|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Conservatives and the environment
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I know that Rowan Williams is just an irrelevant old man, but his commentary seems apposite.
Is there any hope that any Conservative group or government would actually admit that conserving the environment in which we live is something that should be done?
Conservative voices in the US demand that we pay no heed to "the environment"; Harper Conservatives in Canada demand the end of our industrial base in order to ensure total reliance on greenhouse-gas emissions; and conservative religionists all over seem to want to pollute the planet to death as the direct command from God to rape the planet.
Are there conservatives/Conservatives who hold a more balanced view?
What is it about C/conservatives that make them the least likely to conserve anything but outmoded patriarchal views?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What is it about C/conservatives that make them the least likely to conserve anything but outmoded patriarchal views?
I'm so tempted to say, "Please come join us on the 'Can the US Republican Party be saved?' thread."
So I shall.
Re environmental issues specifically... I can think of lots of contributing factors. Certainly I believe that the vast amounts of money being poured into politics by very wealthy powerful corporations, with the objective being to take off as many rules as possible (including ones regarding environmental protection), are a factor. There's been a weird notion of "lefty hippie liberals who don't believe in God" being in favor of environmentalism, and therefore people on the other side deciding that anything those people are for must be opposed. I think.
Heck, Fox News specifically has a lot to answer for in this regard.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I think money is the core issue. Conservatives tend to be driven by a capitalist approach, so making money is the prime directive.
Environmental concerns cost money. Of course, in the long term, they may save the planet, but politicians tend (at least in the UK) not to consider the long term - just the current term.
Which is why I support the Green Party who put the environment as the driver. They are not perfect, I don't agree with everything they say (despite being a member and standing for election), but I think that the core driver of supporting the environment, and the associated support of people, is the closest we have to a hope.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Do you mean conservative in a purely political sense?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I don't know whether Roger Scruton would now regard himself as a Conservative, but there is a perfectly decent Conservative and conservationist position- from certain traditional landed Tories in the UK and, I suppose, Southern Agrarians in the US. The problem is that in most if not all of the Anglosphere, the predominant position among those who call themselves Conservatives is not conservatism, but capitalist (neo-)liberalism.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
A couple of governments ago, the Netherlands had a reasonably good Minister for the Environment from a right-wing party. Recently they've turned more anti-environment (although not as much as some of the conservative voices in the US).
One of the arguments of the Green Party in my country is that becoming more environmental can generate profits. For example by having a booming solar or wind industry (or at least the R&D; I guess the manufacturing will always be in other countries).
I usually vote for them (although I consider most of them a bunch of incompetent idiots).
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Albertus is right, my Norfolk home is surrounded by right-wing farmers, shooters, land-owners, and so on, and some of them are conservation minded. How far this might go, if their profits would be affected, is another matter.
I think their view of conservation is limited of course - for example, the shooters want to preserve marshes, for their bird-life (as targets), but wildlife movements are by now used to collaborating with them.
My local farmers still have headlands where flowers grow, and skylarks breed, I think they used to get paid for this by the EU, but maybe not now. But of course, the headland is also used for turning machinery!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
My experience is that judging someone and neatly categorizing them as wrong may make me feel good for the moment; it does not change anything for the better. Perhaps a better way might be to listen to the objections seriously and then engage in dialogue instead of diatribe.
Let us look at why some people may not believe in climate change, or not take it seriously.
First, liberals may have been known on occasion to do exactly what conservatives are accused of doing; come up with studies, information, etc., that supports their preconceived notions. Just because someone with a degree in a science says something is not actually a guarantee it is accurate. Shocking, I know.
Second, while Neil deGrasse Tyson does an excellent job of explaining the difference between climate and weather, he also speaks out on how faith and reason are irreconcilable and why he is an agnostic. His views are incompatible with core values of many conservatives. He is just an example. Many people of science who talk about climate change can be described as having world views and values incompatible with those of conservatives. Why should someone who has a bedrock belief in God and in Creation believe someone who doesn't have the morals to believe in God?
