Libertarianism, Traditionalism, Environmentalism, & Ecologism
Some thoughts on overcoming conservatism's environmental problem.
Summary: My argument is that the fusion of libertarianism and traditionalism into the two-part foundation of modern American conservative ideology has led to a situation in which no coherent idea about how to deal with the environment can emerge without undermining at least one core belief of the previously two political traditions. Despite both libertarianism and traditionalism having each a history of coherent ideas about the environment, “fusionism” does not.
Conservatism is Multiple
American Conservatism today is a fusion of two somewhat unrelated traditions: libertarianism and traditionalism. Libertarians in the lineage of Adam Smith elevate political and economic freedom above all else. In this way, they are quite materialistic. Traditionalists in the lineage of Edmund Burke are instead concerned with the health and wellness of societal culture and values. In this way, they are quite anti-materialistic.
In the 60s and 70s these two political traditions collided in America, creating what Frank Meyer called “fusionism,” which presupposes that the two ideologies can be blended into a coherent political philosophy. Two things seem true about the fusion of libertarianism and traditionalism. First, they did, in fact, fuse and the two political philosophies do inform what today we think of as conservatism in America. But second, the tension and irresolvable contradiction between the two continue to rip the American right apart.
One of the policy domains in which fusionism fails totally to generate coherent ideas is on the environment. This incoherence is in part why the American right since Nixon has basically failed to generate any coherent ideas about what we’re supposed to be doing about our quite obvious environmental problems. In his book The Greening of Conservative America, conservative critic John Bliese says that his purpose is to “give environmentalists some ammunition to use for publicly humiliating certain [conservative] politicians and pundits who richly deserve it.”
Environmentalism is Multiple
Much like conservatism, what people often refer to as environmentalism is in fact made up of (at least) two somewhat unrelated traditions: environmentalism and ecologism. Environmentalism focuses on managerial and technological solutions to environmental problems which are believed to be solvable without fundamental changes to present day values and patterns of production and consumption. Ecologism on the other hand claims that the current environmental conundrum we find ourselves in is fundamentally irresolvable without “radical changes in our relationship with the non-human world, and in our mode of social and political life.”
For instance, whereas environmentalists may see climate change as simply a result of carbon-intensive energy generation, political ecologists (I hate this term…suggestions for turning “ecologism” into an identity, an “-ist?”) see climate change as symptomatic of a constitutive misreading of our species membership in the web of biotic things. Environmentalism is thus a set of policy interests embedded within a broader consensus mainstream political ideology, whereas ecologism is radical with respect to mainstream political ideology.
Conservatives and the Environment
Let’s put the two together and think about political coherence and incoherence. Here’s a table:
Environmental-Libertarianism
This is carbon markets and “business and the environment.” I’ve been a the School of the Environment at Yale for more than five years now and there is no doubt that the creep of the free market into environmentalism is on. COP is no longer filled with policy people, but capitalists. Exxon is making environmental policy again. FedEx is funding my school. Everyone is optimistic about how the free market will solve climate change. Build more markets to trade in whatever—carbon, trees, algae. Environmental problems are technical problems that the market can solve. Design another electric car. This is the dominant bridge between conservatism and the environment today.
Environmental-Traditionalism
This is conservation, biodiversity protection, and wilderness and public lands protection. Despite being the main bridge between conservatism and the environment throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, this world is withering. At the School of the Environment they’ve basically stopped hiring anyone having to do anything with conservation. Let the animals die, don’t be nostalgic. These folks would say NO, Grizzly bears are our heritage! This is the Nixon administration’s passing the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Center for Environmental Quality. Remember, traditionalism is about health, wellness, and intergenerational cultural continuity. These folks are concerned with pollution and environmental protection. These are the hunters, anglers, and foresters. It’s important to note here the classic distinction between Conservation and Preservation—Conservation (Gifford Pinchot, US Forest Service) being protecting natural resources for human use versus Preservation (John Muir, National Park Service) as the protection of natural resources for aesthetic and spiritual value, or the intrinsic value of the nonhuman life itself. Both Conservation and Preservation, for what its worth, I would argue are deeply traditionalist political intuitions.
