Reader Keith F. Saylor, an avowed conservative and Bush voter (no, Keith, that doesn't disqualify your comments -- you are welcome here, please hang around) left this comment, which got me thinking. He says environmentalism "is crippled by its marriage with the Democratic Party and its policies." (Da silva, who I assume is not a Bush voter, agrees here.) Further downthread, Tina Rhea, an avowed atheist (yup, you're welcome here too, Tina -- Grist is all about the big tent!) says environmentalists "could do more to reach out and make common cause" with Christians. These two suggestions are related, and I think they both have merit.
Now, here are two premises I assume are not controversial:First, enviros need all the help they can get, and that includes help from the cultural conservatives who put Bush over the top this year on issues of "moral values." Second, enviros should not attempt to procure that help at the expense of, well, the environment. So what to do?
The U.S. environmental movement has largely been the province of upper-middle-class, secular, liberal white people. It has always been so, and it remains so today, despite the many exceptions one could cite. This is a very narrow, specific cultural profile, and it doesn't seem to follow in any direct way from the nature of the issues -- in other words, it's not necessary. It's also off-putting to many folks. It would be nice if the issues themselves were assessed independently of that profile, but that's not how things work. The cultural profile of an issue's adherents is a heuristic people use, a kind of shorthand, in assessing it, because most folks just don't have time to process all the information. (Think about the issue of marijuana legalization -- it shouldn't matter that it's primarily stoners in favor of it, but it does.)
So we need to broaden that cultural profile. That means, among other things, talking about religion and about God, and about protecting the environment as a way of honoring God's creation, and about environmental justice as a way of protecting "the least among us." It means reaching out to hunters, fishers, and other traditionally conservative outdoorsy types in the West, and respecting the connection to nature they have forged. It means talking about ranching and agriculture in a respectful way, discussing sustainable farming and grazing techniques as a way of saving farms and communities in the Midwest, saving the little guy who's being swamped by Big Ag. It means talking about environmentalism as a traditional value, a connection to family and heritage, a connection to national security, an expression of hard work, honesty, and integrity.
It means offering cultural inroads into the movement that don't require buying into the idea that we're all connected and opening our hearts to peace and love and Gaia and moving on to the next stage of evolution and aligning our chi are required to preserve the environment. I have no beef with new agey types, but fruity doesn't sell in red states.
It needs to be possible to be a meat-eating, gun-toting, church-going, Wal-Mart shopping, cheap-beer drinking, elite-academic disdaining red stater and also be an environmentalist -- not just be one, but participate actively in the environmental movement. Right now, environmentalism is lined up with blue state attitudes and sensibilities in a way that is unnecessarily limiting to its efficacy. Frankly, nothing I see in the comments of current environmental leaders makes me think they acknowledge this.
There's also the issue of environmentalism's alignment with old-school Democratic party policies, particularly its reliance on government regulation. But this post is already too long, so I'll save that for later.
The question for now is: Is it true that environmentalists need to reach out to cultural conservatives? And if so, how do they do it? I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear what you think first. Y'all are smart.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum's got some interesting thoughts on the same topic here. Be sure to read the comments.
UPDATE II: Digby has another take altogether, here.
Comments
View as Flat
kfsaylor Posted 3:24 pm
04 Nov 2004
I'll try to make this post as coherent as I can.
Starting with the assumption that environmentalists should reach out to cultural Conservatives.
To the question how do environmentalists make environmentalism palatable to conservatives.
First, I think everyone should understand why the Republican Party has gained the support of many conservatives. Keeping this in mind:
The Republican Party and Conservatism are not mutually exclusive. Many Conservatives are not supporters of the Republican Party for the sake of the Republican Party.
The Republican Party has gained Conservative sympathies because they've spent years cultivating a relationship with them. They do not and did not set out to change the minds and hearts of conservatives; rather they embraced conservative values and gained the trust of many conservatives.