Third, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that winters remain cold.
Fourth, "getting it" that a degree or two can spell disaster is a big concept to swallow.
Fifth, as I have heard from a person who is in most ways more sensible than me, "God gave us the world to have as ours. Why should humans worry about some weird species we will never see anyway when it comes to human needs?" Indeed, the extinction of some bug somewhere in the Amazon is not a overwhelming argument in some circles. That we are actually talking about much bigger changes is beyond the point as some folks don't believe any of that in any event.
Decent people can actually have differing opinions and not be worthy of scorn.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
The conservatives and Conservatives in the Midlands of England are very environmentally aware, especially if one proposes a new rail route or airport. They don't seem so bothered about roadbuilding though.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think money is the core issue. Conservatives tend to be driven by a capitalist approach, so making money is the prime directive.
I think that the desire to believe that one's wealth is earned and that having one's wealth is a morally good thing is a far more urgent driver of free market ideologies and behaviours than mere money.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Ad Orientem: quote:
Do you mean conservative in a purely political sense?
I mean "conservative" as used by the speaker/writer. The people who make the loudest noise about "being conservative" are usually the least environmentally-conscious, which implies not wishing to conserve what we do have now.
Conservative governments tend, IME, to talk sweetly about "values" and "environmental issues" while doing every damn thing they can to destroy the environment. This is the general experience across Canada at the moment, and seems to be endemic in many other countries.
How would you define "conservative"?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Decent people can actually have differing opinions and not be worthy of scorn.
Absolutely, though in the case of these matters we are talking not just a few scientists but overwhelming evidence worldwide. As far as everything being here for humans to use and therefore it not mattering what happens to parts of God's creation--I'm sorry, but that attitude is worthy of scorn, or worse.
And the worldwide temperature changing by a few degrees affecting a whole lot of things is ... well, basic math, honestly. A bathtub is one thing--even a lake is one thing--a planet is something else.
"Why should someone who has a bedrock belief in God and in Creation believe someone who doesn't have the morals to believe in God?"
You're kidding, right? Tyson may be an amazingly moral man and not believe in God.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I would have thought that the appropriate genuinely conservative response to man made climate change, if you're not convinced of the evidence, would be to play safe and behave as if it is happening.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I am never sure with this kind of thread whether the intention is actually to hear from any conservatives or just to criticise them. The former seems to me more likely to be achieved by an opening post without gratuitous insults.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Ad Orientem: quote:
Do you mean conservative in a purely political sense?
I mean "conservative" as used by the speaker/writer. The people who make the loudest noise about "being conservative" are usually the least environmentally-conscious, which implies not wishing to conserve what we do have now.
Conservative governments tend, IME, to talk sweetly about "values" and "environmental issues" while doing every damn thing they can to destroy the environment. This is the general experience across Canada at the moment, and seems to be endemic in many other countries.
How would you define "conservative"?
I just wanted to be sure what the OP meant by "conservative". As someone pointed out, modern "conservatives" are really neo-liberals, hyper-capitalists, globalists, or whatever you want to call them. They're not really conservatives in the true sense at all.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
For about 14 years of my life, I was an environmental regulator. I remember discussing with my colleagues - a couple of times actually - which political regime worked out better for the environment. The general consensus was that it made little difference. I have seen similar things discussed elsewhere, with similar outcome. That's from those on the coalface in the UK.
It's true that the economic health of industry etc. gets used as reason for not taking action by (political) conservatives more than others. But safeguarding of jobs has been equally used by labour politicians. Neither has been averse to moving forward when economic conditions allow.
Horseman Bree - I'm not sure how to respond to your OP. I'm not au fait with the situation in Canada, and the situation in the USA is a major international calamity. My concern is that you assume that the North American situation is normative elsewhere.
