Those were just the ones that came immediately to mind. I notice that you didn’t actually provide a counterargument.
And those issues, plus a few more, are the reasons why I vote Democratic. But I usually have to hold my nose when doing so.
An uncharitable rendition of the conflict. On the contrary, I would think that a consistent conservative would view global warming, etc. with considerable alarm. After all, unrecovered externalitiesare a form of welfare–when you fail to pay for the full cost of your consumption of resources, you are asking society to subsidize your choices in the form of dirtier air, increased disease, rising seas, and so forth. Since markets do not do a good job of requiring people to pay the full cost of the use of resources (fossil fuel use being a good example), this is a good area for government intervention.
Hunting groups are a pretty good example for my OP.
furt, I like that example, though for me it is silly anyway, as I don’t think conservation should require preserving a specific species in the face of its extinction. I will have to check out this book.
Environmentalists aren’t a solid block anymore than any other demographic. It’s pretty easy to split them up into atleast two blocks, if not more. First, like earlier mentioned, you have the hunters/fishers/farmers/naturalist/etc who are actually conserving, preserving and restoring, many of whom are conservative and/or Republican. You also have the Sierra Club types, who basically file lawsuits to stop anything new from being built, be it power plants, hog farms, or dairies, which, unsurpisingly, tend to be more left orientated.
Conservatives tend to be against the Sierra Club types for two reasons. First, because they’ve been granted basically an unchecked power to sue people based on the EPA without repercussion. Second, the Sierra Club tends to get a lot of money from hippy Hollywood types, who then but in and sue a farmer to stop him from starting a dairy in Wisconsin, upsetting the local jurisdiction of affairs.
I absolutely hate having to jump in to defend Der Trihs and Brazil84 especially when they’re sniping at each other, as here, but they both have valid points, and their refutations of each other also have valid points.
And the reason behind this is that both American liberalism and American conservatism are alliances of groups with disparate ideals who are prepared to work together on those issues on which they agree. A large chunk of “Conservatives” are actuially laissez-faire Classical Liberals in the European usage (where Liberal parties are quite far to the Right) – people who believe that neither established privilege nor Big Government should be permitted to interfere with private property rights and the workings of the free market. If Brigadier Foods wants to sell peanut butter laced with strichnine, let them – the wrongful death suits and the people flocking to leave Brigadier peanut butter on the shelves in favor of buying competing brands that ‘only’ contain rat droppings will drive Brigadier’s product line off the shelves, without government regulation needed. A second group believes that the entrenched position of “cultural Christianity” (Children should be taught the Pledge of Allegiance complete with ‘under God’, led in prayers by their teachers, be given the choice between Darwinian theory and ‘Creation Science’ – pardon me while I clean the vomit off my keyboard – that’s better – now, you know, “keeping this country true to the faith of the Founding Fathers” and so on.) deserves preserving, and what the Firsst Amendment means is not complete religious freedom but simply that the Federal government cannot establish a church and that people are free to decide what variety of Christian they’ll be – but not “freedom from religion” nor “Government should assiduously avoid promoting religious practice” like them gawdless lib’ruls think. Then you get the libertarians, who have feet in both camps.
And, of course, liberals have the same groupings. Some are frankly socialist. Some are regulated free market liberals. Some are anti-gun to the point that 1/10 of the Bill of Rights needs to be interpreted out of existence. Some are left-libertarian. Some see the need for social justice to the point that the needs of the many trump the rights of the few.
Net result is that we get the uneasy balance that has prevailed in American politics, where six of one and half a dozen of the other are at odds, and only measures that can attract support from some on both sides of the fence get permanently enshrined in our culture.
The problem with that idea is that the process of you getting yours tends to make it harder for everyone else to get any, let alone theirs.
My father is a conservative, and is actively involved in several wildlife conservation and habitat programs, does his level best to ensure he uses the latest practices to ensure topsoil erosion on the farm is kept to a minimum, has planted thousands of trees, donated dozens of acres(not much admittedly, but he’s not rich by any stretch) of land to public conservation groups, organized fundraisers, etc…
The difference between him and an environmentalist is, I believe, profound. He is protecting nature, yes, not simply because he loves nature, but because he loves to be out in the woods hunting, or out on the ponds fishing… He’s protecting an asset of humankind so that we can continue to use it and enjoy it on down the line. In other words, he’s conserving human property.
IMHO, I think it boils down to conservationists believe this is our planet, and its our responsibility to take care of it and use it wisely. An environmentalist thinks that we have no right to it and that the planet must be protected from humans.
But i could be wrong.
