RSS Feed MenuWith both Easter and Earth Day coming up, I have been thinking about why so many of my fellow Christian conservatives tend to overlook the connection between their faith and environmental stewardship — particularly as it relates to climate change.
I am sure some of it is rooted in age-old conflicts between science and the church, the prevalence of non-believers in the environmental movement, and a tyrannical interpretation of the word “dominion” in the book of Genesis.
Mainly, however, I think it is due to the influence of individuals and political biases that get in the way of honestly seeking God’s will.
When speaking to other believers about the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by using less oil and coal, a common refrain I hear is, “God wouldn’t have put it there if he didn’t want us to use it.” Besides being a bit presumptuous — one must always be careful when ascribing intent to God — the statement overlooks the fundamental way our earth’s systems are designed.
In the book of Genesis (3:19), God told Adam that his body would return to the ground when he died, saying, “…out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And unto dust you shall return.” What many tend to overlook is that God was describing a fundamental part of the carbon cycle.
The carbon cycle is a miraculous process by which trees and other plants, animals, people, and the ocean remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and transfer it into the ground where the excess is sequestered. This is how nature maintains the proper balance of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere that is required for sustaining life.
The intended resting place for a significant amount of that excess carbon is deep underground in the form of oil and coal.
When we extract oil and coal from the earth and burn it in ever increasing quantities, we throw a monkey wrench into the operation by releasing excess carbon from bygone eras back into the atmosphere.
Does it not then stand to reason that God, after designing the earth’s processes to sequester excess carbon, would prefer that we respect His creation and find better ways to heat our homes and power our cars than using huge amounts of oil and coal?
Climate skeptics — particularly those on talk radio — like to peddle the notion that the earth was created on such a grand and complex scale, it is impossible for mankind to mess it up. In other words, we can do anything we want without serious consequence.
Does that sound like something God would say?
Actually, it sounds a lot more like something the snake in the Garden of Eden would say.
Is there any aspect of our spiritual or physical life where our actions are without consequence? Everything we do has consequences — and the earth’s life-sustaining ecology was not designed to be immune from our actions and choices.
Too much accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere disrupts the climate and causes the earth to overheat. This build-up also forces the oceans to absorb extra carbon, which makes the waters more acidic and less hospitable to marine life.
As we observe Easter and Earth Day this year, we would do well to consider the words of conservative author and poet T.S. Eliot.
He pointed out that, “Religion, as distinguished from modern paganism, implies a life in conformity with nature,” and then he wisely concluded:
”A wrong attitude towards nature implies, somewhere, a wrong attitude towards God.”
Chekote // Apr 10, 2009 at 8:19 am
“Congressman Inglis (SC-4), who was featured in a recent Frum post, is one. He changed his views after visiting McMurdo Station in Antarctica and seeing climate research firsthand.”Which is visited during the peak of summer when ice melts. If polar warming is at such a high level as to cause the end of the world – as the global alarmists say – why isn’t possible to visit Antactica during winter? That would be more useful and instructive.I personally find your article counterproductive. Using religion to justify public policy is a non-starter with me and many like me who are sick and tired of the religious overtones of the Republican Party. It is a turnoff and an electoral dead end.