Environmentalism is not going to succeed with conservatives if there approach is to strive for a dialectic structure they think conservatives would embrace. Especially if that dialectic doesn't come from the heart. I'm really concerned that many are advocating a kind of dialectical bait and switch approach. Not only will this not work ... it will only serve to strengthen the disconnect.
I've recently written about a movement among conservatives who are concerned with issues surrounding wildlife and their habitat. This is currently a quiet and subtle movement as we begin to structure of thoughts from within a conservative ideological context. This movement embraces core Conservative political and moral values. Should this movement gain its political legs and ideological muscle, it will give cultural conservatives a foundation from which to get their minds around and embrace environmental concerns. But this embrace will come intuitively through conservative environmentalist's bedrock foundation in core conservative values. This intuitive embrace stemming from within the conservative political, social, and spiritual framework is essential.
Many conservative environmentalists are of the view that the fundamental ideological starting points are so different between themselves and mainstream environmentalism that it is too great to bridge ... I've even admonished environmentalism should be wedged ... creating a conservative and liberal environmentalist dichotomy. Though maybe it doesn't have to be that way.
The risk mainstream environmentalism faces is being marginalized if conservative environmentalist ideals become mainstreamed within conservatism as a whole and are thereby embraced by the Republican Party.
With this said, perhaps a good beginning would be for mainstream environmentalists to find ways to reach out to conservatives that stem not from a search for a shadow dialectical agreement but from shared intuitive experience and understanding.
I apologize if this is less than coherent. It is late and I should be in bed. I look forward to discussing this more and hope that, perhaps, we can work through to mutual sympathy with one another.
Finally, I leave you with this. I created a webpage with content comprising some images I've taken over the past year. Most of the image are of bird nests and juveniles; though there are some flowers and insects. I thought I'd share it with you all because
the intent of the page is not so much to display images; but to create a space for reflection ... a place to take a few moments and maybe center.
You must have the Macromedia Flash Plugin to view and listen to the presentation. It takes about 15 secs for the content to load on my cable connection. I'm not sure how long it will take for those with slower
internet connections.
Just thought some of you might enjoy it.
http://www.northbirding.com/med/
Keith F. Saylor
Permalink
Green9 Posted 1:41 am
05 Nov 2004
I'm really enjoying some of the discussions that have been happening around here of late. I only wish I had more time in an average day to construct my own thoughts in a manner worthy of placement with many of the high quality posts found here. I really like the idea of working to reach out to the socially conservative on environmental issues. I'm in full agreement that many feel isolated from the environmental movement because of its elitist/liberal ties. As was already mentioned, there are certainly examples that don't fit the trend. One that is quite close to home for me, here in Maine we are represented by two female republican Senators who continually vote pro environment despite party pressure. I think a lot can be done to bridge the conservative/liberal divide, but I also feel there is something bigger to overcome.
I think the biggest hurdle for environmentalists is that a large percentage of people don't directly experience negative implications and in turn don't feel much need to be interested in the issues. I see examples of it all the time in my discussions with family members, friends etc. Who cares if ice is melting in Antarctica, or sweet global warming I don't have to shovel snow anymore. I think perhaps the biggest challenge, and one that would make the most impact, is getting the average person to make a personal connection to environmental issues and the negative implication involved. I know I'm certainly not the first person to think this, but to me it sticks out as perhaps the biggest roadblock. My general feeling is that a large proportion of people tend to be reactive. If they don't have a problem then they are not looking to change things.
Permalink
da silva Posted 3:33 am
05 Nov 2004
Permalink
Chris Schults Posted 3:53 am
05 Nov 2004
To sign up for Grist by email, visit:
<http://www.grist.org/signup/>
Permalink
Lotus665 Posted 8:01 am
05 Nov 2004
Permalink
gordonrands Posted 12:17 pm
05 Nov 2004
I'm an aging baby boomer whose undergraduate degree is in Natural Resources (U of Michigan). I've worked as a staff member for the Idaho Conservation League, and as an environmental educator. I got a master's in organizational development & change and a Ph.D. in Business (management) and now teach in a business school, mainly courses in business ethics, but also courses on business and the natural environment. My political philosophy is not easily pigeonholed: fiscally conservative (pro balanced budget), conservative on personal morality issues (anti-abortion, pro sanctity of marriage, anti sex outside of marriage, anti use of illegal drugs), economically progressive (pro progressive income tax), fairly liberal on social justice issues (pro anti-poverty programs that promote responsibility and initiative, anti-racial and gender discrimination), for an activist foreign policy based on sustainable development principles, and passionately pro-environment. I voted for Nader in 2000 (I could afford to as I live in Illinois), and for Kerry this year, but not without some trepidations.
