RSS Feed MenuThe Chicago Sun-Times printed an interesting story on April 16 about a man who decided to travel across the country in an environmentally friendly RV. This story symbolizes how the Republicans can re-brand themselves as a party friendly to the environment. First, it is striking that the story consciously evokes the image of the intrepid explorer setting out to experience nature – the image of Teddy Roosevelt or the great 19-20th Century British explorers come to mind. All of whom, like the man in the story, believe that we need to get out and enjoy nature to instill a sense of responsibility for its preservation. The obvious groups that are already enjoying nature include modern-day hunters and outdoorsmen (such as fishermen), and my guess is they already lean Republican (think Ted Nugent) but the story also points to another group – the explorer or weekend warrior – who likes to take the family to a state park for the weekend or maybe owns a cottage by a lake and is interested in environmental issues as they impact their enjoyment of nature. Republicans can encourage this spirit of exploration and champion spending on state parks and common-sense land-use regulation that encourages developers to build responsibly (as opposed to the Democrats who don’t want any development). Finally, the article quotes the man as saying he sees his efforts to be environmentally friendly while traveling as promoting the classic conservative ideals of “being independent and self-reliant.” Broad-based efforts to reform the tax code (i.e., a Pigouvian gas tax) to encourage entrepreneurs to invest in such green ventures (as opposed to the government picking and choosing green businesses) would help send a message to those green voters looking for a party that wants to support their efforts at independence and self-reliance that the Republican Party is their natural home (pun intended).
nealjking // Apr 17, 2009 at 5:23 am
You want the GOP to have a “green” brand?Get them to promote carbon taxes instead of cap & trade for CO2: It works better and is less fussy.That would actually have a positive effect, not just a PR effect.
R.E. Munn // Apr 17, 2009 at 5:50 am
Those to whom you refer as “green voters”, in large part, are pixilated folks who are not moved by suasion of any sort. Your argument, like many here, is Clintonesque triangulation, nothing more. Conservatives are better served by exposing the green movement for what it is, namely, a high priced hoax, just as most other derivatives.
sinz54 // Apr 17, 2009 at 9:33 am
R. E. Munn: Every time there is a smog alert in a major city, the emergency rooms of that city’s hospitals start noticing a spike in asthma attacks. That’s not a “hoax.”You drive your polluting automobile up and down city streets, while not noticing the children with asthma in the apartment buildings you pass by. That’s not a “hoax,” that’s known as an economic externality, and you should pay for it.
jsinger008 // Apr 18, 2009 at 1:45 pm
R.E. Munn,Can to elaborate on what you mean by calling the “green movement” a “high priced hoax, just as most other derivatives”? Are you suggesting that derivatives have no economic function? Are you suggesting that a clean environment isn’t worth pursuing, balanced of course, with a concern for economic growth?