Nazi extremist. He says I don’t understand the world’s bounty, or the simple principles of supply and demand. Worse yet, he’s convinced I’m one of those “whining liberals” who use environmental scare-tactics to push big government.
The funny thing is—in most areas of my life—I’m a fairly conservative guy.
As an independent thinker, I believe that pure conservatism—based in a deep respect for the uniquely American ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and anchored in personal faith and responsibility—makes much more sense than the frequently deceptive, often ineffective and sometimes immoral policies espoused by the major political parties. Some may disagree, but I’m convinced that those organizations are populated largely by inflexible ideologues who only see the world through their own selfish ambitions and greed.
As some Call readers have discovered, I have particular difficulty relating to modern “liberal” or so-called “progressive” thought. It seems to run counter to how most people live their daily lives. Nevertheless, I have often found myself walking hand-in-hand with left-leaning Democrats in battles to protect our natural heritage.
I wonder why that is.
Shouldn’t more conservatives be conservationists and more conservationists be conservatives?
After all, there are few things more “conservative” than protecting resources for future generations. And—language-wise at least—“conservatism” comes from the same root word as “conservation,” for crying out loud.
I know there are some members of the so-called “political right”—whatever that is—who feel as I do.
ConservAmerica, for example, is a national grassroots organization that claims to be “the environmental conscience of the Grand Old Party.” Members believe we can preserve our environment and boost our economy at the same time. They want to resurrect the GOP’s once-strong conservation tradition and restore natural resource stewardship and sound environmental protection as part of the Republican vision for America.
It seems like this would be something we could all support, but many Republican leaders—not to be confused with conservatives—don’t seem to be listening. They want to scrap laws that have cleaned up air and water, preserved natural areas, and prevented the extinction of native species.
What’s that all about?
Anybody with the smarts to get elected ought to be able to see that more—not less—needs to be done to defend the natural world that our children and grandchildren will inherit.
While significant environmental progress has been made during the past few decades, we can still benefit from cleaner air, water, soil and food supplies. And reducing wasteful consumption today will likely bring greater benefits tomorrow, including better economic performance.
You’d think more conservatives would be leading the way to safeguard our natural resources, rather than fighting against those liberals who are. If ever there was a bipartisan issue, this is it.
Few modern social concerns are as vital to our health, recreation and economic prosperity. Human progress should not be measured solely on the basis of dollars and development, but also on what we have preserved and protected.
Of course, there will always be disagreements as to how to best go about this work and far too often we’ve seen that professed concerns for the environment are just smokescreens for more sinister political agendas.
In an ideal world, we could simply educate people about environmental issues and trust them to do what’s right. Isn’t that what personal responsibility in a free society is all about?
Sadly, the reality is that individuals and corporations don’t always do what they should, and there’s an ongoing need for some kind of regulation and enforcement action.
But politicians and bureaucrats are not any more selfless and trustworthy than individuals and corporations, so there are all kinds of pitfalls on the path to good stewardship.
Republican Theodore Roosevelt called conservation “a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring safety and continuance of the nation.”
Roosevelt, of course, may have been the first “environmental wacko” to be elected President of the United States. Maybe it’s time to put another one in the Oval Office—along with several others at all levels of government and industry.
And there’s no good reason they couldn’t be conservative in thought and deed.
No comments:
Post a Comment