Environmentalists have to realize that for strongly religious Christian conservatives -- whether Protestant, Catholic, or Mormon (I'm the latter) -- concerns about moral decay based in rejection of traditional codes of personal sexual morality are extremely important. Praying about one's decisions is not something that one does because one is anti-rationality, but because one believes that there are limitations to human wisdom, but not to God's wisdom. While I disagree with the wholescale conservative philosophy of most religious conservatives, I believe that the vast majority of them are sincere in their beliefs and that most of them are in fact caring individuals. However, most believe that, although everyone is fallible and makes mistakes and deserves to be loved, it is wrong to be tolerant of sinful behavior, because it is not only against God's commands, but is personally and socially harmful. Obviously the rhetoric coming from some of the members of this group can sometimes be rather vituperative (and thus seemingly hypocritical) about liberals. But think about some of the opinions expressed by liberal environmentalists (even on this blog) about President Bush and other conservatives. Not exactly very tolerant either.
There was a fair amount written before the election about the fact that all evangelicals are not conservative on social issues (taxes, environment, health care, etc.) despite their conservatism on moral issues (issues of personal sexual morality such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.). I don't know if any of the polling or other research will answer how these people voted, but I'll hazard a guess that many of them (perhaps not a majority) ended up voting for Bush.
I completely agree that war, environmental destruction, poverty, lack of health care, and other assorted problems for which Bush and conservative Republican politicians seems to have little if any concern ARE moral issues. But to attempt to make the case that these issues are THE moral issues worth considering will simply not cut it with those for whom issues of personal (largely sexual) morality is a central concern.
The environmental community has to face up to the fact that so long as it is seen as not only favoring environmental protection, but also as favoring abortion, looking down on religion, and being highly tolerant of (or even favoring) sexual relations outside of marriage (whether hetero- or homosexual) , it is likely to be rejected by many individuals for whom religious faith is one of the strongest aspects of their lives.
How can this problem be addressed? I'm not sure. I know that many conservatives believe that environmentalists are ill-informed, arrogant, bossy "know-it-alls", who are uncaring about the problems that the average blue collar American faces. I think that environmentalists have for too long attempted to win battles by turning out our base, rather than by patiently and tolerantly engaging in real dialogue with those who are skeptical of our views, understanding the day-to-day problems that most lower/middle class Americans face, incorporating these concerns into our policy proposals, and slowly building a widespread understanding of how a sustainable society will be more supportive of their hopes and desires than will the corporate dominated society that so many GOP conservatives really favor. In other words, we have to help people realize that the environmentalist vision is more in line with "Main Street" than is that of "Wall Street".
At the same time, we have to be willing to embrace market-based policies when these will work.
I think that the constant negative (often downright insulting) depictions of our opponents (corporations, Republicans, conservatives, religions, etc.) has to end, because we are backing ourselves into a corner in which there aren't many other occupants. It may make for great fundraising, but it doesn't make for very good education and coalition building.
We also have to be willing to support politicians who on some issues are moderate but on environmental issues are strong - even if not perfect. Environmentalists are among the activist groups who have made moderate Democratic officeholders (at least at the federal level) an endangered species. (The right of course has its own activist groups that have done the same to moderate Republicans). Groups such as the League of Conservation voters needs to look for religious, pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-environment candidates to support in the primaries (and even before), in both parties.
