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.
Bully!
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.
Will they. Just where are the conservatives?😔