Home » November 2008

Conservatism at the Crossroads: How the Republican Party Can Tackle the Nation’s Environmental Issues in 2008

 


We cannot, when the nation becomes fully civilized and very rich, continue to be civilized and rich unless the nation shows more foresight than we are showing at this moment 1

- President Theodore Roosevelt

 

Since the release of the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, the environmental movement in America has become reenergized. No longer can politicians ignore the nation’s energy supply and environment. In the past year, there has been a 20% increase in the retail cost of gasoline;2 this has become the top issue for many American households and businesses. This issue, along with the growing threat of climate change, has spurred the debate in Washington over how the nation’s energy and climate crisis may be dealt with. The United States is heavily reliant on sources of energy, whether they are derived from electricity, natural gas, or oil. The cost of providing energy is an issue that is vital to the nation’s economic security. Thus, environmentalism can no longer be considered a liberal issue; what is happening today affects every American and should be considered a moderate issue.

Both candidates in the upcoming election are attempting to create solutions for the nation. Since the 2006 midterm election defeat, the Republican Party has adjusted many of its views as they relate to climate change and energy policy. The party of Ronald Reagan has begun to shift from uncontrolled capitalists to men and women who see the positive connections between the nation’s energy supply, environment, businesses, and households. Because of these adjustments and the lack of quality ideas put forth by Barack Obama, I believe that the Republican Party is in the right position to enact substantive change and put America on the right course. Just as Nixon reopened relations with communist China, so, too, must the Republican Party reopen its relations with the environment. This begs the questions: how can the Republican Party build upon its foundation of environmentalism to solve many of the nation’s environmental issues, revitalize the American economy, attract independent voters, and regain the respect of other nations? Doing so is a complex task, but the current political landscape may be just right for such a step to be taken.

In 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt signed the National Reclamation Act, paving the way for aqueducts and irrigation canals to be built so that water would be available to an ever-growing number of settlers in the West. Upon signing the act, Roosevelt wrote, “…the canals, aqueducts, and dams must be built for permanence and safety, for they are to last and spread prosperity for centuries.”3

Roosevelt held a meeting in 1908 with governors from around the US where he gave a speech that was inspired by WJ McGee’s philosophy of the interrelationship of parts.4 It was titled Conservation as a National Duty. Since each state was connected to one another via geography, commerce, and politics, it was Roosevelt’s belief that lands should be protected and made available to the public. By the end of his presidency, he doubled the number of national parks, declared thirteen new national forests, and created sixteen federal bird refuges.5 These protected areas were important because they put the US on a path towards the conservation of its natural resources. Roosevelt saw the importance of protecting the nation’s resources and environment to ensure quality of life for generations to come.

Sixty years later, Richard Nixon’s presidency produced some of the most important environmental legislation in the twentieth century. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 created a government institution that would lead the environmental efforts in the US. In 1970, the Clean Air Act was passed, giving more responsibility to the newly created EPA as it related to air pollution. By the end of his presidency, Nixon signed a number of environmental acts that would steer the nation towards a cleaner future. Of course, much of this legislation would have never been passed if Nixon did not work with the Democrats in Congress.

The movement of the Democratic Party to the social left in the 60s and 70s created a great divide in American politics. As the environmental movement became closely associated with the flower generation and radical politics, conservatives started to disassociate themselves from such issues. This was fully realized when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 and environmentalism was pushed aside in favor of the interests of big business and the libertarian constituency. The founding of organizations such as Earth First! and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in the late 70s and early 80s only further unified the conservative constituencies away from environmental issues. From its founding in 1973 until 1980, the year Reagan was elected, the EPA’s budget soared from $500 million to $1.3 billion.6 This large increase in budget gave Reagan the political ammunition to decrease EPA funding throughout his term.

Additionally, throughout his campaign, Reagan promised to reduce the federal budget and rid Washington of bureaucracy. This, along with a socially conservative agenda in favor of a war on drugs and reversal of Roe v. Wade, allowed American conservatives to regain control of Washington. The voices of environmental protection were silenced in favor of big business and a supposed decrease in the federal budget. These small-government actions would remain a hallmark of GOP policy, as many environmentally focused jobs were cut or capped throughout the Republican dominated years of the Clinton administration, ensuring long-term Republican dominance over these offices.