Well, sorry for the rambling, but this is a topic on which I feel passionately. I am tired of always having to choose between two aspects of my deeply held moral values (sexual morality and environmental protection) whenever I vote for a candidate. So far I have always come down upon the side of the environment, but I admit that its getting harder and harder to do so, as signs of moral decay in society become more and more evident.
I hope that my comments may have provided another useful perspective on this topic.
Permalink
kfsaylor Posted 12:33 pm
05 Nov 2004
In my early post above I wrote:
"With this said, perhaps a good beginning would be for mainstream environmentalists to find ways to reach out to conservatives that stem not from a search for a shadow dialectical agreement but from shared intuitive experience and understanding."
This evening I went for a long walk along the wooded shoreline of one of my favorite birding areas. In the cool air, surrounded by darkness and the little breeze rustling the dry leave and grasses I reflected on these words. I challenged myself to expand on what I was trying to express.
For some reason, particular memories flooded my mind. First, as a young man, my first small game hunt. Our Beagle (named Bozo) circling a Cotton-tail Rabbit back around to me ... my heart pumping ... the rabbit running into a clearing ... I raise my beloved 20 gauge shotgun ... aim and squeeze the trigger ... I'm on target ... but the rabbit is only wounded. My dad is not nearby but our neighbor is was along-side me.
"Good shot son!" he exclaims.
"It is not dead your going to have to finish him." he says.
He goes on to suggest in a matter-of-fact way. "Pick it up and hit it against a tree a couple times."
I complied ... However, tears were flowing. Far from being happy ... my sympathy for this animal overwhelmed me. (By the way, I've long lost desire to hunt.)
The memories go on.
Years later, I'm on a road driving to an appointment. The roads are wet. A deer runs out ... I strike it head on. I'm in an isolated area in Michigan. No homes nearby. This was before cell-phones were prevalent. The deer lay in the road hind legs broken and trying to right itself. It is a doe in the late stages of pregnancy. My heart is broken ... tears are streaming down my face. Finally, another car approaches and an man approaches. I feel like a fool ... no way to conceal my emotions. He laughs at me. "Just drag the damn deer to the side of the road." I want to scream, "You freaking cold-hearted $*#@!"
You want help? he asks
"No thank you."
He drives away shaking his head.
I sit with her until she expires. Sympathy. The gentleman in the car seemed to lack it in this situation.
These memories bring to me powerful reminders of sympathy ... a pliability of heart.
I again reflect on my words. "Shared intuitive experience and understanding," and inject sympathy.
In quiet one on one hours there's so much I share and affirm with those adherents to mainstream environmentalism. We sympathize with one another because we share an intuitive love and concern for our shared environment based, in part, on our shared experience with things wild. These things transcend ideology. This transcendent point of reference brings us together.
However, our adversarial political system demands we act. And demands that we act on our beliefs if we wish to effect the path our nation takes.
I'm falling ... solidifying ... becoming rigid.
Though it is no where near the same thing ... ideologically and politically ... I often feel like a warrior in the field of battle. I meet a friend on the other side. We are forced to struggled against one-another. However, before the battle begins our eyes meet ... a moment of recognition ... sympathy and respect. A fleeting thought ... to hell with this conflict! Let's join forces!
... the fight begins. Transcendence lost. Sympathy lost. All that matters is winning.
Falling into politics.
In spirit we touch the truth together. In temporality truth becomes refracted and the soul grieves while the world suffers.
Keith F. Saylor
Permalink
Shalini Ramanathan Posted 9:42 pm
07 Nov 2004
And it's a mistake for the environmental movement to hop on the wagon of any group who might be able to get us to victory, especially if the cost is to alienate the core.