barker13 // Apr 10, 2009 at 9:05 am
Re: Ktward; 6:56 PM(*SMILE*) Good use of the word “phew.” (*WINK*)Re: Djenkins; 9:26 PMSo I take it you have no answers to either my points nor my questions. (*SHRUG*) OK. It’s your credibility on the line. While obviously this site has its share of cranks, NewMajority is more of a “serious” blog than not. No doubt your tactics are as transparent to others as they are to me.Re: Sjohnson104; 7:11 AMNewt, huh? OK. http://www.bagitagain.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Newt-Gingrich-on-Human-Caused-Global-Warming.html&Itemid=58That’s your idea of… er… “coming around?”Heck. Newt and I aren’t so far apart. (*SHRUG*) As to Sanford…http://www.charleston.net/news/2009/mar/24/sanford_pursues_energy_stimulus76234/Is that what you’re pointing to? Again… I’m not seeing any huge conflict between his position and mine.If you have more “on point” citations from either man, bring ‘em on – I’ll gladly respond. The thing is, just from a quick googling in response to your “name dropping,” I’m not getting the sense that either Gingrich nor Sanford is closer to… er… Al Gore… than to me on the broad issue of climate change.Again… if you’ve got anything you feel is gonna knock my socks off or move folks like Chekote and Churl to “repent” their skepticism concerning the extreme claims being made by some regarding global warming… fire away. I’m sure they’re as willing to listen to any specifics as I am.(*SHRUG*)As to acid rain… one technical discussion at a time, please! (*GRIN*) (BTW… I don’t believe I’ve ever identified myself as “pro acid rain.” How’bout the rest of you folks…?)(*GRIN*)BILL
barker13 // Apr 10, 2009 at 9:40 am
Re: Sinz54; wrote 54 minutes ago”barker13: You asked a good question.”(*BOW*) Thank you. And again, Sinz… call me Bill. (*WINK*)”I say that the WRONG thing for me to do, would be for me to render my own scientific judgment on a scientific issue I am not qualified for.”Fair enough, but you’re sidestepping the point that it’s not just laymen who share my skepticism as previously outlined, it’s “qualified” scientists also.Now, Sinz… you may claim to have a majority – even a large majority – of “experts” whose position is closer to Al Gore’s (or yours) than to mine, but even if I were to stipulate this, science is science – when there are disagreements between scientists on the data itself as well as analysis of the data, the “side” with the most adherents isn’t always going to be the “side” which ends up proving their case.(*SHRUG*)”As an engineer, I often had to apply the theories of science to solve real-world problems. But I always made sure to apply the best that mainstream science…”Again. I “get” where you’re coming from, but what you apparently discount is that throughout human history, what was at one point “mainstream science” has often ended up being proven wrong and supplanted by what was once a minority view.(*SHRUG*)”Ultimately, this comes down to a matter of trust.”OK. So we ARE on the same page to a large extent. You “get” where I’m coming from.”Now the global warming skeptics have had their say.”No. (*SMILE*) Sinz… this is an ongoing debate. New data is coming in all the time. There’s so much we don’t know; there’s so much we’re learning.Again… let me ask you… when “the experts” using “the best science available” in the ’70’s were insisting the next ice age could be right around the corner and that at the very least the world would be experiencing global cooling… was that the last word?See what I’m getting at…Hell, Sinz… you wanna comment on the so-called “hockey stick” controversy? Jeez, Sinz… even taking human bias out of the equation… this stuff ain’t exactly cut and dry.”Nearly all the peer-reviewed papers on climate change do not contest the theory of anthropogenic global warming.”So then you’ll be able to point me to a few of the “very few” peer-reviewed papers on climate change that DO contest the theory of anthropogenic global warming I assume?Shoot! Save me some legwork! Sinz… although I’m not sure you realize this, what you just did was lay out exactly the kind of scenario I’d like to see:You’re right. I’m not a scientist. (Well… I have a POLITICAL science degree… but excepting that play on words…)What the American public needs is to be exposed to more “scientist vs. scientist” debate on these issues. And heck, even then, the question then becomes at what point is the debate too technical for a laymen to reasonably separate which competing FACTS “win” the debate.All this being said… (*SHRUG*) I’m comfortable with everything I’ve written on the subject. Furthermore, other than a few slams, I’m not seeing much SPECIFIC response to “challenges” concerning fact and analysis based upon pointing out past “errors” in prediction by the experts.BILL
barker13 // Apr 10, 2009 at 9:41 am
Re: Chekote; 8:19 AM(*THUMBS UP*)BILL
dendup // Apr 10, 2009 at 11:32 am
RealClimate settles everything:http://www.realclimate.org/1 April 2009Farewell to our ReadersFiled under: Climate Science group @ 11:22 AM We would like to apologize to our loyal readers who have provided us so much support since we first went online in December 2004. However, after listening to the compelling arguments of the distinguished speakers who participated in the Heartland Institute’s recent global warming contrarian conference, we have decided that the science is settled in favor of the contrarians. Indeed, even IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri has now admitted that anthropogenic climate change was a massive hoax after all. Accordingly, RealClimate no longer has a reason for existence. The contrarians have made a convincing case that (a) global warming isn’t happening, (b) even if it is, its entirely natural and within the bounds of natural variability, (c) well, even if its not natural, it is modest in nature and not a threat, (d) even if anthropogenic warming should turn out to be pronounced as projected, it will sure be good for us, leading to abundant crops and a healthy environment, and (e) well, it might actually be really bad, but hey, its unstoppable anyway. (Can we get our check now?)
