-
Pray and Grow Rich
May 16, 2013 | 68 comments
-
Ruthie’s Way
May 2, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Free and Indivisible Union
April 25, 2013 | 70 comments
-
Revoke Obama’s Peace Prize
April 18, 2013 | 80 comments
-
What the New Atheists Ignore
April 11, 2013 | 103 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Get Back in the Game
An interview with the head of the conservative pro-environmental group ConservAmerica.
Rob Sisson is green and proud of it. As president of ConservAmerica, the conservative organization promoting the stewardship of our natural resources, Sisson is fighting a lonely, acclivous battle. Most conservatives have forsaken environmental issues and left the field entirely to extremists. This is unfortunate, says Sisson, because conservatives are the ones who historically have been the stewards of our natural resources. TAS contributor Christopher Orlet spoke with Sisson via email.
TAS: Besides the obvious etymological similarity, is there a philosophical connection between the Conservative and the Conservationist?
ROB SISSON: Absolutely. The etymological similarity reflects an underlying conceptual linkage, rooted in the traditional conservatism articulated by Edmund Burke. A core element of Burke’s thinking was the intergenerational contract — the obligation of the present generation to preserve its inherited legacy on behalf of unborn generations. While natural resources stewardship was not a pressing matter in Burke’s time, when the Industrial Revolution was in its nascent stages, the intergenerational equity principle applies to contemporary issues. The present generation has an obligation to be mindful in its use of natural resources. Wasteful consumption that is heedless of future generations is irresponsible. As Margaret Thatcher said in 1988: “No generation has a free hold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy — with a full repairing lease.”
Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver developed Burke’s ideas further during the 20th century. Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind, wrote of the inseparability of freedom and responsibility, behind which lies the practical reality that freedom can be enjoyed most fully in an orderly society in which traditions, expectations, cultural norms, and, where necessary, rules look after the common good. In his 2009 encyclical Caritas in veritate, Pope Benedict XVI cautioned: “Rights presuppose duties, if they are not to become mere license.” Weaver, author of Ideas Have Consequences, called for a humble respect for nature, an inscrutable creation with which man does not have the moral authority to tinker without heed for consequences. Weaver wrote: “Nature is not something to be fought, conquered, and changed according to any human whims. To some extent, of course, it has to be used. But what man should seek in regard to nature is not a complete domination but a modus vivendi — that is, a manner of living together, a coming to terms with something that was here before our time and will be here after it.”
That’s a lot of philosophy, I know. Ronald Reagan was supremely talented in finding ways to communicate abstract conservative ideals in grounded language that appealed to ordinary Americans. In 1984, he said: “What is a conservative after all, but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live.… And we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live — our countryside, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it.”
TAS: In your opinion are conservatives unfairly labeled as being anti-environmental? Or do conservatives deserve that label?
ROB SISSON: It’s an unfortunate reality that in today’s world of superficial media, 24/7 news cycles, and commentary designed to inflame rather than inform, granular reality is distorted into black-and-white caricatures. The Left is guilty of painting legitimate concerns about environmental policy choices as “anti-environmental.” The tendency of leftish environmentalists to view federal regulation as a desirable first choice rather than a sometimes necessary last resort, a suspicion of market-based approaches to stewardship, and rhetoric that implies all businesses are careless polluters has helped make the environment a wedge issue. It doesn’t help that nearly all well-known environmental organizations are led by Democrats. And loose talk of the environment being part of the “progressive” agenda is guaranteed to alienate conservatives.
At the same time, some on the Right have not helped matters with dogmatic attitudes about the environment, the “thick black lines” of partisan conformity that Jeb Bush has warned conservatives to avoid. Unfortunately, the philosophy espoused by many celebrity talking heads on the right is fundamentally libertarianism. Their audiences, however, have accepted that definition, completely unaware of Traditional Conservatism. When any consideration of environmental stewardship can get one branded a “RINO,” or when matters of scientific fact are turned into litmus tests for identity politics, it becomes difficult for conservatives to offer positive ideas for improving environmental stewardship based on conservative principles. Scorned on the Left and denounced on the Right, a conservative who cares deeply about protecting natural resources and cleaning up pollution can feel like a man without a country.
Conservatives should not cede environmental stewardship to the Left. Conservatives should offer better ideas for environmental stewardship. The public would be better served by having more than one set of ideas on the table.
TAS: In what important ways are conservative conservationists and liberal environmentalists different?
