We Are Our History

(3/19/2009) - Since I launched this website in November, 2008, I’ve become more conscious of how the world’s environmental problems – and their solutions – are inextricably linked to other economic and political issues, many of which have a strong history dating back to before I was born. 

For example, I’ve also noticed this trend in recent political rhetoric surrounding the 2009 stimulus package and the Obama administration’s budget proposal.  Many conservative politicians and pundits have taken to labeling Obama’s changes to the tax code and spending increases as “socialism.”  Now, when I hear the word “socialism,” I think of either one or two things.  First, I think of Marxist theory.  Since Obama is pretty obviously not a Marxist, I dismiss this option, though I know some people believe it. 

Second, I picture Scandinavian-style social democracy.  Now, that sounds pretty good to me, or at least not something to run from in terror.  In these “socialist” countries, they have things like really cheap higher education, universal healthcare, free childcare, high rates of suicide, and they give you free pillows and blankets on the overnight trains.  Not perfect, but not something that I think deserves to be treated as an insult. 

This seems to be what at least some of the conservatives are talking about, except they usually mention France instead of Sweden.  This got me thinking.  Why is France always the poster-child for ineffectual, socialist governments?  Well, one reason may be that in the early 1980’s, the French elected a socialist president named François Mitterrand, who tried to assert state control over the economy by nationalizing banks, increasing the minimum wage, and implementing a solidarity tax on wealth, a direct tax on assets.  Within a few years, unemployment grew and the currency was devalued three times.  Since this movement took place around the same time that Regan cut the top income bracket from 70% to 50% - the first substantial cut since 1963, I have a feeling that these events are inextricably linked the back of many conservative minds.  Regan’s tax cuts were followed by relative economic prosperity, France’s by an economic downturn. 

Recognizing this generational divide in the dialogue has helped me better understand the conversation about the global warming and the environment that takes place in America, one should consider the cultural turmoil of the 1960’s that affected the birth of the modern environmental movement.  I’ve realized that, especially for adults of a different generation, the issues often need to be packaged with different rhetoric to be effectively conveyed.  Likewise, coverage of environmental policy by the “main stream media,” (MSM) which targets an older audience, continues to present these issues through the lens of earlier cultural battles.

This phenomenon applies to “both sides” (because there are only two sides to every debate in the MSM) of the issue.  On the one hand, you have many old guard environmentalists who still consider nuclear energy to be more risky than coal-fired plants.  They tend to view issues through the lens of corporations vs. the people.  These two groups vie over the affections of the Government, who has the duty and the power to save the environment and protect the health of the people through regulation that addresses problems directly (i.e. the Endangered Species Act), or capitulate to the corporations and special interests.  On the other side, you have the conservatives I mentioned above who believe that direct government intervention in the marketplace will ruin the economy. 

I know that these are very broad generalizations.  But I think they need to be taken into account when we debate these issues.