Permalink
christinehanna Posted 1:19 pm
08 Nov 2004
I posted on this subject earlier today - a summary of ruminations I've had on this subject. And re: Shalini's comment that it's hard to imagine working in common cause with people you just don't like - well, yes, some of them you won't like. But we don't like some of our family or some of our co-workers either, and we seem to make stuff happen anyway. I mean, aren't we in a bit of an echo-chamber here? Isn't it time to break out and go mainstream? Plus there are lots of shades of red. My fiance and I had a fantastic, impromptu four-hour political conversation with a lovely young Red at a restaurant bar on Friday, and we're planning on doing it again soon! In fact, talking with someone who didn't already agree with me was totally refreshing after four years of seething. (I'll even flash my new-age badge and say the run-in probably wasn't even a coincidence!) I'll finish up with a paraphrase from the end of an article I read recently about down-and-out millworkers in NC, who are (finally) facing the new reality: You get to a point when you just have to quit-yer-cryin', toughen up, and think outside the box.
Damn straight!
Permalink
Shalini Ramanathan Posted 6:52 pm
08 Nov 2004
I wonder if it might be possible to work with the new moral majority to get them to put pressure on the Bush administration to be more environmentally friendly? For instance, when drilling in ANWR comes up, how about if enviros work aggressively with churches to send disapproving messages to Congress and the White House?
If good environmental stewardship is a Christian responsibility, maybe we need to start raising awareness of Bush's real environmental record with his natural constituency.
Any thoughts on this?
Permalink
gretel Posted 4:09 am
09 Nov 2004
The language of these people is going to be very different from what we more main-line folks are used to, and listening carefully without prejudging will be very important. Also not making sure our attitude is open-minded and not condescending.
We can learn a lot from these folks about how to talk to conservatives and what their journey was to a concern for care for the earth.
Permalink
da silva Posted 8:27 am
09 Nov 2004
Permalink
gordonrands Posted 2:10 am
11 Nov 2004
These groups, as well those such as Republicans for Environmental Progress (is that the correct name?), offer the potential for improving communication of pro-environmental messages to religious conservatives and Republicans generally. But doing so effectively will require that mainline environmentalists also listen to them, and be willing to treat their views on other issues (traditional moral issues in the case of evangelicals, and economic issues and policy approaches [market-based vs. traditional regulation] in the case of Republicans) with an increased amount of openmindedness and respect. That doesn't mean having to agree, but it should mean at least agreeing to politely disagree, stopping inflammatory name-calling, and agreeing that the other issues can be decoupled from the basic goals of protecting a quality environment for our grandchildren.
Permalink
Diane Fitzsimmons Posted 2:41 am
11 Nov 2004
Conservatives are a diverse group, varying in political beliefs, race, economic status, education, religion, gender, ethnicity, etc. Among them are evangelical Christians, who, as mentioned before, include many who see preservation and protection of the environment as part of their duty to glorify God. Most prominent is the Evangelical Environmental Network (creationcare.org), which manages to mix environmental activism with that "scary" evangelical talk about being, as EEN's Executive Director Jim Ball calls it, "disturbers of the environmental status quo because we are Bible-thumping, born-again slaves of Jesus Christ ..." This is the same group that promotes "What Would Jesus Drive?".
Feminists and conservative Christians, whose memberships overlap, have put together some differences in order to form a coalition to fight sexual slavery. The "big tent" of anti-war activism includes evangelical and Catholic Christians, as do efforts to help AIDS victims and to stop capital punishment. I would suggest to you that environmentalists and conservatives also similarly overlap and also can find common ground on many environmental issues.
I am sure many, if not most, Grist readers would consider me a social conservative. I also consider my efforts to preserve and protect the environment part of my faith walk. I am striving toward complete car-freedom, having been "car-lite" for three years and now without a car. I have served for almost five years on my city's greenbelt commission. I am a member of a food co-op that gets all of its products from small, Oklahoma family farms. When I write President Bush (which is often), I speak to him in his own language, reminding him that the Bible states clearly that God calls Christians (and others) to preserve and protect our environment and that to do otherwise is a sin. (BTW, I did not vote for Bush.)
My motivation for fighting for the environment may differ from non-Christians, but I believe our goals are the same.
As I said before, conservatives vary in beliefs. But they usually are people who take their faith seriously, value the wise use of money, favor local controls to national and value family, community and by-your-bootstraps solutions. I believe most efforts to preserve and protect the environment can easily be framed in those contexts.
