« How to Get Fired | Main | Moore »
Republicans for Environmental Protection?
October 05, 2004
Lately, I’ve become more aware of classmates and acquaintances who think that being a Republican and an environmentalist cannot match. They only see the current Republican administration’s pro-business stance, rather than the stance of a majority of Republican voters, a conservation stance. I beg to differ. Being Republican should mean not only being fiscally conservative, but conservation-minded. And, being a Republican environmentalist is not without precedent. Take these former Republican leaders for instance:
- President Ulysses S. Grant created Yellowstone National Park in 1872.
- President Benjamin Harrison signed legislation allowing the President to create Forest Preserves. He ended up creating 9 Forest Reserves, as well as signed orders ending the hunting of sea otters and fur seals.
- President Teddy Roosevelt signed the legislation to create the U.S. Forest Service. He added nearly 150 million acres of reserve-land to Federal ownership.
- Senator Barry Goldwater was often known as the most conservative Republican of his time, but he was still a staunch conservationist.
- President Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
- President George H.W. Bush strengthened current laws, especially the Clean Water Act. In a speech to citizens of Montana in 1989, he was quoted as saying “We hold this land in trust for the generations that come after. The air and the Earth are riches we simply cannot squander.”
This is something his son has definately not followed through with. How? He has softened rulse on mercury emissions. He has allowed more logging of publicly owned lands out west. One of his more recent policy movements is to end national protection of 58.5 million acres of roadless land in National Forests… allowing even more logging to happen.
Republicans need to get back the their conservationist legacy begun just after the Civil War. We’ve come too far to allow one President to break it all down in the name of business. Once again I must quote Teddy:
“I do not intend that our natural resources shall be exploited by the few against the interests of the many.” - President Theodore Roosevelt
Posted by paul at October 5, 2004 06:48 PM
Post a comment
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.meermacatawa.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/18
Comments
Dan Cooper said on October 6, 2004 09:02 AMPerhaps environmental issues (along with healthcare, education, and others) tend to get a little "glossed over" in the name of boosting the economy and tax breaks. In addition, it is probably easier for a government to cut funding or turn their heads from industries that are dirtying everything in a time of war spending. Regardless, in many ways voters and media are responsible for which issues get focused on in elections. Environment has taken a back seat to war, economy, healthcare, nuclear proliferation, and everything else. It is hard to imagine Bush or Kerry are going to make promises about Earth's riches unless if they have something to politically gain. Or perhaps I am a cynical undecided. Yeah, that's it.
Jack Robinson said on October 7, 2004 12:01 AMI don't know this, but I am wondering if it is valid to compare positions of the Republican party at current with past Republican presidents, especially as one looks further back to the past with people like Grant and T. Roosevelt. The title may be the same, but I don't know about the ideals of the party.
Paul said on October 7, 2004 08:44 AMJack, I agree. Personally, I wish the Republican party would swing back towards those ideals, but who knows if that will ever happen.
Ben said on October 14, 2004 12:20 AMI really enjoyed reading this blog, especially after the final presidential debate in which the environment was not so much as even hinted at. The debate was supposed to be about domestic issues.
Teddy Roosevelt also created the first wildlife sancutary, pelican island, which at the time was a pretty radical thing to do. He elected gifford pinchot to run the USFS who turned out to be not the best when it came to issues of conservation. However Teddy also maintained relations with the likes of John Muir who founded the sierria club. Certainly the creation was an issue very close to him. He also created the Boone and Crocket club which seems like kind of a joke and is something I don't support now. Regardless he has been better than most.
To address Cooper's comment I believe that Kerry and Bush have very different ways of looking at creation. Bush says, "I'm for the environment (as if it is something to be for or against), but not at the expense of american jobs."
Kerry says, "Through appropriate technologies we can create new jobs that support evironmental health. Things like wind power, solar, strick regulations on fuel consumption." Obviously Kerry sees that the protection of creation is not simply a novel idea, but it is our base. Take away creation and what do you have? Bush must be very short sighted to think that abusing the land now for quick economic gain is a good thing.
But I do agree that politicians are annoying and seem to say whatever will get them the vote.
Still I say Vote for Kerry.