ROB SISSON: Liberal environmentalists tend to prefer top-down, centralized regulation for just about everything having to do with environmental stewardship. To borrow a thought expressed by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America, liberals behave like Europeans. They turn first to government for solutions to public problems. Conservatives don’t do that. We believe free and fair markets will find efficient and effective solutions. We believe, as Abraham Lincoln said, government should only do for people what people cannot do for themselves.
Private stewardship should be encouraged and supported. Land trusts are a good example. Another is private labeling to help consumers make informed choices (e.g. Marine Stewardship Council’s seafood labeling program). When government must be involved, the preference should be to leave matters to the least centralized levels of government competent to deal with the question at hand. Yes, there are matters that are properly the subject of federal action — interstate air and water pollution, and care for our national parks and wildlife refuges being a few examples. What we need is a civil debate about regulatory reform that assigns the federal government responsibility for truly national matters, and ensures that states and localities take the lead for handling regional and local matters.
TAS: Is it possible to be both pro-big business and a conservationist?
ROB SISSON: It’s not only possible to be pro-business of any size and a conservationist. It’s essential to be pro-business of any size and a conservationist. No conservative should want environmental stewardship to be left entirely up to government. Government can’t do it all, nor should it. We can have a strong economy AND a clean environment, but business technological innovation and entrepreneurship will be the key to aligning economic drivers with environmental goals. Many environmental issues are complex technical questions. To borrow a quote from Mark Twain, business can find cost-effective answers to complex technical questions before the bureaucrats can get their boots on. As a self-organizing mechanism for allocating resources, markets multiply human intelligence. What conservatives can do is show citizens how market-based approaches to environmental stewardship will work better for the economy and the environment than top-down, overly centralized, overly prescriptive regulation.
TAS: How can conservatives retake the conservationist mantle from the radical left?
About the Author
Christopher Orlet writes from St. Louis.
THKrupp| 7.5.12 @ 8:37AM
I have always wondered why Conservatives gave up environmentalism and conserving resources to the left. Or at least the appearance of it. Growing up on a farm we were always concerned about our impact on the environment. I attended many soil and water conservation meetings with my father. We built erosion control structures and implemented production practices to control erosion before it was mandated by the government. I remember sunday drives where he would point out the farmers with poor practices. My father was not liberal at all but he has a very deep understanding of what it means to be a good steward of the environment. He also preached that while it wasnt profitable in the short term. Conservation paid off in the long run and for the future generations who would be farming our ground long after we were gone. Sadly this ethic been allowed to be taken over by Democrats.
TrueBlue | 7.5.12 @ 4:17PM
Lack of proper planning is how we ended up with the Dust Bowl. Farmers have sinced learned, and you can definitely tell the ones who don't take it seriously, most of them are getting larger government subsidies so if things go bad the government will just cover their losses.
THKrupp| 7.6.12 @ 2:38PM
I wasnt talking about the dust bowl. The errosion that I saw happening was in Illinois in the early 80s. I see plenty of small farmers with bad practices as well. Its a management issue not a size issue.
Reggie Love| 7.5.12 @ 9:48AM
When he quoted Jeb Bush I stopped reading the article.
cicero| 7.5.12 @ 11:08AM
Government control of the environmental movement through regulations has very little to with environmentalism, and very much to do with control. Before the EPA, and the other acrinimic agencies were established, this country had a body of law that worked very well. It was called the nuisance laws. If anyone was impinging on the rights of others to the use and ejoyment of their resources, ther was a simple remedy. The malefactor was responsible for the damage. Now, no one can use or enjoy his resources, and the damage done by others becomes the burden of all.
Time to grossly scale bacck the size and scope of the Federal government.
THKrupp| 7.5.12 @ 11:25AM
I would not say that it worked well. The state of our environment is much better today than it was before the EPA. We dont have rivers catching on fire anymore and you dont have to worry as much about eating fish caught in the great lakes or major rivers. Before T by 2000 I remember ditches drifting full of black dirt as it blew from unprotected field in the spring. We dont see that kind of stuff anymore. I think that the EPA and other regulators do get caught up more in the collecting money portion rather than actually proctecting the environment anymore, but I dont want to go back to the pre EPA days either.
TrueBlue | 7.5.12 @ 4:20PM
Simple solution for that. Downsize the EPA so that it is a recommendation agency rather than regulation. They pass their recommendations on to Congress to vote into law, or not. This rule by regulation is not a representative government, last I checked we had a Revolution over that kind of rule...
