This post is by ClimateProgress guest blogger Bill Becker, Executive Director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.
In recent years, conservatives have mastered the art of hijacking morality. They have positioned themselves as the champions of family values, faith and good old-fashioned patriotism. But on what some regard as the moral issue of our time, the party's presidential candidates are turning their backs.
That issue is global warming.
Al Gore is not the only prominent leader who considers climate change a moral issue. Three years ago, the National Association of Evangelicals issued its "Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility." It reads in part:
We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part. Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation. At about the same time, Christianity Today, an influential evangelical magazine, opined that "Christians should make it clear to governments and businesses that we are willing to adapt our lifestyles and support steps towards changes that protect our environment."
The magazine endorsed the bipartisan global warming bill co-sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (I/D CT) and John McCain (R-AZ).
Yet, the other Republican presidential candidates are keeping their distance from the issue as though it is their weird Aunt Ethel with halitosis.
For those who believe that global warming transcends parties, there was a momentary glimmer of hope on Dec. 11 when, on the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asked five of the GOP candidates point-blank whether they think climate change is overblown. Only Fred Thompson retreated into full waffle, saying we need more research.
Mitt Romney answered, "I think the risks of climate change are real ... And I think human activity is contributing to it."
Rudy Giuliani answered, "There is global warming. Human beings are contributing to it."
Mike Huckabee said, "I don't know ... But here's one thing I do know, that we ought to not let this become this big political football and point of argument. We all ought to agree that we live on this planet as guests. I think Republicans have made a big mistake by not being more on the forefront of conservationism."
McCain showed he still is capable of straight-talk: "I have been to Greenland, I have been to the South Pole. I've been to the Arctic and I know it's real," he said. "I've been involved in this effort for many years. And we've got to act. And unfortunately, we have not acted either as a federal government or a Congress."
Why not, Couric asked him.
"Special interests," McCain replied. "It's the special interests. It's the utility companies and the petroleum companies and other special interests. They're the ones that have blocked progress in the Congress of the United States and the administration."
The climate-action community was atwitter with hope after the Couric interviews. But it didn't last long. The next night in their televised debate in Iowa, with their base watching, the Republican candidates followed Thompson's lead and slipped back into silence. As CNN reported:
When asked to raise their hands if they believed global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson said he wasn't "doing hand shows today." Other candidates agreed. Thompson asked if he could answer the question instead, but was told no.
This was largely the same group that had no trouble with a show of hands last May when they were asked which of them do not believe in evolution:
While most of the Democrat candidates have issued fairly detailed and thoughtful position papers on climate change, most of the Republicans have not. Terry Tamminen, the policy expert who helped Republican governors Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist of Florida design the most aggressive climate action plans in the nation, has started grading the candidates on their positions. By his reckoning, six of the Democrats have earned A's or B's, but all of the Republicans -- even McCain -- have "incompletes."
Part II will look at why conservatives should share ownership of this issue.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Comments
View as Threaded
Biodiversivist Posted 6:35 am
23 Dec 2007
As with the abortion issue, these attitudes are based on religion, not reason. Our founding fathers tried to create a system that would keep religious dogma from gaining control of our government, and to date, it has held it in check but with Bush in office things have gotten dangerously out of hand.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 9:34 am
23 Dec 2007
But I can say they'd look in horror at these people using religion for political aims.
If you look at history correctly, most Americans and Founding Fathers had a very dim view of tyranny in all forms, including the church, King, and measures that suppressed freedom. Many went to church every Sunday but would never extol their "beliefs" in the context of politics, legislation and the Congress.
But why kick a dead elephant? The Republican Party is toast. The pendulum is swinging away from the rightist freebooters to the more socialistic and left leaning, and I would be VERY concerned about that as well.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:34 am
23 Dec 2007
You are quite right, about the hypothetical horror of the Founding Fathers. But who in the world do you mean by "the more socialistic and left leaning"? Hillary?! Ha!
BioD,
you are probably right too, though I know nothing about internal Republican polling. We have already discussed this in Gristmill: Are the evangelical Christians coming around, on conservation, the environment and global warming? And I think we decided that perhaps some are, but more are not, in good conscience. Some prejudices that stand in the way are: the belief that environmentalism is a species of communism; the Rove-inspired belief that helping environmentalists means helping liberals, which God forbid; and, among a fair number, the belief that the End is coming very soon, and in that context it makes no sense to do anything to save the environment -- and in that context, it is worth noting that Mike Huckabee and Tim LeHaye, one of the authors of the "Left Behind" series, are good pals.
Joseph,
thanks for this post. I hate all this faith-test business; but on the other hand, we are perfectly justified in excluding from office, with power over educational policy, anyone who does not fiercely believe that young people ought to be taught the theory of evolution as the foundation of their education in biology.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:28 am
24 Dec 2007
Conservatives not only share the ecological high ground -- we own it.
It was Teddy Roosevelt who built the national parks.
And Barry Goldwater was a breakthrough "Conservative" as in conservation of nature.
Bush was way out in front with 21st Century alternative energy, way before Al Gore was storyboarding his movie. Not only that, but he was forging inter-European alliances...in 2003!
(Yet, these facts are suppressed.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030625- ...
On June 25, 2003, the United States and the European Union agreed to collaborate on the acceleration of the development of the hydrogen economy.
Both President Bush and European Commission President Prodi have made the development of a hydrogen economy a major priority.
President Bush's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, announced on January 28, 2003, envisions the transformation of the nation's transportation fleet from a near-total reliance on petroleum to steadily increasing use of clean-burning hydrogen.
My Log
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 10:36 am
24 Dec 2007
It is earned, baby.
Jimmy Carter, who many found to be a piddler & muddler, had extremely high moral foundations. Given his continued interest in everything from Global Warming to preventing human parasite worms in Africa to building Housing for Habitat in the US, I'd day he earned it pretty good. Again, no political party has a high moral ground - it is the individual that counts.
I'm not going to engage in bashing, especially on Christmas Eve, but John McCain seems to have a dose of sincere and honest morality. Maybe he has a sympathy vote because we all know he was a Viet prisoner. But he seems to have a clearer position of environmental actions, as Joe Romm notes. A positive one if he can DO something about it. How refreshing.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Joseph Romm for hanging in the game, persistently blogging, and pushing people as to climate action. Now this boy (if I may have some poetic license, please sir) got some High Moral Ground!
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink