Most people will probably agree that the politicization of the environment is unfortunate. The Left now holds a near-monopoly on environmentalism and is often at the forefront of national and international efforts to conserve the environment. They rightly attack the Right for excusing legislative inaction on the issue with appeals to anthropocentric arguments (the view that only the human species—for example, its economic prosperity—counts). The contemporary Right ignores the existence of intergenerational obligations and similarly neglects long-term obligations to nature. They have convinced themselves that fluctuating numbers on a screen can replace the planet’s objective and finite beauty, arguing that the momentary generation of wealth and employment explains away any mismanagement of the soil we all share. It is the progressives, those who wish to do away with many long-held conventions and bring about a new world, who wish to serve as stewards of the environment. In terms of nature, the self-described conservatives are conserving nothing.
Rather than serve the interests of the American plutocracy, conservatives should actually lead in the preservation of this country’s national heritage. Given its shift toward stronger anti-immigration policies in recent years, the Republican party has once again demonstrated political ineptitude and greed. In terms of its political self-interest, it should be ripe for greener policies because they can be used along with anti-immigration rhetoric. But corporate interests tend to favor both more immigration and cuts in regulations, so Republicans have rejected the opportunity to add pro-environment policies to their agenda, opting to keep appeasing their donors through America’s natural defilement. The party could easily have argued that lax immigration policies burden the environment. Immigrants do overwhelmingly move to urban cores, leading to more urban sprawl, oil consumption, and strain on infrastructure. An opponent from the Left would cite studies which indicate that immigrant populations place a smaller strain on the environment than native populations. But there is an easy, common-sense counter-argument the Right could make: immigrants will not live like immigrants forever. Like all people, they will reproduce and create a new generation of American citizens, which will strive toward their native-born counterparts’ greater prosperity. In addition, there is no question that first-generation immigrants themselves wish to attain the comfortable living standards of the average American. Although these notions may prove extremely controversial among today’s environmentalists, they might stimulate a malleable conservative base to care more about the soil we stand on. There is more to conserve than the wallets of usurers.
The Left is correct in its view that the living standards of the average American are environmentally harmful and decadent. The only socially unifying concept left in this country is seems to be that everyone loves to consume and, more often than not, consume beyond their means. The once-conservative value of thrift is no more. (Ironically, this is another value that progressives have brought into their socio-political culture.) If they do not want to adopt environmentalist policies as a result of their position on immigration, then Republicans could make the case that the conservative values of self-restraint and love of family should lead to a cultural shift that benefits the environment. They should advocate less reliance on large corporations and emphasize the importance of communitarianism and setting down roots. “Hard” or uncompromising individualism must cease to exist if American consumerism is to be defeated. And consumerism ought to be defeated, since it is antithetical to serious environmental efforts. Conservatives who truly wish to conserve must restrain themselves from consuming the products of the factory farm, or the cheap plastic trinkets imported on gas-guzzling ships. Moreover, they must understand the relationship between the soil they stand on and their duty to future generations.
Today’s American professional class is rootless: it moves restlessly and selfishly around the country in an attempt to maximize its income without apparent regard to the communities it exploits. Its members seem to view themselves solely in overarching, global terms. Republican party leaders should urge the professional-class people in their base to settle down and become part of a tangible community. Only then will they feel a responsibility to maintain the breathtaking landscapes of North America for their descendants. Whatever their politics, American environmentalists and conservationists are the people who most truly love their country.