For instance, conservatives tend to not want to be dependent upon foreign oil. Efforts to put in place fuel conservation programs (and to avoid drilling in ANWR) could talk about lessening dependence upon the capriciousness of OPEC.
Those who want to understand American evangelical Christians, just one conservative branch, better should check out http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html
Permalink
bigdumbhoosier Posted 7:25 am
11 Nov 2004
My first observation is that there are certain kinds of religious conservatives that will prove almost impossible to reach -- they're the ones expecting the rapture at any moment. Why worry about the decline of the yellow-billed cuckoo if you really believe the end times are nigh?
However, other religious conservatives are very sympathetic (in my experience, the Amish, for example), though they may be somewhat hesitant to be politically active. Making the parallel between conservative and conservation can help -- interestingly, many outdoors loving but right-leaning people feel perfectly comfortable with being a 'conservationist', but hate 'environmentalists'.
In Indiana most outdoorsmen (hunters, fishermen) have been somehow convinced to hate 'liberals' and 'environmentalists' -- I really think this has been the product of effective symbol manipulation by right-wing radio personalities. At the same time, the Izaak Walton League is a model of an outdoorsman oriented enviro organization that has been amazingly effective given its small size. Try reading their publication 'Outdoor America', it's member driven, practical, and shows you can tote a gun and be on the front lines of the environmental movement simultaneously.
For most of the issues I deal with, agriculture is by far the most powerful interest group. Again, there are conflicting currents: most farmers have a genuine love of the land, and most landowners have a tie to their places that transcends purely economic production. Stewardship is often pretty good; if it weren't conditions would be much worse than they are. On the other hand farmers tend to be unwilling to share any amount of control over the landscape with any other interest group (regardless of ownership...it's a common misconception that farmers own most of the ground they farm, much is leased).
Another thing about agriculture -- farmers are conservative in the sense that they resist being forced to change their ways, but progressive in the sense that if they are convinced there's a better way it can be amazing how quickly they will adopt an innovation or improved management system. It's all a matter of inducing the change through education and financial incentives.
Perhaps the biggest thing I've learned in representing environmental interests in public meetings and courts in this convervative region is the importance of making a persuasive case for the economic considerations favoring my client's position. People like living in clean, healthful, beautiful surroundings, and that's just as true of Republicans as of Democrats.
Being in a rural area in a much maligned state, I have to say I share a bit of the rural right-wings irritation at being referred to as "fly-over country" and stereotyped as a buffoon just off the turnip truck. It's true that country people often look a bit confused in dealing the big city...but I can assure you that city people often do similarly inappropriate things when visiting the country. Suburbanites, in particular, are often very status conscious and tend to think if they've got a nicer car than you do, they must be a whole lot smarter too.
I suppose I'm saying that the most important thing is to make a persuasive case that taking the necessary steps to preserve and restore the environment are really worth doing. I also think it would help if the pro-environmental people would foster more personal contacts with people living in rural areas where the rubber meets the road in terms of landscape preservation.
Permalink
elejenn Posted 12:12 pm
12 Nov 2004
Now as an adult, I have come to realize that it is more about being ready for change or open to new ideas (that may actually make sense if you'll just listen) that really affects how the average Republican I know, works. I am a Vegan, Christian, animal rights activitist and consider myself to be an activist for the environment as well. I know part of what causes the blindness of evangelicals is the misinterpretations of the Bible which they like to use for "lording" their ideas over others. God gave us dominion over animals so therefore, they believe we can eat them (does it say that or does it say care for the animals?) Just because God is coming back and this could be the end times (which it states in the Bible that you won't know when the He is coming back) doesn't mean trash the earth. Perhaps my starting point was my interest in helping the animals in the shelters. Change begins with awakening. Evangelicals like to be closed minded. They like to be a group of people who are right and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.