It's not that I wish to argue with your POV concerning how derelict things are in N. America. I agree with you. The problem is the cultural imperialism embedded within your OP, and the automatic bipolar assumption of culture-wars alignments worldwide. I am deeply concerned about that, primarily because this sort of rhetoric can and does antagonise people who may be otherwise sympathetic to the idea of caring for the environment. In this case of course.
Or to be blunt, I think your heart is in the right place, but this sort of attitude may yet finish up doing the devil's work.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I'm fairly radically environmental and have been for 30 years, but I know some very conservative farmers in norfolk who really care for their land, and for the wildlife on it, and who don't have a very complementary view of middle class furry animal ecologists. They point out that the landscape as we know it in the UK is a result of 2000 years or more of farming, and the current ecossytems have evolved as part and parcel of farming practices. I think most farmers understand the world market for cheap food is the big killer - it is very difficult to step outside the fertiliser and pesticide gravy train when the value of your crop is not very far greater than the cost of growing it. Prince Charles (and all the UK royal family) is also pretty conservative in many obvious ways, but also very actively pro-environment. In fact, amongst other things, he's actively promoting the teaching of pre-industrial and environmentally friendly farming skills because he's really worried that the environmentally destructive path we're on could cause a global meltdown. So "conservative" is the wrong word - it's anyone who has ideologically bought into a free market economy to the point that anything goes as long as the free market is preserved. That may be for a small % because they consciously make their money from activities that they know are immoral one way or another, or for a greater % they are confused and either unable or unwilling to think it all through and understand the implications of their actions. Statis quo is more comfortable, so anyone who threatens to disrupt it is a messenger to be shot at.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Why should someone who has a bedrock belief in God and in Creation believe someone who doesn't have the morals to believe in God?
You're kidding, right? Tyson may be an amazingly moral man and not believe in God.
I was making an argument that some conservative folks I know have made as an example. There are plenty of moral people who do not believe in God, Satan, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other supreme type being.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Ad Orientem: quote:
Do you mean conservative in a purely political sense?
I mean "conservative" as used by the speaker/writer. The people who make the loudest noise about "being conservative" are usually the least environmentally-conscious, which implies not wishing to conserve what we do have now.
Conservative governments tend, IME, to talk sweetly about "values" and "environmental issues" while doing every damn thing they can to destroy the environment. This is the general experience across Canada at the moment, and seems to be endemic in many other countries.
How would you define "conservative"?
This is certainly the current situation with the Stephen Harper, Conservative party and government in Canada. They have de-listed species at risk so as to get environmental approval for projects on behalf of industry, they have backed away from regulating bodies of water (lakes and rivers), turning some of this over to provinces and others simple designating some bodies of water not worthy of regulating. they have allowed industrial logging in ways and places not formerly allowed, they have suppressed science by reducing funding, muzzling scientists (not letting them speak publicly) and suppressing publication of data, among other things.
Now, if focus on the environment, we would say these conservatives are as you say. However, they also behave the same way with the arts. They have suppressed and defunded performance arts, art itself, media based arts, etc. They have also reduced spending on education.
The common thread is the ideology that private citizens can do it, or more precisely, that corporations can fund this. Which escapes the obvious: that the corporations are in various ways able to find the funds to do good things for the arts or environment that boost something of their image. Hence the mining company which advertises their planting of trees, or the bank which advertises clean water projects. (we could easily include the disease or medical problem, or sports sponsorship, which particular companies attach their names to.)
The issue then is more foundational than just a particular sector such as environment, IMHO.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Free Trade as a fundamentalist religious dogma
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Honest Ron: quote:
Or to be blunt, I think your heart is in the right place, but this sort of attitude may yet finish up doing the devil's work.
Sorry, I'm having a bad week with "Conservatives" and "conservatives" around me. The Conservative Party is campaigning in this election on a platform of "frack everything", including a frack site between the two drinking water wells that supply my village. They have proposed "the best" regulations, but have not actually set them up, and the frack will go as a "grandfathered" case.