Grant Johnson| 7.5.12 @ 11:27AM
An article extolling the virtues of an organization while telling us virtually nothing of what they stand for. I went to their web site, and they are likewise pretty coy about their actual policy positions (danger!). However, it seems they oppose drilling in ANWR, oppose coal in favor of gas, support the clean air act without stating any opposition to how EPA and the courts are twisting it, support federal spending on "clean energy" subsidies, oppose state control over western federal lands, and advance the idea that climate change is real and bad, though without commiting (anywhere I saw) to what exactly they think we should do about it. What I didn't see in my visit to their site was any pushback again regulatory excess, opposition to bloated government spending, or support for federalism and local and individual control of resources.
In other words it seems to me ConvervAmerica is at best buying into the leftist game of labeling any statist goal the left has as being "for the environment" in order to advance their cause.
Conservatives (and even most Libertarians) support genuine conservation. The real question it seems to me is where do they see the balance? Is the problem with environmental regulation today that there remain further areas in need of regulation, or is the problem excessive power being concentrated in an unaccountable government bureaucracy?
Petronius| 7.5.12 @ 11:28AM
Environmentalism is a leftist vehicle for stripping individuals of their property and wealth. We just had a special election where the options were settling for our sewer bills to be raised either 100% or 250% a month by federal EPA diktat. That's money I cannot spend enjoying my life. And they will not stop until we are like the Europeans who have no disposable income at all. Screw the environment! I want My Freedom back! All of it! My Money should stay in my pocket. And I should be able to do what I want on and with My property so long as no Real harm occurs from my actions.
The one thing not mentioned here is the original goal of environmentalists: outlawing hunting and fishing. That's why they hate the SUV's Bubba hauls his boat and camper with. The green weenies believe that the personified animals in Disney movies are Real. This is central to their Green/Red religion deifying Bambi along with Flopsie and Mopsie and Mighty Mouse. And people wonder why a kangaroo rat living in a farm field puts farmers out of business.
Environmentalists brag that they want to halt all fracking "to keep the oil and gas companies from getting at it so they cannot Sell any of it." In the end, they want Us Dead. There ought to be a bounty on 'em.
John Navratil| 7.5.12 @ 12:31PM
Petronius,
Whatever you do, don't tell a Coonass that they taste good in a gumbo.
Petronius| 7.5.12 @ 4:20PM
Let's not be uncouth. Besides, with this drought we'll need the carcasses for fertilizer.
Tom Kyba| 7.5.12 @ 11:34AM
These ideas of Orlet and Fabrizio would bring hope to us freedom lovers but unfortunately, the majority of Republicans still run like frightened bunny rabbits from the filth stream media. The point being that as soon as someone tries to bring these ideas forward, the ideas will be ridiculed by new millenium men like Chrissie Matthews, the ridicule will pass on to the other outlets, and Boehner and the rest will hide under their beds. You think they care about the republic? No, what they care about is the favorable treatment Roberts has been getting from the MSM. That's the only lesson RINOs' will pay attention to.
And if you think you've heard a lot of references from the media and their buggers-in-arms the Dems about Romneycare, you ain't heard nothin' yet. The differences will matter not a whit, as the media grills Republicans with "hey, you're guy started all this himself in Mass."
I sincerely hope Republicans can get some testosterone injections, because if your system ends up anything like Canada's, what you end up with is people lke Purp going to the emergency room for every headache, cold or to get treatment for stubbing one of his 13 toes.
You folks have no idea what you have, sorry, what John Roberts has gotten you into.
THKrupp| 7.5.12 @ 12:36PM
The problem we have is that we already have people going to the emergency room for every ailement. They dont have insurance or they have employer sponsered insurance. We already had a national health care system but its completely broken in the way we pay for things. The people with insurance have been paying for the people without for a very long time. We need to get rid of employer provided insurance benefits. The costs of our actions need to be an individual responsibility. Until that happens it wont matter what happens, the price of health care will continue to go up.
Ronsch| 7.5.12 @ 12:50PM
Hunters and fisherpersons have pumped millions of dollars in conservation through the Pittman-Robertson Act. You never hear that from the eco-terrorists on the left...They are too busy throwing red paint on people wearing leather or fur, or begging celebrities to pose nude for PETA.
Who do ya'all think buy the most hunting and fishing licenses, as well as ammunition, arrows, traps, etc., that supports Pittman-Robertson? One clue, it sure isn't the gun-hating, fishing, and hunting vegans on the left.
Petronius| 7.5.12 @ 4:15PM
That Pitman Robertson tax money is being spent on anti-gun propaganda programs like Cease Fire, put in place by the same RINO who stuffed the Assault Weapons Ban up our back sides, Jackoff Danforth.