sjohnson104 // Apr 10, 2009 at 12:25 pm
baker13: You are missing the point of the article, the majority of the comments here, and the very own author’s comments made here. First of all, whether or not global warming exists is not the issue. As the author essentially wrote, this is not the forum–technologically speaking, in matters of expertise, or otherwise. So on this point, you are not adding anything. As the author of this article stated, djenkins 9:26 PM “Barker13…[you]…make my point about bias overwhelming objectivity.” Whether or not global warming exists is not the issue. Go debate that at junkscience.com, the nytimes, planet gore, or some other site. Second, your link to Newt is perfect. It perfectly reinforces my point, which you seem to be missing, maybe on account of bias. While he states his difficulty in believing in the certainty of man’s relationship to climate change, he also mentions as conservative, climate change is something we should be taking steps to address. He goes on to say that carbon is a “risk” in other words a problem. Note, as a conservative, he believes that as a conservative in the “traditional sense” we should be avoiding “stupid risks” or protecting the earth in his discussion. Read his recent book, a Contract with Earth. Being a conservative and a steward and the lack of connection between the two in republican/conservative politics is what the author was talking about. As far as Sanford, your link was poor. I’ve read more current stuff that goes into his beliefs further, but this should help you start if you really wanted to do some research:http://www.carolinaclimate.org/article_07018_thestate.htmlWhile I’m sure you can drum something related to his skepticism, you will then be missing the point again. The author is drawing a distinction between the obvious contradiction in what it means to be a conservative-in this case a religious conservative-and the general idea of being a steward of God’s creation. So, ask yourself the question. Is it conservative to protect the environment? Is conservation of our nation’s beauty–eg our national parks–conservative? Is conservation and conservative derived from the same word? What does the author mean when he’s talking about why religious conservatives don’t in general support global warming’s existence? Are younger evangelical conservatives who’ve written the “Evangelical Climate Initiative” less conservative than James Dobson who don’t believe in it? If so, how and why would Dobson’s group differ? Because of bias?
sjohnson104 // Apr 10, 2009 at 12:38 pm
baker13: You are missing the point of the article, the majority of the comments here, and the very own author’s comments made here. First of all, whether or not global warming exists is not the issue. As the author essentially wrote, this is not the forum–technologically speaking, in matters of expertise, or otherwise. So on this point, you are not adding anything. As the author of this article stated, djenkins 9:26 PM “Barker13…[you]…make my point about bias overwhelming objectivity.” Whether or not global warming exists is not the issue. Go debate that at junkscience.com, the nytimes, planet gore, or some other site. Second, your link to Newt is perfect. It perfectly reinforces my point, which you seem to be missing, maybe on account of bias. While he states his difficulty in believing in the certainty of man’s relationship to climate change, he also mentions as conservative, climate change is something we should be taking steps to address. He goes on to say that carbon is a “risk” in other words a problem. Note, as a conservative, he believes that as a conservative in the “traditional sense” we should be avoiding “stupid risks” or protecting the earth in his discussion. Read his recent book, a Contract with Earth. Being a conservative and a steward and the lack of connection between the two in republican/conservative politics is what the author was talking about. As far as Sanford, your link was poor. I’ve read more current stuff that goes into his beliefs further, but this should help you start if you really wanted to do some research:http://www.carolinaclimate.org/article_07018_thestate.htmlWhile I’m sure you can drum something related to his skepticism, you will then be missing the point again. The author is drawing a distinction between the obvious contradiction in what it means to be a conservative-in this case a religious conservative-and the general idea of being a steward of God’s creation. So, ask yourself the question. Is it conservative to protect the environment? Is conservation of our nation’s beauty–eg our national parks–conservative? Is conservation and conservative derived from the same word? What does the author mean when he’s talking about why religious conservatives don’t in general support global warming’s existence? Are younger evangelical conservatives who’ve written the “Evangelical Climate Initiative” less conservative than James Dobson who don’t believe in it? If so, how and why would Dobson’s group differ? Because of bias?