Conservatism in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is a complex movement that has incorporated three subgroups into a fluctuating mass of people and ideas. The first subgroup is the libertarians who argue for limited government, low taxes, and abundant amounts of personal freedom. This makes up a large part of the conservative movement and has shaped much of the economic policies in the past 30 years. Being pro-business, the Republican Party has fostered relationships with some of America’s largest companies. To many, especially the left, this allows corporations to dictate policy from the inside.

The second subgroup is the neoconservatives who came about just after World War Two. At the heart of their movement is the defense against totalitarian states that suppress individual freedom and liberty. Many of its founders lived in Eastern Europe through WWII and saw the oppression of Nazism and communism; they are also strong supporters of the Jewish state of Israel. Recently, this branch of conservatism made the case for a war in Iraq, resulting in the current conflict in the Middle East and destroying much of their credibility.

The final group is the social or Christian conservatives. As the Democratic Party moved to the social left throughout the 60s and 70s, many southern Democrats moved to the Republican Party and created a force against abortion and other socially progressive ideas. In the 1980s they formed the Conservative Coalition and helped bring Ronald Reagan into the White House. Today, the Christian Right is still very strong but not as cohesive as it was twenty years ago. The glue holding these three groups together was Communism, as it was the antithesis of the three groups, being godless, non-capitalistic, and totalitarian. Figure 1 shows the connection between the three groups.

 


 

Today, conservatism is at a crossroads, communism is no longer a unifying force, neoconservatives have lost their credibility due to the war, the once powerful base of Christian conservatives has been mired in scandals, and the libertarians are under constant attack for the current economic drought. Energy, the environment, and national security are all key issues that will be addressed in the 2008 election. And while it may seem that the conservative movement is crumbling, it is in a great position to realign its priorities and take on the challenges of the future.

The environment is becoming an issue that cannot be ignored, and the libertarians and Christian Right are tackling this in different ways while social traditionalists are taking on these issues and infusing themselves into liberal territory through a grassroots movement. The three groups are quickly recognizing that the environment has, in a certain sense, become above politics, which is resulting in action.

The once formidable Christian Coalition has spent twenty years combating the rights of homosexuals and women’s right to abortion. Today, the focus seems to have changed. An online poll of 1,000 evangelicals from Beliefnet.com found that 60 percent identified themselves as part of a political movement interested more in “protecting the environment, tackling HIV/AIDS, alleviating poverty and promoting human rights and less on abortion and homosexuality.”7

Since the election of President Bush in 2000, many Christian conservatives have taken to the idea of ‘compassionate conservatism.’ This concept was first outlined by Marvin Olasky in his 2000 book, Compassionate Conservatism. The idea’s popularity has led to an increase in federal spending which is supposed to be given out as block grants to various charities across the nation. The charities use the money to fight poverty, to provide rehabilitation for drug and alcohol abusers, and to help those with fewer resources. In the past year, Christian conservatives have expanded upon Marvin Olasky’s vision of Compassionate Conservatism and incorporated the environment into their realm of issues. Their positions are considered moral ones and are backed up by quotes from the Bible. The Southern Baptist Convention released this statement in March: “Humans must care for Creation and take responsibility for our contributions to environmental degradation.”8 Energizing this group of conservatives has helped bring the Republican Party back into the environmental debate by making the environment a mainstream topic. The lines between the Christian right and secular left are beginning to blur.

The libertarian wing of the Republican Party has dominated the economic and environmental agenda for over twenty-five years and has met few challengers within the GOP. Today, this branch is met with a sub-prime mortgage crisis, a weak dollar, and a recession. This coupled with growing concerns over greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and product safety has put American businesses against a proverbial wall. Reducing costs/bureaucracy is a cornerstone of long-term business strategy and the libertarian ideology. This need for market efficiency is at the core of libertarianism, so if the market is not operating efficiently, the government has a role to step in and correct the problem. Recognizing the current situation in the global economy, libertarians should not be against the federal government stepping in and regulating industrial pollution, which is a market inefficiency that creates harmful conditions for those in proximity to it. Finding a solution that eliminates the inefficiencies is becoming an area of interest for libertarian think tanks.

In an article published by the American Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank, the authors argue that libertarian opinions regarding climate change have been marginalized by the public. The two authors go on to say that if the free-market system is to prevail, libertarians need to get on board with the creation of regulation now.9 Doing this can ensure that their voice is not left out of the debate and that market solutions are looked at to combat the looming threats posed by climate change.

