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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is it rong to ask about my interview? Id I do something right?”

Is it rong to ask about my interview? Id I do something right?”

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.