sinz54 // Apr 10, 2009 at 1:58 pm
sjohnson104 sez: “The author is drawing a distinction between the obvious contradiction in what it means to be a conservative-in this case a religious conservative-and the general idea of being a steward of God’s creation.”The conservative columnist, Ann Coulter, had what she thought was a ready answer for that:Ann Coulter: I take the biblical idea. God gave us the earth.Democratic Strategist Peter Fenn: Oh, OK.Coulter: We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees.Fenn: This is a great idea.Coulter: God says, “Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.”Fenn: Terrific. We’re Americans, so we should consume as much of the earth’s resources…Coulter: Yes! Yes.Fenn: … as fast as we possibly can.Coulter: As opposed to living like the Indians. — Hannity and Colmes, June 22, 2001
djenkins // Apr 10, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Sjohnson104 was wise to ask the question is it conservative to protect the environment? Perhaps it would be best if we let several other notable conservatives address that point.Richard Weaver, a noted American conservative scholar whose influential book Ideas Have Consequences helped shape American conservative thought, 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. The important corollary of this doctrine, it seems to me, is that man is not the lord of creation, with an omnipotent will, but a part of creation, with limitations, who ought to observe a decent humility in the face of the inscrutable.”Russell Kirk, the American political theorist credited with giving rise to conservatism’s intellectual respectability in post-World War II America, wrote:”Nothing is more conservative than conservation”"The resources of nature, like those of spirit, are running out, and all that a conscientious man can aspire to be is a literal conservative, hoarding what remains of culture and of natural wealth against the fierce appetites of modern life.”"…only the unscrupulous or shortsighted can defend pollution and degradation of the countryside.”Ronald Reagan, who needs no introduction, 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.”Pope John Paul II, addressed the issue of the environment in a way that speaks equally to conservatism and faith:”Equally worrying is the ecological question which accompanies the problem of consumerism and which is closely connected to it. In his desire to have and to enjoy rather than to be and to grow, man consumes the resources of the earth and his own life in an excessive and disordered way. At the root of the senseless destruction of the natural environment lies an anthropological error, which unfortunately is widespread in our day. Man, who discovers his capacity to transform and in a certain sense create the world through his own work, forgets that this is always based on God’s prior and original gift of the things that are. Man thinks that he can make arbitrary use of the earth, subjecting it without restraint to his will, as though it did not have its own requisites and a prior God-given purpose, which man can indeed develop but must not betray. Instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature, which is more tyrannized than governed by him.”
sjohnson104 // Apr 10, 2009 at 2:38 pm
sinz:Thank you for the comment from Coutler. Could you elaborate? Is that something you believe, support, or entertain? If so, could you discuss how that (the idea of strong consumption) might work? I believe this is particularly relevant given djenkins most recent quotes.djenkins:You have cited some very great quotes, perhaps ones I admired as a college student, which helped further the value of conservatism among an [maybe younger] important group. Entertain this, if conservatism….based off of seemingly strong, maybe irrefutable arguments from preeminent conservative authors–before and after the left’s environmental movement of the 70s–means stewardship of the environment, why has protection of the environment no longer associated with the right? Because of talk radio hosts? Who then and why? Based on Reagan’s quote, and if he were alive today, would Reagan support protecting the environment from global warming? Or would he have bias similar to older religious conservatives? I think Gingrich’s recent developments in his position is conservative on multiple fronts–conservative to wait approx. 30 years before wanting to do something about global warming, but also conservative to want to do something about it. It is crucial to understandably believe–or know–that environmentalism has its limits vs. our need to consume. Also, the leftist environmentalism is not as good as market-based environmental solutions.Take the author’s idea further…religious conservatives of a certain generation might never believe in global warming because of particular anti-scientific bias.