Another wing of conservatism that is gaining traction is the traditionalist movement. In his 2006 book, Crunchy Cons, Rod Dreher writes about the new wave of conservatives that are taking a big step towards environmentalism, and in many ways, encroaching on traditional leftist territory. Many people have moved into a more traditional way of life under the belief that in a society where technology is constantly advancing and changing the rules of the game, there is no possibility for genuine social stability.10 As the book title suggests, he calls this group ‘Crunchy Conservatives,’ poking fun at the traditional liberal stereotype of granola eating environmentalists.

In his view, these people are at the heart of true conservative ideals and relate to Russell Kirk’s sixth pillar of conservatism: “that change and reform are not identical, and that innovation is a devouring conflagration more often than it is a torch of progress. Society must alter, for slow change is the means of its conservation.”11 In many ways this sounds more like the goals of people living in Eco-Village in Ithaca, New York than the stereotypical pro-business types of the Reagan era. The mixing of liberals and traditionalist conservatives is a unique situation and can help bring two once opposing ideologies to find a middle ground, but this is not without its critics. Eric Brende, a ‘crunchy conservative,’ said this about his community: “[I]t’s almost like there’s more acceptance for diverse viewpoints from within this community than there is from people looking in from the outside.”12 This may present a major challenge to groups like Brende’s in the future, as they are likely to be labeled religious extremists by outside groups. However, their ties to religion could work in their favor and open a dialogue between mainstream religious institutions and themselves. As this group becomes more organized, it will constitute a greater force in national politics.

Republican candidate Senator John McCain has the opportunity to bring these three groups together and take back environmental stewardship as a conservative issue. In an interview in October of 2007, McCain quoted former Prime Minister Tony Blair: “Suppose we are wrong and there is no such thing as climate change, and we adapt clean technologies, all we have done is given our children a cleaner world. Suppose we are right about climate change and do nothing, then what have we done for our kids?”13 This has been a constant refrain on the campaign trail for McCain, who has pushed his environmental agenda to the forefront and offered a means-tested solution to the problem.

In 2007, Senators McCain and Lieberman proposed the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. The act has two main goals: first, establish a cap and trade program for GHGs; second, provide increased funding for research into low emission technologies. A cap and trade program was put into place in 2005 by the European Union and is known as the European Trading Scheme (ETS). To create such a scheme in the US, McCain and Lieberman propose that the EPA create a comprehensive GHG inventory, and that the Department of Commerce create a board to oversee the program and to issue credits.14 According to the proposition, this would be established by 2012. Putting more power into the hands of the EPA will prevent congressional filibusters and result in a faster policy process. In addition to this, more money would be allocated to science and research. Through the National Science Foundation, educators would be given funds to teach students about climate change and professors would receive funds to explore new low emissions technologies.15 Programs like this have been supported by Senator Obama on the campaign trail, but not this one specifically. The bill is currently hung up in committee hearings as of July 7, 2008.

As stated earlier, the cost of gasoline has risen 30% in the past year, with the current retail average at $4.06 a gallon as of July 7, 2008.16 Businesses across the country have seen their profits shrink and are coming up with a number of ways to cut back on costs, some as simple as UPS optimizing its delivery truck routes so they make more right hand turns instead of idling at traffic lights waiting to take a left.17 Others have realized their wasteful habits and are shutting down computers at the end of the day, or have invested in more energy efficient buildings. While corporations are still looking after their bottom line, there are positive results coming out of such action. By decreasing its fuel consumption, UPS is also decreasing GHG emissions.

If the bill that was put forth by McCain and Lieberman is passed, large American corporations will have four years to come up with new ideas and strategies as to how they will decrease their carbon footprint. As a group with ties to big business, who better to work with industry than the Republican Party? They can work with businesses to see what federal and state governments can do to cut both costs and emissions. Additionally, dialogue between the two can help adjust the proposed legislation once it is enacted. American companies are already transitioning to this new economy, so a cap and trade type policy will not be a great shock to industry. As time goes on, the Department of Commerce would decrease the number of credits available, thereby decreasing overall GHG emissions. As companies reduced their emissions, they can sell their credits to other companies that produce more emissions. Those companies that have high emissions will start to invest in cleaner technology so that they do not have to keep buying carbon credits. Companies that are the most innovative will be rewarded with higher profits and be able to reinvest that money into technology that is even more efficient. As the program continues, adjustments will have to be made to work out its inefficiencies. This would help limit any negative effects of such legislation.

