Why Conservatives Can Make a Case for Climate Change
The irony of a hyper-politicized world is that some issues no longer fall into the respective boxes that they might fall into otherwise. As part of the word ‘conservative,’ you find the other, ‘conserve.’ It’s built into the function of the word and of what a conservative often aims to do. In the traditional sense, the Burkean sense of conservatism, conservatives find value in traditional beliefs and institutions. They want to preserve what we’ve gained from the past, especially those things that have worked, because they acknowledge the complexity of a functioning political system and they want to carry those things into the future. As the quote from Edmund Burke says, “Society is indeed a contract. It is a partnership . . . not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”
Where else do we find something so contractual that links us to the past, present, and future than in nature? Hunters, a demographic that often leans conservative and republican in their voting, is a group that’s focused on the preservation of the land. That’s the same with farmers and other rural workers who have to depend on the land for their survival and the survival of future generations. Through the religious lens of these concepts of stewardship of property, you’ll find plenty of verses in the Bible where God calls for preservation of what has been given to man and woman.
For what reason then is all of this lost on conservatives when it comes to the preservation of our only ecosystem? Granted, the politicization of climate change leads to extremes in each direction. We get the extremes of the denying radicals, and the extremes of the doomsdaying radicals. Ocasio-Cortez’s claims that we’ll all be gone in twelve years doesn’t feel much different from that of an end times church pastor incorrectly prophesying the end of the world. Maybe that example itself shows the religiosity of the climate change belief system when it’s taken to its extreme. Both sides of the aisle are clearly capable of radical and exaggerated ideas that don’t accurately reflect reality.
The important reality is, we have to take a dispassionate approach to the world around us, especially the world of ideas. There’s a truth in Cortez’s claims of danger to the environment, and there’s a truth in conservatism, even if both truths are currently being stretched wildly out of proportion to win partisan votes. And part of that truth is, I believe, that in a rational world, climate change would be a conservative issue. The party of conservation, maintenance, and stewardship should be the ones shepherding us toward a more sustainable world.
It is, of course, the case that the United States shouldn’t shoulder the burden for preservation of the world. There are foreign bad actors that need to get in line, and our attempts to get them there haven’t been fruitful. (Though that’s a conversation for another day.)
I do hope that we can one day return to a world that isn’t hyper-partisan, a world that can engage with ideas, and a world that realizes that some of the chosen political issues for a given party can actually have compelling arguments made from the other side of the aisle. Maybe all we need is rational people from the competing side to make those arguments. Hopefully their voices would be heard and not immediately become politicized for misinterpreted plays on partisan media outlets.