barker13 // Apr 10, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Re: sjohnson104; 12:25 PMI get an error every time I try to post my response.(*SHRUG*)I’ll email it to the editor and ask him to post it for me.BILL
barker13 // Apr 10, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Nope… still kicking it back.Let me try segment posts:Re: Sjohnson104; 12:25 PM”You are missing the point of the article…”No. Just ignoring the uninteresting part. (*WINK*)Hey… you focus on what you find worthy of discussion… I’ll do the same. Deal?”First of all, whether or not global warming exists is not the issue.”To me it is. (*SHRUG*) “As the author essentially wrote, this is not the forum–technologically speaking, in matters of expertise, or otherwise. So on this point, you are not adding anything.”If that’s your attitude feel free not to engage with me. (*SMILE*) How’s this, SJ… you decide what you write or don’t write… I’ll do the same. No one is forcing you or anyone else to read my posts or anyone else’s posts. “…your link to Newt is perfect. It perfectly reinforces my point…”Thank you. While I’m not seeing how Newt reinforces your point, I’m glad that you’ve benefited from my efforts to shine a little light on the man’s actual opinions as espoused directly.”While [Gingrich] states his difficulty in believing in the certainty of man’s relationship to climate change…”SJ. Don’t be disingenuous, it goes far beyond that. Gingrich cites solar activity as the main determinant of climate change and believes it’s better to be safe than sorry regarding carbon impact – i.e. that man should limit his carbon footprint in general terms. Regarding the latter he doesn’t go into specifics, doesn’t address the nuts and bolts of cost/benefit calculations… he’s basically saying he’s against pollution. Well, heck… we all are. The devil is in the details.”[Gingrich} also mentions as conservatives, climate change is something we should be taking steps to address."Again... "address" is a kind BROAD frigg'n caution - wouldn't you say...??? (*SNORT*) If you want to get specific, like me, Newt favors expanding the use of nuclear power. That's one way both he and I are calling upon the problem to be "addressed" by. (*WINK*)"[Gingich} goes on to say that carbon is a "risk" in other words a problem."Yes, SJ, I know what he says... I'm the one who found and posted the video. (*CHUCKLE*) SJ. Existence is a risk. "Being" is a risk. The point about "risk" is that for the word to have any real meaning, the risk must be quantified and qualified. Driving sober is a RISK. Driving drunk is a greater risk. The former... sane and responsible people do it all the time. The latter... (*SHRUG*) (See my point...???)"Note, as a conservative, [Gingrich] believes that as conservatives in the “traditional sense” we should be avoiding “stupid risks”…”Exactly. That’s what I just tried to explain to you up above. What’s your point and where is it you see us as disagreeing…??? Newt is talking about quantifying risk and acting accordingly; so am I. So are you in your own mind. What’s at issue ultimately is the actual nuts and bolts real world definition of “acting accordingly” in a policy sense. “Read [Gingrich's] recent book, a Contract with Earth. Being a conservative and a steward and the lack of connection between the two in republican/conservative politics is what the author was talking about.”I haven’t read it yet; it’s on my “to read” list. Have you actually read it? Where SPECIFICALLY are you saying Newt and I diverge?Oh… btw…http://newt.org/AContractwiththeEarth/tabid/220/Default.aspxCheck out the 4:02 minute clip. I don’t know what you think Newt’s saying vs. what you believe I’m saying… (*SHRUG*)… because it’s clear the former Speaker and I are basically on the same page if not always in lockstep word by word, paragraph by paragraph.BILL
barker13 // Apr 10, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Ahh! That worked! Now, Part 2:As for Sanford…Thanks for the link, SJ, but again… it’s important to provide DIRECT links to what SANFORD actually says – either text, video, or audio – in context of course.As for the Carolina Climate Network…Exactly what point do you think it proves? Or, if you’d rather, how do you suppose the press release (e-news?) negates any point I’ve made.(Oh… btw… speaking of “current,” perhaps you missed the date on the document: January 18, 2007.) (*SHRUG*)Anyway…”Is it conservative to protect the environment? Is conservation of our nation’s beauty–eg our national parks–conservative? Is conservation and conservative derived from the same word?”Umm…Yes…Yes…and Yes.(*WINK*)”What does the author mean when he’s talking about why religious conservatives don’t in general support global warming’s existence?”Well… that’s the part I’m not really interested in. That said, my general take is that the author considers HIS views of what Christianity should be and what Christians should believe superior to any other Christian’s views if that Christian happens to disagree.(*SHRUG*) (You asked… I answered.)He seems sure that God is… er… anti-carbon in terms of energy usage and infers that Rush Limbaugh is the Spawn of Satan. (*CHUCKLE*)QUOTING… “….sounds a lot more like something the snake in the Garden of Eden would say.”(*SNORT*) (*SMIRK*)Anyway, SJ… as for the rest, I’ll let Dobson and “younger evangelical conservatives” answer your questions directly if they choose. (*WINK*)BILL
Ryan // Apr 10, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Barker, your comment was incomprehensible. To the author, fantastic post. I’ve always thought that the subject of environmentalism was an area where Christians were letting themselves be influenced more by the theories of men (republican policies) than the principles of God.
