Here’s a thought: we conservatives have so much ammo about the stupidity of the “Green movement” that we could snatch the conservation label from liberals faster than ethanol-grade corn grows. Here’s my reasoning:
- Almost everyone agrees that given two otherwise equal choices, government, businesses and people should choose the action that doesn’t pollute.
- Tree-huggers are wackos, and a plurality of Americans agree.
- There are often three levels of asininity to a liberal’s statements, so it can be tricky to argue using the one or two lines you get in edgewise.
- We hate and mock the asinine approach to conservation/pollution because it a) lacks common sense and b) is a sacred cow for people we don’t particularly care for. It is great fun to mention that your new hobby is seal clubbing while in the presence of a liberal. Only make sure you use the correct, old-growth rainforest club, or you don’t get the right effect.
What if, instead of spouting off about the stupidity of the latest “green” objective, we co-opt the goal of a healthy environment and critique liberals’ obviously misguided efforts? Use their own terms, of course. It would look like this at a personal level, I think:
Lib: “I’m SO glad President Obama worked with GM to produce hybrid cars, now there’s more competition in that market.” (In this case, four levels of stupid: role of the executive branch, market concepts, costs of subsidies, and ignorance to production externalities)
NewCon: “What’s sad is that they weren’t able to find a production process that used less energy and chemicals than the difference saved in the life of the car. I wish they found a real solution, instead of just hiding the pollution in the factory.”
This example just neatly divided green goals from liberal leadership’s poor decisions. You have to empathize, and then be negative. Because REALLY, greenies are suspicious of the Dem leaders anyway, because we haven’t institutionalized veganism yet. If they listen, just tell them you don’t have all the answers, but that you like this one idea…
At a policy level, it could work out this way: Start talking about the waste of producing inferior products. Mention that you want better options for Americans, but a car that sold only 281 times last month while advertising in the Superbowl is costing the environment. Conservatives have a hatred for waste in common with greenies, we should emphasize that. Talk about raising CAFE standards (if you’re a moderate) and letting companies find the best ways to reach that goal. With Global Warming, talk about how how it has dominated the media to the detriment of all other environmental efforts (when was the last time you heard the word pollution in the news, outside of the BP oil spill?).
We can take the lead, as long as we sound the when talking to individuals, and completely opposite when talking about the laws we’ll pass. Nobody wants to see pavement everywhere, but how about matching the amount of pavement to the population? (SEATTLE, listen up) I love furry woodland creatures, but how about we find out why they are dying? For example, the spotted owl is being pushed out by a superior owl species, the barred owl, that migrated naturally from the East coast through Canada’s forests over the years. This, after we killed entire communities’ livelyhoods on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula. We can and should talk about a checklist for new environmental efforts, like “does it solve the real problem?” and, “is there a market for this product?” Republicans can rally behind commonsense measures, and have additional ammo and credibility when sniping all the stupid ones.
Oh, yeah, Thanks Allapundit for the inspiration and Kirby Wilbur, our state party’s fearless new leader, for linking this.