As far as conservatives goes, I don't think they are against conserving the environment; they are not animal rights activists though, and why they struggle so hard with that issue, I do not know (other than liking to eat meat). They don't mind the lakes and ponds in good, clean order but that is because they want to fish and hunt ducks. They like their guns and I think they are more for war instead of peace just because they think their gun rights would be abolished and not because they are for war in general. Or whatever each personal reason is, but I've definitely seen that with the more fundamentalist a person is, the more "me" oriented they are. If it doesn't directly affect them than it isn't an issue. If they feel threatened, then they will take action even if it is not really about them.
So, it isn't actually how to get through to those against the environment, but how open they will be. Some will be more open and that is where a different approach may pay off, but those who like to see things one way and don't want to even see another view, they will never change on any issue (including laundry brand!) Some people are just unfortunately that way. It is definitely more of an American problem (why some Americans feel so isolated from the rest of the world like the world is their enemy, I'll never know either).
Let's just hope that the more progressive Christians continue to rise in number and that the other half of America can be coxed into opening their eyes.
Jenn
Permalink
birdboy Posted 10:48 am
13 Nov 2004
Environmental issues are not a popular concern because few people are directly and immediately affected by environmental 'sin'. The effects of pollution are rarely felt by the people who are present at the time and place that it occurs- it goes downwind, downstream, into the ground water, only to reconcentrate in some distantly related place and time (like mercury in fish). Just like smoking, we continue until we get cancer- because we like the immediate effects (like the cash we get when we sell our land to a developer). Americans are incredibly good at justifying behavoir we know is damaging, and when the damage is dislocated from the cause, it's just easy.
As always, the problem is not so much a lack of education about the effects of eco-no-no's, but it is the selfish greed that makes us look away from the problem and focus on the immediate gratification. The only solution is to force people to face the facts; when they toss that battery in the trash, the acid ends up in the water table below the landfill, and shows up as poisoned habitat for animals that eat animals that would otherwise overpopulate and contract a disease which can spread to the chickens raised on farms that provide the food on our tables tonight. Is that so hard to follow?
That said, as we all know, the corporate-owned and controlled media has a different agenda- mass consumption is not consistant with sustainability and eco-care. They, the product-pushers should be giving free air time for our message as a public service- might we be able to push our local TV stations into broadcasting a locally relevant environmental message by bombarding them with letters, phone calls, and protest signs? If we pick locally relevant issues, and offer solutions that reflect a consistant globally-good-stewardship approach, might they feel obligated to run our ads? Hey, we've got lots of good talent on our side- the evil Hollywood liberal-artists can make a message that sells to anyone, eh? We need market-testing, to see what works. If we can stress the connection between bad stewardship here and now to the pain inflicted then and there, in such a way that the most conservative republican can't look away, we start to win over minds and maybe, eventually, elections. Yes, I dream.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
birdboy Posted 11:31 am
13 Nov 2004
Whether it is the greatest sin or not is another argument, but right-wing Christians seem to be forgetting the more easily hidden and more dangerous sin of GREED. This is the real enemy today- it is the reason that sex is used to sell everthing from a car to a stick of gum- because it makes money. It is the reason that pollution is allowed in spite of the harm it does, it is the reason that war is chosen, it is the reason that our democracy is broken. The GOP is vulnerable on this point, because while they have pandered to the right by adopting their policies on sexual repression and abortion, they have been busily giving away our resouces and our health to help their corporate friends. If we attack the right-wing on this issue, the true color of their morality may show like green leaves turning to red.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
dykechic Posted 5:53 am
14 Nov 2004
As for reaching out to the conservatives, as much as the thought makes me cringe, I think in light of the elections results, that it's something that has to be done. I have nothing much against conservatives, I have friends and family that are consersvative and voted for Bush, but at the same time, being gay, I've taken a lot of grief from members of the religious right. So excuse me if I'm less then thrilled to go groveling to a group of people who tries to kick me out of my church and constantly reminds me I'm immoral. But as I said we need their help and I'll do just about anything to help the environment, including putting a fake smile on and covering up my gay pride gear.
Peace and love all.
Permalink