The underlying hope with such a program is that companies will produce clean technologies and then be able to export their goods and services. In the past five years, the US Dollar has decreased in value against the Euro by 28% and the Japanese Yen by 11%.18 This has opened a window of opportunity for American businesses. As new technologies are created and consumer tested in the US, American businesses can sell their products and services to Europe and Asia. This capitalistic cycle achieves two things: first, it creates ‘greener’ products for consumers, and second, it creates inward flows of cash to the US, thereby boosting the economy.

Rallying independent voters may prove to be a challenge in 2008 as it has built up to be a heated election. Senator McCain can offer solutions to Washington and has a history of bipartisanship in the Senate. He is a moderate republican and has been proactive in offering legislative solutions to the nation’s environmental issues. He has offered a bill to Congress that addresses climate change at the source of the issue while Senator Obama has not.

Senator McCain has offered a broad solution to the nation’s GHG emission problems, yet more has to be done to attract independent voters. In important ‘swing states’ such as Ohio, West Virginia, and Florida, he must convince voters that his plans will not only help the environment, but also help the economy. McCain must reassure voters that the cap and trade scheme he has put forth will not raise their cost of power, unlike what has happened in the EU.19 The proposed scheme is much like the ETS where only large industry emissions are capped, not individuals’. Senator Obama argues for cap and trade schemes on his campaign website. As the only candidate with such a scheme proposed in Congress, McCain should be able to use this to his advantage. To combat the issue of high-energy prices, McCain has proposed that the US build more nuclear power plants. These plants would produce a great deal of electricity and virtually no carbon emissions. As more electricity comes onto the market, the price will begin to decline and older, higher emitting technologies can be shut down. Senator Obama has argued against nuclear power, citing that it is unsafe, and could lead to nuclear proliferation.20 At the same time, he has not come up with solutions to the nation’s energy problems, leaving McCain as the only one with a viable solution.

Senator McCain’s use of Tony Blair’s quote on the environment attaches itself to the American Dream. Ensuring a clean sustainable future of the nation, parents and elders can leave a better life for the youth of the nation, thereby fulfilling the dream that the generations after them are given more opportunities for success than themselves. By placing the environment and his proposed legislation at the heart of his campaign, McCain can achieve three things at once. First, he will be more appealing to independents because he is not as associated with the Christian Right and abortion. Second, he can explain how his environmental policy and regulation of industry can be a winning strategy for the nation and business. The research grants that are included in the bill will help spur the technological change that is required for the twenty-first century. This ‘free research’ for businesses will help bring independent libertarians over to the party. Third, by America releasing itself from the grip of foreign oil, national economic security will be increased. Currently, of the top 10 oil reserves in the world, eight of the countries are in the Middle East, one is in South America (Venezuela) and the last one is our neighbor Canada.21 No longer will the nation be subjected to the large fluctuations in the price of oil. By attracting environmentally minded, independent voters to his campaign, McCain can build a large bipartisan consensus in Washington to ensure that the road to battling climate change is taken. His history of crossing party lines to support bipartisan legislation will help him pass legislation once in the White House.

If the environment becomes an integral part of his campaign, a question will arise: how can McCain bring the ‘Crunchy Cons’ together with the libertarians and Christian conservatives? The end goal for each of these groups and the environmental movement as a whole is roughly the same: protect America’s environment so that future generations of Americans and/or businesses may flourish. These two goals go hand in hand with one another and can encourage individuals, businesses, and the government to come together on environmental legislation.

Disagreements have plagued the environmental movement over questions as to why these issues need to be addressed. That should no longer be the case. I believe that by making this a non-partisan issue, McCain can lead the nation forward into a prosperous, environmentally clean 21st century.

The Republican Party has the opportunity to adjust itself to take on the challenges created by high energy costs and climate change. While the stigma of radical environmentalists will be attached to the environmental movement for years to come, it is not a reason to run away from the issues. It has been proven that there are solutions that are both ecologically and economically friendly. In 1992, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, requiring all new toilets in the US to use less water, thereby reducing the amount of water used and saving consumer money.22 In 2007, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, phasing out the use of incandescent light bulbs in favor of new compact fluorescent bulbs, which use about 75% less electricity.23 These should be presented as positive solutions to the problems we face as a nation.