The Harper cancer is no worse than it used to be, in one sense, but is spreading through the patient, lies as the norm, not just the incidental mistake.
and small-c conservatives have been telling me that I should not worry about pollution or other threats because God has always looked after "us" (probably not me, though, since I am Anglican in a Baptist community!) Oh, and conservative values include opening up the French-English debate again (since those are traditional values!) and increasing the militarisation of the RCMP to deal with the problem of the natives (see Rexton last fall)
Hard to avoid disgust when it is forced upon you.
Enjoy those values when they are offered to you. After all, conservatism also brought us Ferguson, Mo. and its police force.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I'm not convinced you know what conservatism is.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
But understandably, because what most people who call themselves conservatives call conservatism isn't conservatism at all. See. 'conservative' sounds nice and safe and steady in a way that, for some reason, 'mad neo-liberal Schumpeterian cut-throat slash-and-burn fuck-you-buddy' just doesn't.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Now, this is someone who really is a conservative, and he presents conservatism rather attractively.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But understandably, because what most people who call themselves conservatives call conservatism isn't conservatism at all. See. 'conservative' sounds nice and safe and steady in a way that, for some reason, 'mad neo-liberal Schumpeterian cut-throat slash-and-burn fuck-you-buddy' just doesn't.
True. I would agree with that.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Now, this is someone who really is a conservative, and he presents conservatism rather attractively.
Not terribly. At least not unless he votes Labour at every election. And even then he's whitewashing everything.
quote:
The linked article:
If we look at the big issues facing us today – the EU, mass immigration, the union, Islamic extremism, the environment – we will surely see that the Conservative view rightly identifies what is now at stake: namely the survival of our way of life.
The EU is not a threat to our way of life. The EU is part of our way of life. UKIP is, so far as I can tell, a threat to our way of life. Leaving the EU could have huge and immediate impacts and as such be a threat to our way of life. The conservative position he supports is therefore to be pro-EU even if it wasn't 40 years ago.
The union? Perhaps. I don't know what Scotland voting for independence could bring.
Islamic Extremism? I'm more scared of Nicky Gumbell attacking my friends than I am about Abu Hamza.
The environment? Now this is a good point. And give him his due, Scruton does consistently. In a way utterly unlike almost all Conservatives.
He consistently talks about Conservatism as it exists in his mind rather than as it exists in the real world. Whether this is because he at one point was a paid tobacco company shill without declaring an interest and that reflects his normal level of honesty, or whether because he genuinely believes that the label he chooses matches the external world, I don't know.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
OK. I am only going to say this once more because I am getting tired of it. There is conservatism (a political philosophy, to one variant of which Scruton subscribes, which is grounded in tradition, place, hierarchy,and a settled social order while accepting that there will be times change needs to be embraced in orer to conserve what is most important) and there is 'conservatism', the label currently used by politicians and so on to describe a footloose, baggage-light, economic liberalism. The two are very different, as any reasonable introduction to political philosophy will explain.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
AO: quote:
I'm not convinced you know what conservatism is.
All I know on that topic is that calling oneself "conservative" and actually conserving anything are two independent sets, with little overlap.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
AO: quote:
I'm not convinced you know what conservatism is.
All I know on that topic is that calling oneself "conservative" and actually conserving anything are two independent sets, with little overlap.
That's only because, especially in the political sphere as it exists today, no true conservatism exists. They are not conservatives at all, even if they call themselves such. They are globalists, neo-liberals whose goal is to exploit labour and natural resources for maximum profit.
Conservatism doesn't necessarily imply any economic system. Economically I lean more towards socialism, however socially and spiritually I'm conservative.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Now, this is someone who really is a conservative, and he presents conservatism rather attractively.