Ecological-Libertarianism
This is eco-anarchism. This is permaculture and living systems theory and design. It is also, for what its worth, sort of where I personally land: I believe that climate change is a constitutive not technical crisis, and I also tend to fall far into the libertarian-left quadrant of the now meme-famous Political Compass with Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders, and Thomas Paine. I guess that makes me an Ecological-Libertarian-Left political person! Environmental problems are thought of as constitutive and can only be overcome by cultural changes that emerge from local contexts and creativity. There is a deep suspicion toward national and global environmental problematizing. There is a focus on immanence, not transcendence.
Ecological-Traditionalism
This is far-right ecologism (in some cases, ecofascism). This is Nazi Germany and the Deep Ecologists. Radical environmentalism paired with purity issues. It is non-material. This is rare, but I think the important connection here is via ecologism, namely in the shared environmental perspective between Nazis and Permaculture people (and myself?): that environmental problems are constitutive issues. This is Walther Darré, holistic worldview through three fundamental elements: spirituality, organicism and naturalism. This is Hitler’s being a vegetarian and the rise of far-right veganism.
So What?
I think what’s important here is that both conservatism and environmentalism in their common usage are made up of multiple political ideologies. Any political ideology is made up of three parts: a description of present politics (trends, conditions, projections), an ideal type of politics (goals), and a strategy of getting from the present to the ideal (alternatives, interventions). Importantly, despite being lumped together as conservative, libertarians and traditionalists do not share the same ideal types (goals). I mean, with issues like abortion you can see the failure of fusionism so clearly: the libertarian impulse of personal choice colliding incoherently with the (relatively recent) traditionalist notion of the sacredness of the child-via-fetus.
Today, as a result of the hegemony of postmodernism and neoliberalism within our deregulated capitalist economic system libertarians have financial and political power. Traditionalists, for decades marginalized to the cultural domain, have today found rebirth in social media and begun to exert real power over libertarians in the continued incoherent fusionist battle to define American conservatism.
Similarly, environmental concern is multiple: technical-managerial environmentalism versus constitutively-oriented ecologism. Like free market libertarians, environmentalists maintain financial and political power. Like traditionalists, (ugh!) political ecologists operate primarily in the cultural sphere. Social media has been a boon for ecologists, but seemingly less than for traditionalists.
But OK, SO WHAT? The so what is that since conservative fusionism seems to provide no coherent path for dealing with environmental problems, those of us trying to build bridges across the chasmic political divide need to consider which conservative island we are building a bridge toward, and from what environmental island.
Traditionalists will care spiritually about heritage and materially about health. Libertarians will care spiritually about freedom and materially about markets. Environmentalists will care spiritually about sustainability and materially about policy innovation. Ecologists will care spiritually about interrelationship and materially about localism.
In Nixon’s 1970 State of the Union address, he said that his administrations increasing focus on environmental issues—that would lead to the EPA, NEPA, and Clean Air Act to name a few—was an effort to focus on things that were “common cause” that would move the country “beyond factions.” It’s almost not worth saying, but this political perspective did not age well. My argument is that what changed is that the fusion of libertarianism and traditionalism led American conservatives into a ideological coalition which cannot form any coherent idea about how to deal with the environment without undermining a fundamental belief of one of the two political traditions. Fusionism has a fundamental environmental problem. It can’t do it. There are too many internal contradictions to deal with.
For those of us interested in addressing environmental problems need to clarify, instead, first which environmental island we ourselves are standing on (environmentalism or ecologism) and second, given our location, who we are trying to bring in (libertarians or traditionalists). Orienting ourselves long these lines will clarify the types of bridges that will be possible to build. Though traditionalists might not think that climate change is a big issue from an environmental perspective, it pitched as a threat to heritage and health might.
The other thing here is that this analysis begins to resolve the role of the environment is explaining why, for instance, New Age crystal people are more predisposed to becoming a traditionalists than they are free market libertarians. Both New Agers and traditionalists believe that the system is screwed, and this emerges in one form in tending toward ecologism over environmentalism.
Anyway, I just think it’s important to clarify what we’re talking about. That’s what a lot of All This Life Here is about, I guess.
Happy to see this type of perspective on environmentalism/conservation. Although I'd argue that the free market creep into environmentalism started back in the 70s and has been a dominant feature since the late 80s/early 90s.