Replies

I've noticed that Freepers sometimes get carried away by their hatred of left-wing environmentalists. There's nothing wrong with sensible environmentalism. It's the kooks and whackos who have given it a bad name. Conservatives need to take back the environmental movement, not kill it, or in the long run they will badly damage themselves. It won't endear conservatism to decent people if they are identified with damaging the environment and destroying nature--which is exactly what the leftists accuse them of doing. That doesn't mean you have to support the Kyoto treaty, but you should support reasonable and cost-effective environmental regulations.

Same with animal rights advocates. Freepers rightly make fun of them. But animals deserve to be well treated, and I'm sure most Freepers, who all seem to own dogs or cats, would agree with that. These days the SPCA is loony, but we still need some such organization. We just need to straighten it out.

This is an important point, and probably deserves a thread of its own. My understanding is that the political term "Conservative" came from the conservation of Teddy Roosevelt. This involved intelligent stewardship of natural resources, which is hard to be against.

This should not be confused with Gaea-worshipping whacko enviralmentalism. Ozone depletion by cloro-fluorocarbons, CO2 / Kyoto, and idiot forest (mis-)management leading to huge wildfires are just a few of the bad outcomes created by whacko enviralmentalism.

Republicans are losing votes because we are unclear about this distinction. I think this issue is part of how Republicans can keep on the winning track by taking issues from the Left. Plenty of intelligent concerned citizens (who vote!) care greatly about the environment, and think the Dems are the only choice. Smart conservatism, in the original sense of the word, can win over these voters.