Last time I was well into my second glass of wine, and I said something that I scarcely believe. My second glass finished, I am now ready to defend it.
Subduing the earth is a liberal impulse. Observing the natural law is a conservative impulse.
Let’s be a little more precise: The leftist impulse is characterized by subduing the earth. The rightist impulse is characterized by observing the natural law. Since the words liberal and conservative are more familiar, I’ll continue to make some use of them in this post.
If you are hung up on these characterizations at all, it is because of the present day alignment of environmental conservatism with – well, liberalism. Progressivism, even. And the apparent alignment of political conservatism with industry, big business.
Bring out the bugaboo – Global warming is a leftist cause. Denial of global warming is a rightist cause.
Now, let us be painfully clear: I am not attempting to say anything about the reality or unreality of global warming. I do have an opinion, but it does not matter. Global warming is only a litmus test for us.
Really, you can’t go on reading if you’re going to keep saying to yourself, “Yeah, but it’s totally a hoax.” or “Yeah, but it’s undeniably true.”
Quit arguing for one damned second. We’re trying to say something important. (Yes, I’m trolling. But now I’m done).
First of all, denial of global warming is not equivalent to a hatred of the environment. It can be based on the failure of predictive models, or indifference to the human plight (because, as you must know, something will survive global warming, even if we don’t).
So, the rightist tendency to deny global warming is not explicitly a denial of the natural order. It is skepticism of the claims, and opposition to the proposed solutions. What about those?
The proposed solutions vary widely. The goal is to reduce greenhouse gases, which might be achieved by one of two means: Either by advancing technology toward clean energy, or by taking current energy production off-line. Ideally both.
Notice: The tendency to develop advanced technology is form of subduing the earth. We have subdued coal, and found it undesirable. We will now subdue something else.
Since I have identified subjugation of the earth as a liberal impulse, this solution fits with your current understanding. It is a liberal cause to advance clean energy by subduing more earth. (A LOT more earth, in the case of solar power!) Even people who are typically conservative will often agree with this direction.*
What is the conservative hesitation with clean energy? Well, it changes the status quo, which is really pretty good. (Can I get an amen, or are you reading this via brainwaves?)
Remember – a conservative wants to conserve the order that exists. He sees the value in it. This is why he is doomed to failure. In the meantime, he usually has a good point if anyone will listen to him. If you go introducing novel energy – and worse, if that clean energy has not proved itself out – you are going to trigger his opposition.
You are drawing all over his map, and he’s pissed. You’d be pissed, too, if it were your map, and someone was constantly renaming the roads and drawing in details and information that had not been verified.
What about the second general solution, to reduce greenhouse gases by reducing consumption? Isn’t this a return to the natural order, by removing synthetic production? Two points.
First, yes. Who is further to the right – the Amish, or any given citizen of New York City? The Amish have conserved their culture, by and large, and they are closer to the natural order. And you would not hesitate to say they were further to the right.
Why aren’t the conservatives rallying against fossil fuels, then?
You start to see why conservatives always lose. American Conservatives, you have to understand, have accepted a map further to the left of the Amish. But they have defined this (relatively) more liberal map as THE map, the new foundational order, and thus they wish to preserve it. Meanwhile, liberals have begun to modify THAT map, and Progressives are in the process of creating yet another new map…
Fossil fuels, then, are part of the old liberal map, which became the new conservative map. Then conservatives (up to the present day) attempted to conserve that map – including the liberal modifications – while the liberals moved on, seeking other fuels which might be better than fossil fuels.
The full issue, of course, is far more complex. There are economic implications, self-interested implications. If you want your head to spin, consider whether nuclear energy is a liberal or a conservative cause. (Pun intended)
We have left one thing out, which exaggerates the whole situation, and made my (very reasonable) opening assertion seem ridiculous. What about the back-to-the-earth, primitive living Progressives? Isn’t that a return to the natural order, and aren’t they very clearly leftists?
Short answer: No, it is not a return at all. It is a utopian vision, which is the end goal of leftism.
Longer answer: Relatively few people actually pull off the return to earth, for one thing.** For another – even if they do labor heavily, and subject themselves to the elements, and endure (or enjoy!) the solitude of nature, and suffer the inconveniences of primitive life – they almost invariably depend on the modern economy at some point. Even the Amish accept US currency.
On the contrary, it turns out that the Progressive desire to return to the earth is something of a synthetic fabrication. It is a romance, a thing not actually based in reality.
Reality is brutally difficult. The vision is not. Thus, the vision is a human invention. If it were attempted, it would rely disproportionately on subduing the earth in visible and invisible ways. All utopias do.
Perhaps you are not upside-down, only a little dizzy. In any event, this is one of the big ideas: That leftism tends toward subduing the earth, and rightism tends toward obeying the natural order. The implications tend to turn some of our assumptions upside-down, but then, that’s because we had them backwards in the first place.
*Humans are both, liberal and conservative. When we lock up one way or the other, the trouble starts. But don’t get distracted.
**Many return, quite thoroughly, to the earth, never to be heard from again.
And video games? Is there a way to even count the violence?