"Way of life" unfortunately means keeping big homes for the few who have land, and preserving their trinkets, portraits and expensive furniture. I don't see that applying further down the food chain - If you look at europe, there is a strong preservation of popular folk traditions - music, clothing, dance - that has been almost totally obliterated in England. Scotland still has it. Wales has it, Ireland has it, but in England we have just a few morris men and the cecil sharpe library.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Carefully sidestepping the "No True Conservative" fallacy...
Justinian wrote - quote:
The environment? Now this is a good point. And give him his due, Scruton does consistently. In a way utterly unlike almost all Conservatives.
One of the problems about looking how UK conservatives may in future address environmental issues is that the conservatives currently have UKIP breathing down their electoral necks, and the UKIP-like end of their own party is shouting hardest. Few of them have any coherent underlying position on the environment beyond being right-wing little Englanders. Some of them are increasingly impressed by American positioning, and you can hear that coming out.
But the Conservative party is also big in the shires. Shire tories tend to be very different and far more engaged practically with environmental issues (as some above have noted), and they are keeping their heads down right now. But they haven't gone away, nor are they likely to.
There is also the issue of how issues get framed. There's an interesting comment here (The Carbon Blog) which draws attention to a possible attempt to re-position the issues. I don't really have much of a view on that beyond the obvious statement that most people are well-used to "green" being a hopelessly over-used adjective by marketing departments.
To a large extent, my view is that the future of environmental issues and how they are handled within the Conservative party will be more in the hands of external factors, such as the electorate's response to UKIP. Once we can see how that one goes it will be clearer. But there's a lot of shouting from the shallow end right now.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Carefully sidestepping the "No True Conservative" fallacy...
Justinian wrote - quote:
The environment? Now this is a good point. And give him his due, Scruton does consistently. In a way utterly unlike almost all Conservatives.
One of the problems about looking how UK conservatives may in future address environmental issues is that the conservatives currently have UKIP breathing down their electoral necks, and the UKIP-like end of their own party is shouting hardest. Few of them have any coherent underlying position on the environment beyond being right-wing little Englanders. Some of them are increasingly impressed by American positioning, and you can hear that coming out.
But the Conservative party is also big in the shires. Shire tories tend to be very different and far more engaged practically with environmental issues (as some above have noted), and they are keeping their heads down right now. But they haven't gone away, nor are they likely to.
There is also the issue of how issues get framed. There's an interesting comment here (The Carbon Blog) which draws attention to a possible attempt to re-position the issues. I don't really have much of a view on that beyond the obvious statement that most people are well-used to "green" being a hopelessly over-used adjective by marketing departments.
To a large extent, my view is that the future of environmental issues and how they are handled within the Conservative party will be more in the hands of external factors, such as the electorate's response to UKIP. Once we can see how that one goes it will be clearer. But there's a lot of shouting from the shallow end right now.
in other words, "when you're up to your arse in alligators it's sometimes easy to forget that you came to drain the swamp"
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
OK. I am only going to say this once more because I am getting tired of it. There is conservatism (a political philosophy, to one variant of which Scruton subscribes, which is grounded in tradition, place, hierarchy,and a settled social order while accepting that there will be times change needs to be embraced in orer to conserve what is most important) and there is 'conservatism', the label currently used by politicians and so on to describe a footloose, baggage-light, economic liberalism. The two are very different, as any reasonable introduction to political philosophy will explain.
In which case I'm going to only have to say this once.
Conservatism is, what it has always been. A belief that the current elites (whoever they may be) deserve to be at the top and that if we further weight the power structure towards them we might be able to sweep up a few crumbs from their table. And lord it over those underneath us. It's frequently run through astroturf campaigns directly orchestrated by those it benefits. A claim that this is a new manifestation of conservatism is counter-factual.
"Philosophical conservatism" as preached by Scruton is another manifestation of what Galbraith called the oldest problem in moral philosophy. The search for a superior justification for self interest. It's the right-wing equivalent to those Stalin called "Useful Idiots".
