This is really just historical anachronism, trying to use some Latin to tie the modern Republican Party (which has basically sold its soul to an authoritarian) to the Republican Party of more than a century ago, the two of which look barely anything alike.
The funniest part to me is when the claim is made that Theodore Roosevelt's conservation ethic is an argument for limited government. Let's not forget that this is the man that wielded the Antiquities Act in the broadest way possible and unilaterally declared such a great number of acres of forest reserves that Congress got pissed and limited the power of the Forest Reserve Act in response.
Roosevelt was a progressive. Conservation — despite the root Latin word — is a progressive way of understanding how humans engage the natural world.
Roosevelt was a self-proclaimed progressive conservative. Everything that he's ever written or said about conservative is specifically geared towards preserving natural lands for the American people, not an abstract concept of never touching nature.
The real anachronism here is your last sentence. Willing to respectfully disagree on this, of course, but my argue is explicitly centered on how his philosophy powered conservation as a distinct movement in Republican politics.
re: anachronism. Conservation as a phrase is often attributed to Gifford Pinchot. Pinchot's multiple use philosophy (on which our USFS and BLM stand, and of which preservation is a use to be considered) was built off of changing ideas of how Americans viewed wilderness and natural resources that took place over the course of the 19th century, usually cited as beginning with George Perkins Marsh's "Man and Nature." (1864) For the majority of American history, wilderness was something to be tamed and conquered, put to use for the sake of civilization. As Americans spread westward, that idea prevailed, to the point that when the Yellowstone Park Act was being debated, the main concern was whether or not timber and mineral resources would be "locked up" in the park. That debate was repeated whenever Congress considered passing new legislation to protect or manage natural resources, such as the 1891 Forest Reserve Act or various park bills. That was the old ideology of conquering the wilderness at play; the new, progressive ideology that would continue to develop until being taken up by TR and those who influenced him (Pinchot, Muir, Grinnell, etc.) was the idea that the wilderness should be preserved and that Americans could experience a new way of interacting with it (primarily recreation and preservation).
All this as a way of demonstrating that conservation was a progressive ideology in the fact that it offered an alternative to the previous mindset of the American people towards the natural world. Obviously a comment on Substack can only build out the case so far, so I'd point towards Roderick Nash's "Wilderness and the American Mind" to further make the case.
(Also worth noting that TR quite literally says "don't touch nature" in his quote enshrined on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. "Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it. What you can do is keep it for your children, your children's children, and for all who come after you, as the one great sight which every American...should see.")
Yes, you are referring to the Republican party of his time. The roles have been reversed since then. The modern Republicans bear little resemblance to the Republicans of Lincoln and TR. The shift happened gradually through the first part of the 20th century. Gradually, the Democratic Party, which was historically one of pro slavery, morphed in to the party of FDR and the New Deal. The Democratic Party continued to include “Dixiecrats” until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which caused an exodus of Dixiecrats to the Republican Party, thus forming the current Republican Party.
Before this new movement was being promoted, thankfully, by the Bully Pulpit and the ACA, Republicans as a party had little interest in conservation. Maybe the 2 parties can actually work together, since this is the best way to accomplish the important work of true conservation.
I've said for years the "religious right" has dropped the ball on what should be a major issue to them. If they believe that God created the world and that politics should be a place to spread their view of "holy justice" then it only makes sense that stewardship of the environment would be a top priority for the GOP.
This is a good write up but ignores the fact that Trump and the modern conservative movement has done the least for the environment, sold the most public land since Carter was president, and continues to only lip service the outdoors as part of the larger culture war. This also ignores that Roosevelt believed that we could make incredibly economic progress while protecting the environment not in-spite of the environment as the modern conservative movement seems to be deeply in-love with. Modern Conservatives would rather argue for land rights, beef grazing, energy production, and other uses for our public lands to make private industry money (new Wyoming Legislation concerning selling land owner elk tags is also coming to mind), are the detrimental to a multi-billion dollar a year industry. How can the modern conservative movement justify cutting the BLM and NPS when these governmental organizations bring in ten’s of billions more than their yearly budget? To go back to the party of sportsmen and conservation, modern republicans need to break from the idea that nature is not as important as generating wealth and power. America rose to become the world superpower making progress while protecting nature, every other major power has sacrificed nature to rise to power.
The only outspoken conservationist on the right-wing youth scene was Mike Ma (for better or worse). He was one of the few who managed to draw Gen Z conservatives toward environmentalism, mostly by framing ecological protection as a matter of national interest and cultural heritage. That message resonated with a lot of young people and pulled many of them into the conservationist movement. He doesn’t get enough credit for that. He’s a bit too misanthropic for my taste, but I remember he was the talk of the town for a while.