Generally when I think of conservatives, or rather, the conservatives on the right-side tilt of American politics, it is the Evangelicals and social-conservatives that come to mind.
I can get(though disagree with) how the corporatist/fiscal-conservatives would be opposed to any environmental regulation in general, being all about the bottom line. However, it always puzzled me why the social-c’s are so vehemently opposed to environmentalism. I mean we are suppose to be stewards of this Earth, are we not?
Anecdotally, my experience is that they have hunkered themselves down in to such a siege mentality of the “culture wars” that they will disagree with any perspective from the left, because even conceding just one point those ‘Godless pinko Liberals!’ opens the door for them, the social-conservatives, to perhaps be wrong else where, specifically in their own religious beliefs. They are so afraid of any sliver of doubt entering their world views, that once they have determined their initial position, they will go on to, often in spite of their own best interest, defend the indefensible(Bush, Gitmo, anti-environmentalism). If only so they don’t have to consider the possibility that they might be wrong on other issues(evolution, gay rights, abortion, God). Basically I’m talking about those who, if you get into a debate with, will not allow for any sort of nuance and only see things as one side or the other, but no in between.
I do realize I am getting paint all over the place, and that there are certain posters here who are, themselves, a counterpoint to my post, but this is a mindset that I have personally dealt with.
ETA: I also am aware that there is a growing block of very pro-environment Evangelicals, but in counter I will point out that even they are also attacked quite viciously by many of the current establishment-Evangelicals(the Robertsons and Dobsons of the world).
Republicans/conservatives tend to lean toward having as little government regulation as possible (unless you’re doing something morally wrong). They don’t want the government telling people what to do with their money or their land. They feel that the Invisible Hand and Mother Nature (God) will balance things out naturally. Corporations will do right because they’ll go out of business if they don’t. If you let a logging company just do its thing, they’ll replant trees after they cut them down; so that they can cut them down later. Things will naturally work out with a minimum of government mucking around. They aren’t saying “fuck the environment”; they’re saying “quit coddling it.”
That’s the thinking of many conservatives, anyway.
Perhaps so. But I personally would not define Teddy as a conservative-at least not by today’s standards.
I recently read about TR’s eldest daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth, and it pretty much confirmed everything I’ve seen of TR-the Pure Food and Drug Act, the Meat Inspection Act, trust busting, his hated for big business, championship for laborers, etc.
But, then, this thread is not about Roosevelt alone-but simply conservatives. I would just say that I do not feel he is a conservative as most would describe a conservative today.
And they define “stewardship” as “use up”. You have the ones who think that God gave us dominion over the world, and we have the right to suck it dry; you have the ones who think that the world will end soon and we don’t need to worry about the future. And worst of all you have the ones who think Jesus will come back as soon as we have laid waste to the world, and are constantly pushing for as great a cataclysm as they can, whether it’s global warming or global nuclear war.
And you have the ones that think our brains and our thumbs earned us this world, and it and everything on it is ours to use as we please, but since we must be responsible owners if we want to leave anything to our children and grandchildren, it must be carefully husbanded and maintained.
Those would be the sane ones, and may the Goddess bless them and keep them and hold them to Her bountiful bosom all the days of their lives. We need all the help we can get.
Surely you must feel this viewpoint is rare in the conservatives of this day and age? I know I do, speaking as a until-recently Republican.
That’s hardly a ( modern American ) conservative position. Conservatism is about blind, short sighted selfishness and malice, not concern for the future, concern for responsibility, or husbanding resources. A conservative is someone who looks at the world as something to strip mine and bomb.
Similarly to what I just said above, try to understand that Der Trihs doesn’t exactly speak with the ringing, unified voice of American Liberalism ™
It’s not like there IS a “ringing, unified voice of American Liberalism”. Or even much liberalism to be united in the first place.
I’m not sure what your point is. Do you deny that many liberals want to enact an all out ban on many popular weapons in the United States?
Again, I’m not sure what your point is. Some liberals want to deprive people of the ability to choose not to bring lightbulbs which contain mercury into their houses. Do you deny this?
Do you deny that many liberals want the government to provide services which are essentially charitable in nature, e.g. feeding, clothing, and sheltering poor people? Do you deny that such service are funded by taxation?
Thank you (I guess), but I’m not sure you understand my position. I do agree that the groups known as “conservatives” and “liberals” are somewhat heterogenous idealogically speaking. Not only that, but both groups contain constituencies who are basically in it out of self-interest. Not to mention folks who want to impose silly ideas on other people. So it’s silly to claim that just one group is “about selfishness.” or “malice.” Because either they both are or neither are.