djenkins // Apr 10, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Sjohnson104: You asked a lot of good questions. I think it may be possible to trace a GOP attitude change on the environment to Rush Limbaugh and his protgs. Rush went national in 1988 and gave voice to a fairly radical form of free-market libertarianism that he professes to be conservative. In fact, his so-called conservatism is largely devoid of the traditional conservatism articulated by the likes of Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver.Rushs rhetoric promotes the notion that man need never restrain his appetites, that the pursuit of wealth is the primary purpose of human existence, that opulence is the highest measure of success, and that an unfettered market will always provide, no matter how insatiable our desires. It is a temptation worthy of the Devil himself.Most ironically, this hedonistic doctrine bears a striking resemblance to the 1960s left-wing countercultures if-it-feels-good-do-it attitude. Only the vices are different. Is that conservative? Hardly. As for the what would Reagan do question, I think the ozone depletion issue gives us a clue. In 1984 researchers concluded that the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in aerosol sprays and refrigeration equipment were depleting the earths protective ozone layer. There were plenty of skeptics who argued that we should do nothing. Reagan considered the evidence and pushed through the Montreal Protocol treaty that began the phase-out of CFCs. Ryan: thanks for the sentiments; you clearly get the purpose of my post. Those of us who believe that the earth and its systems are Gods own handiwork should be just as compelled, if not more so, to safeguard it than those who think it all happened by chance and that something emerged from nothing.
sjohnson104 // Apr 10, 2009 at 11:21 pm
djkenkins: I appreciate your comments and relevant points where you finally address what you never truly answer in your column: who and why espouse ideas/beliefs that are contradictory to climate change? the right? Why? More importantly, you never go into substantial detail as to who this group is and what it represents. This is the failure of your most current column.Reagan, as a man that people overwhelming support, there is no need to assert the climate compels. You’re quote reinforces that idea. My point is that conservatve leaders need to come up with solutions.
sjohnson104 // Apr 10, 2009 at 11:41 pm
I’ll add only fleetingtly…christian’s and abortion are an issue, but less so than the democractic “conservative right Is it rong to ask about my interview? Id I do something right?”
sjohnson104 // Apr 10, 2009 at 11:47 pm
I’ll add only fleetingtly…christian’s and abortion are an issue, but less so than the democractic “conservative right Is it rong to ask about my interview? Id I do something right?”
djenkins // Apr 11, 2009 at 5:08 am
sjohnson104, my column was simply intended to give Christians some food for thought about seeking God’s will as it relates to climate change and our current reliance on fossil fuels.Going into the whole matter of how the word “conservative” has been highjacked, by whom, and what their philosphy actually is…well…that would have taken a lot more than 600 words.I will be expanding on the main points of this column in other articles/venues. If you are interested, you may want to check the http://www.rep.org website from time to time.
sinz54 // Apr 11, 2009 at 6:42 am
djenkins: I’m not a Christian, but I am a conservative and I am sympathetic to your basic thesis.I’ve always believed that to be a “conservative” meant more than opposing high taxes or abortion. It meant also LIVING conservatively, eschewing greed and endless conspicuous consumption in favor of virtue: Contributing heavily to your favorite charities, going to church regularly, volunteer work, etc.However, there is another strand of conservatism that includes nationalism. I think that’s where the disconnect (not a “hijacking” as you claim) comes in, and I will discuss that in my next post.