As the sun sets on the Bush presidency, a new dawn is approaching the horizon that brings with it environmental justice and economic security for all Americans, and the Republican Party can lead the way, for our nation’s continued prosperity hinges on our ability to solve environmental problems and sustain the natural resources on which we all depend.24 paJ

 


 

(Notes)

  1. Governors’ Conference Proceedings. In Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex (New York, NY: Random House Inc., 2001) 3-13.
  2. US Energy Information Administration, “US Retail Gasoline Historical Prices” (US Energy Information Administration, 7 July 2008), <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html>
  3. Theodore Roosevelt to the National Irrigation Congress, 15 September 1903, Letters, vol. 3,600. Cited in Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex (New York: Random House, 2001), 114.
  4. Edmund Morris, Theodore Rex, (New York: Random House, 2001), 516-517.
  5. Ibid., 519
  6. Michael E. Kraft, “U.S. Environmental Policy and Politics: From the 1960s to the 1990s,” Journal of Policy History (2000): 25.
  7. www.Beliefnet.com online poll, July 2007. Cited in David Kuo, “It’s Not Your Father’s Religious Right,” The Washington Post, 24 February 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR200802... (accessed 27 April 2008).
  8. Southern Baptist Convention, “A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change,” 11 March 2008, http://baptistcreationcare.org/node/1 (accessed 25 April 2008).
  9. Robert W. Hahn and Peter Passell, “Time to Change US Climate Policy,” (American Enterprise Institute, 27 November 2007), http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27153/pub_detail.asp (accessed 28 April 2008).
  10. Rod Dreher, Crunchy Cons (New York: Crown Forum, 2006), 41.
  11. Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind (Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company, 1953), 8.
  12. Dreher, Crunchy Cons, 71.
  13. John McCain, interview with The Des Moines Register, October 24, 2007, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQlX13tUSh8 (accessed 25 April 2008).
  14. Ibid.
  15. Ibid.
  16. US Energy Information Administration, “US Retail Gasoline Historical Prices” (US Energy Information Administration, 7 July 2008), http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_hi... (accessed 7 July 2008).
  17. Joel Lovell, “Left Hand Turn Elimination,” 9 December 2007, New York Times Magazine, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/magazine/09left-handturn.html?_r=1&ore... (accessed 29 April 2008).
  18. Yahoo Finance, “US Historical Exchange Rates,” 30 April 2008, http://finance.yahoo.com Site data provided by Commodity Systems Inc.
  19. Steven Mufson, “Europe’s Problems Color US Plans to Curb Carbon Gases,” 9 April 2007. The Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/08/AR200704... (accessed 28 April 2008).
  20. Obama’s position can be viewed here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf
  21. Worldwide Look at Reserves and Production,” Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 104, No. 47 (December 18, 2006), pp. 24-25. As cited by http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/oil.pdf. (accessed 26 April 2008).
  22. U.S. Congress, Energy Policy Act of 1992, 102nd Cong., 1992, Journal
  23. U.S. Congress, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 110th Cong., 2007.
  24. John McCain, “Nature is Not a Liberal Plot,” The New York Times, 22 Nov. 1996, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E4D8163DF931A15752C1A... (accessed 25 April 2008).

References

Dreher, Rod. Crunchy Cons. New York: Crown Forum, 2006.

Hahn, Robert W. and Peter Passell. “Time to Change US Climate Policy.” American Enterprise

Institute, 27 November 2007, http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27153/pub_detail.asp (accessed 28 April 2008).

Kirk, Russell. The Conservative Mind. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company, 1953.

Kraft, Michael E. “U.S. Environmental Policy and Politics: From the 1960s to the 1990s.”

Journal of Policy History (2000): 12.1 (2000) 17-42 U.S.

Lovell, Joel. “Left Hand Turn Elimination.” New York Times Magazine, 9 December 2007,

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/magazine/09left-handturn.html?_r=1&ore... (accessed 29 April 2008).

McCain, John. Interview with The Des Moines Register. October 24, 2007,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQlX13tUSh8 (accessed 25 April 2008).

McCain, John and Joseph Lieberman. “Senate Bill 280: The Climate Stewardship and Innovation

Act of 2007.” 12 January 2007, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-280 (accessed 25 April 2008).

Morris, Edmund. Theodore Rex. New York, NY: Random House Inc., 2001.

Southern Baptist Convention. “A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate

Change.” Southern Baptist Environment & Climate Initiative, 11 March 2008, http://baptistcreationcare.org/node/1 (accessed 25 April 2008).

US Energy Information Administration. “US Retail Gasoline Historical Prices.” US Energy

Information Administration, 7 July 2008, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_hi... (accessed 7 July 2008).

U.S. Congress, Energy Policy Act of 1992, 102nd Cong., 1992.

U.S. Congress, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 110th Cong., 2007.

»