When its "liberal" to conserve

This week in The Corner, Rod Dreyer, author of the soon-to-be-released, Crunchy Cons, has been engaged in a mini-debate with his fellow Cornerites. Rod wonders why conservatives, and the Republican party, have allowed themselves to become the anti-environment party. (see other entries on this subject here and here.)

In north Texas, the environment is not really a liberal vs. conservative issue, but a civic issue. I asked Judge Keliher yesterday why she, as a conservative Republican, has gotten active to fight industry for cleaner air. Now, Judge Keliher is very far from the kind of goo-goo Republican you find in--how to put this?--wetter climes. She replied that for one thing, it's about health, and health-care costs. For another, it's about creating a good business climate--companies don't want to move to a region that's got bad air and the health problems that go with it. And then there's the family values thing--Judge Keliher said that she's tired of seeing little children around here having to run to the sidelines during soccer games to use their inhalers. All of these are ways to think about the environment that resonate with conservative Republican voters. If I were sitting at the RNC in Washington right now, thinking about this fall's election, I'd spend a half hour on the phone with Judge Keliher and talk about this stuff. It's foolish to let the Democrats have this issue all to themselves--and by the way, enlightened environmentalists are starting to realize how foolish they've been to put all their hopes on the Democratic Party, and are now reaching out to conservatives. All to the good, say I.

I have said before, that I really don't understand why the time-honored traditional values of stewardship and conservation of resources came to be seen as "liberal causes." Most likely its just a reflex reaction to the liberal support of some of the environmental causes. Some of those folks are over-reacting, misguided and probably more politically motivated than ecologically motivated, that is true, but to be manuevered into an inti-environment stance is to fall into the same trap that the Democrats have dropped into on the war against terror. Wen you oppose something just because your opponent is for it, you allow your opponents to stake an easy claim to some important issues.

There are ways for Republicans, including the conservatives, to work for a healthier environment and good stewardship of the natios resources, and do it better than the eco-crazies. Don't attack the cause, attack your opponent's misguided efforts behind the cause. (In the same way, Democrats missed the opportunity to attack the administration's handling of the terrorism threat and have instead become enemies of American security.)

Commonly these environmental issues get framed as jobs and business issues, but that is often a narrow and short-term way of thinking. Preserving one business blocks the development of another, and businesses, like the neighboring residents, will eventually suffer the effects of environmental degredation and depletion of resources. Note the quote from Judge Keliher above, "companies don't want to move to a region that's got bad air and the health problems that go with it."

When you deplete your fisheries, the whole region loses jobs, when you draw down your aquifers, the local economy suffers, when resident realize that the the air and water in the town hur ttheir children, land values collapse. The west is filled with ghost towns where at one time unquestioned pro-business politics was practiced. Good businesses, long-lasting businesses, need political leaders who are sensible and capable stewards, not brainless yes-men.

Technorati Tags: Environment