sinz54 // Apr 11, 2009 at 6:54 am
How did conservatism come to be associated with conspicuous consumption?I believe that it has to do with two other threads in conservatism: Traditionalism and nationalism. And with the parallel changes that took place in modern liberalism.Conservatives have always looked to tradition and precedent. But the American tradition has always been one of wild freedom and exuberance. It’s not just the “New Left” who said “Do your own thing.” The myth of an American loner pursuing his own dreams–the pioneers, the Gold Rush, the Wild West, the rags-to-riches enterpreneurs–is deeply ingrained in the American ethos. And modern conservatives from the Red States look back nostalgically to those times. They try to emulate those times with their guns and Ford F-150 trucks, and they fear that modern liberals are going to take that way of life away from them.The problem with the global warming issue, is that both liberals and conservatives recognize that global warming will fall more heavily on the rest of the world than on the developed U.S. America has the resources to cope with any effects of global warming on its own territory. But elsewhere, entire nations like the Maldives and Bangladesh could be endangered, perhaps rendered uninhabitable. And so, the notion that the U.S. has to significantly restrict its economy so as to save Bangladesh, is a hard sell to conservative nationalists.But it’s not just conservatism that changed. Conservatism changed in parallel with liberalism.In Franklin Roosevelt’s day, the Left was associated with forward progress: The Tennessee Valley Authority, the Bronx Whitestone Bridge, Boulder Dam, industrialization. But starting in the late 1950s, as a reaction against the nuclear arms race, the Left became increasingly suspicious of technology and industry. Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” launched the Left environmental movement, which ultimately became a suspicion of all industrialism as dangerous to the natural world.So by Jimmy Carter’s time, liberalism became associated with limits to growth and austerity: Put heavy restrictions on personal automobiles to force Americans into sardine-can mass transit conveyances. Turn down your thermostat. Drive 55 mph. Etc. And conservatives just revolted against that.As I said, there is something to be said for living conservatively. But that idea went out the window after liberals and leftists embraced austerity. Conservatism differentiated itself by embracing exuberance–and conspicuous consumption.
Stewardship // Apr 11, 2009 at 7:39 am
sinz54- I enjoy reading your comments…always informed and well thought out. I would like to offer the counterview that the US does not have the resources to cope with the effects of global warming in our own territory. We are footing a $400 million bill right now to relocate one tiny Arctic village…it’s sinking into the ocean as the permafrost melts. There are a dozen more villages lined up behind this one. “Moving Miami” would be a great fiscal horror flick!Certainly, you are correct, in that the less developed nations of the world are going to feel more pain, sooner, that the US. That’s one reason faith-based organizations have been promoting action on climate change.
sjohnson104 // Apr 11, 2009 at 10:49 am
djenkins:Indeed the whole history of how contemporary conservatism is somewhat antithetical to environmental conservation would take longer than a short post or article, though sinz’s is important to paraphrase that history. I think your article and posts have been terrific for those who have read them. I still believe that Christian leaders and their attitude toward environmental conservation are changing, namely through a younger generation. I would also argue that the U.S., though wealthier than Bangladesh and can handle climate disruptions better, Stewardship’s point is correct. Is the 400$ million cost of moving an Alaskan village a foreshadowing of problems to come? The insurance industry also highlights some of those potential risks. This site is important for wrestling with how being a conservative is not too different than wanting smart environmental protection. I do know of REP well, but I’m not a member/volunteer yet. If your site has a history of the change between what it means to be conservative and wanting environmental conservation, please point me more directly. I also hope you-djenkins-continue with more articles here to share with a wider conservative group.
ktward // Apr 12, 2009 at 1:04 pm
sjohnson104, Stewardship, sinz54, and of course the author, djenkins:Thank you indeed for what proved to be a stellar example of intelligent discourse of even, at times, opposing arguments. If only this might be a model to all discourse, both ‘Left’ and ‘Right’.Incendiary, demonizing and condescending rhetoric–particularly when fact takes a back seat to ideology–fails miserably in filling the void Americans as a whole feel when it comes to solving our country’s problems and addressing its deepening culture divides.Again, thank you.
sinz54 // Apr 13, 2009 at 9:39 am
Stewardship: During the Cold War, the U.S. Government took the problem of postattack recovery from nuclear war seriously. Many studies were done on the subject.It was believed that the U.S. could recover reasonably well from a “limited” nuclear war. By “limited,” I mean the loss of perhaps ten of our largest American cities, with the loss of most of their populations. All the economic, medical, and social issues were analyzed, and contingency plans drawn up.So while “moving Miami” would represent a challenge, I remind you that recovery from such a calamity has been part of U.S. homeland defense planning for fifty years. And at least we wouldn’t have to deal with the deaths, injury and emotional shock that loss of Miami (plus other cities) by nuclear war would have ensued. If Miami got flooded out, we would lose the real estate, but virtually none of the population. They could be relocated to the Appalachian Mountains, perhaps. Our economy would take a hit–but most of the fabric of American society would be intact.Whereas, the entire nations of Bangladesh and the Maldives might be wiped out. They don’t have safe areas like the Appalachian Mountains to flee to.