Working-class conservatism is something else entirely. It's generally in favour of incremental change, health and safety law, and the like. But it's based on a simple fact that a lot of the bourgeois left forgets and the radical left frequently chooses not to see. The fundamental problem of being poor is that you have almost no margin for error for handling things going wrong. And so radical programs are scary. In the long run we're all dead - but even if radical changes will improve things, any change leads to things going wrong even if they will actually lead to better outcomes. Costs matter and we won't reach tomorrow without coming through today.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
It has not escaped my notice that the hierarchical and stable society that philosphical conservatives espouse serves to consolidate and pretty much explicitly seeks to justify the advantages of the existing privileged classes.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
It's a bit more complex than that when it gets doctrinal. Conservatism can verge towards fascism, pure bloody mindedness, being in the club, better-the-devil-you-know-ism, and include ideals that have never ever existed in reality. Here in the UK we have Royalist conservatism, countryside conservatism/conservation which includes the National Trust and longing for an age of Downton Abbey when everyone was in the main building and the servants quarters were staffed by foreigners and robots. And conservatism that looks to the Victorian and very Calvanist principle of God favours the most prosperous (i.e. the local shopkeeper). Most shopkeepers of that kind are now either corporate (supermarket chains) or largely originate from the Indian Subcontinent or Poland. I find it remarkable how England has very little in the way of identifiable historically based populist culture that either has not been lifted from somewhere else or is not based on some idealised age of palaces and Lords of the manor. In fact, probably the main thread running through everything is the Armed forces. We are a nation that has historically subsumed its culture to warfare, and when the wars finished we became a bit lost.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I read Scruton until he got to preserving our way of life.
I do not see any eagerness in the government to preserve the way of life of the poorer members of society who want to live near their family and friends and keep their children at the schools they have settled into and are doing well at and not have to move every six months between short let tenancies at the whim of slum landlords who are ripping off the state.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I am never sure with this kind of thread whether the intention is actually to hear from any conservatives or just to criticise them. The former seems to me more likely to be achieved by an opening post without gratuitous insults.
This does make me ponder some sort of new Purgatory thread regarding trying to build bridges between political liberals and conservatives. If I don't get the time to set it up I'd be happy for someone else to.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I read Scruton until he got to preserving our way of life.
I do not see any eagerness in the government to preserve the way of life of the poorer members of society who want to live near their family and friends and keep their children at the schools they have settled into and are doing well at and not have to move every six months between short let tenancies at the whim of slum landlords who are ripping off the state.
In fact, in relation to wildlife, there is plenty of duplicity. The conservatives will defend the local saltmarsh or grouse moor, as it give them their sport, but they will may well kill something else that is competing. The classic example is the hen harrier, pretty much wiped out in England (illegally), probably by gamekeepers, intent on protecting their grouse chicks.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by ChastMastr
This does make me ponder some sort of new Purgatory thread regarding trying to build bridges between political liberals and conservatives.
You might find some things in common with some people that you had not expected. I would describe myself as economically conservative but not socially. I am likely to vote Conservative in the next UK election but would not be likely to vote Republican in the US, being in favour of gay marriage, against the death penalty etc.
In terms of the environment, the most damaging thing most people do to the environment in my opinion is eat meat, both because of greenhouse gas emissions and loss of habitat for other wildlife. I don't eat meat. I choose to live near enough to my work to cycle there, and drive less than 2000 miles a year. I only minimally heat my house and wear 3 layers of clothes in the winter. I am typing this on a 1999 compaq deskpro because I don't believe in using the earth's resources to make new stuff when old stuff still works.
That's not me trying to claim any great credit, just to show that I am interested in the environment. I don't see that as conflicting at all with my conservative economic ideas. The principal reason why I support cutting government spending rather than running a big budget deficit is the same as the reason why I don't use more energy than I need to, namely that I don't believe this generation's lifestyle should be at the expense of the next's.
Of course I don't expect many people on ship of fools to agree with me but my thinking bears no relation to the caricatures of conservatism that have been presented here.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