This is really just historical anachronism, trying to use some Latin to tie the modern Republican Party (which has basically sold its soul to an authoritarian) to the Republican Party of more than a century ago, the two of which look barely anything alike.
The funniest part to me is when the claim is made that Theodore Roosevelt's conservation ethic is an argument for limited government. Let's not forget that this is the man that wielded the Antiquities Act in the broadest way possible and unilaterally declared such a great number of acres of forest reserves that Congress got pissed and limited the power of the Forest Reserve Act in response.
Roosevelt was a progressive. Conservation — despite the root Latin word — is a progressive way of understanding how humans engage the natural world.
Roosevelt was a self-proclaimed progressive conservative. Everything that he's ever written or said about conservative is specifically geared towards preserving natural lands for the American people, not an abstract concept of never touching nature.
The real anachronism here is your last sentence. Willing to respectfully disagree on this, of course, but my argue is explicitly centered on how his philosophy powered conservation as a distinct movement in Republican politics.
re: anachronism. Conservation as a phrase is often attributed to Gifford Pinchot. Pinchot's multiple use philosophy (on which our USFS and BLM stand, and of which preservation is a use to be considered) was built off of changing ideas of how Americans viewed wilderness and natural resources that took place over the course of the 19th century, usually cited as beginning with George Perkins Marsh's "Man and Nature." (1864) For the majority of American history, wilderness was something to be tamed and conquered, put to use for the sake of civilization. As Americans spread westward, that idea prevailed, to the point that when the Yellowstone Park Act was being debated, the main concern was whether or not timber and mineral resources would be "locked up" in the park. That debate was repeated whenever Congress considered passing new legislation to protect or manage natural resources, such as the 1891 Forest Reserve Act or various park bills. That was the old ideology of conquering the wilderness at play; the new, progressive ideology that would continue to develop until being taken up by TR and those who influenced him (Pinchot, Muir, Grinnell, etc.) was the idea that the wilderness should be preserved and that Americans could experience a new way of interacting with it (primarily recreation and preservation).
All this as a way of demonstrating that conservation was a progressive ideology in the fact that it offered an alternative to the previous mindset of the American people towards the natural world. Obviously a comment on Substack can only build out the case so far, so I'd point towards Roderick Nash's "Wilderness and the American Mind" to further make the case.
(Also worth noting that TR quite literally says "don't touch nature" in his quote enshrined on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. "Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it. What you can do is keep it for your children, your children's children, and for all who come after you, as the one great sight which every American...should see.")
Bully!
Yes, you are referring to the Republican party of his time. The roles have been reversed since then. The modern Republicans bear little resemblance to the Republicans of Lincoln and TR. The shift happened gradually through the first part of the 20th century. Gradually, the Democratic Party, which was historically one of pro slavery, morphed in to the party of FDR and the New Deal. The Democratic Party continued to include “Dixiecrats” until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which caused an exodus of Dixiecrats to the Republican Party, thus forming the current Republican Party.
Before this new movement was being promoted, thankfully, by the Bully Pulpit and the ACA, Republicans as a party had little interest in conservation. Maybe the 2 parties can actually work together, since this is the best way to accomplish the important work of true conservation.
I've said for years the "religious right" has dropped the ball on what should be a major issue to them. If they believe that God created the world and that politics should be a place to spread their view of "holy justice" then it only makes sense that stewardship of the environment would be a top priority for the GOP.
This is a good write up but ignores the fact that Trump and the modern conservative movement has done the least for the environment, sold the most public land since Carter was president, and continues to only lip service the outdoors as part of the larger culture war. This also ignores that Roosevelt believed that we could make incredibly economic progress while protecting the environment not in-spite of the environment as the modern conservative movement seems to be deeply in-love with. Modern Conservatives would rather argue for land rights, beef grazing, energy production, and other uses for our public lands to make private industry money (new Wyoming Legislation concerning selling land owner elk tags is also coming to mind), are the detrimental to a multi-billion dollar a year industry. How can the modern conservative movement justify cutting the BLM and NPS when these governmental organizations bring in ten’s of billions more than their yearly budget? To go back to the party of sportsmen and conservation, modern republicans need to break from the idea that nature is not as important as generating wealth and power. America rose to become the world superpower making progress while protecting nature, every other major power has sacrificed nature to rise to power.
The only outspoken conservationist on the right-wing youth scene was Mike Ma (for better or worse). He was one of the few who managed to draw Gen Z conservatives toward environmentalism, mostly by framing ecological protection as a matter of national interest and cultural heritage. That message resonated with a lot of young people and pulled many of them into the conservationist movement. He doesn’t get enough credit for that. He’s a bit too misanthropic for my taste, but I remember he was the talk of the town for a while.
Will they. Just where are the conservatives?😔