Old breaking news: the death of environmentalism

[Ignoramus]

I just read this that has been around for a long time. The basic idea I think is right on, that there is a fundamental flaw in the way the left tends to work on isolated political policy issues. That it is essentially arrogant in trying to get "the dumb common folk" to get on board with our privileged ideologies.

In particular, I think it is a big mistake to see work with a monolithic organization like the democratic party, or whatever other progressive general political party, as a central political activity.

If a candidate or government body does something good, it can be worthwhile to support that, but as a secondary issue, never as the primary issue.

Regarding the disconnect between privileged liberals and people who do not have the luxury to think about politics in the abstract, tnstead of preaching to people, and bring the unwashed to see the light and join the organization or "the movement", it might be better to see how we can work for other people's interests as part of the over all goal of social/environmental justice, by seeking out efforts that are lead by people other than us, so a privileged white person for example, could intentionally seek out black lead/Latino lead/worker lead efforts to work on.

The right are winning by being able to be seen as being principled, the left or the democrats anyway are transparent in their opportunism and appear to the outside as spineless privileged elitists who stand for nothing but empty ideology. There is a hefty nugget of truth there.

Let's get something fundamental to stand for and be honest about as a central theme. No more compromising as a central strategy, leading with the puckered ass with the "kick me here please" sign on it.

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/

quotes follow:

In politics, a legislative defeat can either be a win or a loss. A legislative loss can be considered a win if it has increased a movement's power, energy, and influence over the long-term. Witness the religious right's successful effort to ban partial-birth abortions. The proposal succeeded only after several failed attempts. Because it was anchored to core values, not technical policy specs, the initial defeats of the ban on partial-birth abortions paved the way for eventual victory.

...

Why, for instance, is a human-made phenomenon like global warming -- which may kill hundreds of millions of human beings over the next century -- considered "environmental"? Why are poverty and war not considered environmental problems while global warming is? What are the implications of framing global warming as an environmental problem -- and handing off the responsibility for dealing with it to "environmentalists"?

...

Environmentalism is today more about protecting a supposed "thing" -- "the environment" -- than advancing the worldview articulated by Sierra Club founder John Muir, who nearly a century ago observed, "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe."

Thinking of the environment as a "thing" has had enormous implications for how environmentalists conduct their politics. The three-part strategic framework for environmental policy-making hasn't changed in 40 years: first, define a problem (e.g. global warming) as "environmental." Second, craft a technical remedy (e.g., cap-and-trade). Third, sell the technical proposal to legislators through a variety of tactics, such as lobbying, third-party allies, research reports, advertising, and public relations."

When we asked environmental leaders how we could accelerate our efforts against global warming, most pointed to this or that tactic -- more analysis, more grassroots organizing, more PR.

Few things epitomize the environmental community's tactical orientation to politics more than its search for better words and imagery to "re-frame" global warming. Lately the advice has included: a) don't call it "climate change" because Americans like change; b) don't call it "global warming" because the word "warming" sounds nice; c) refer to global warming as a "heat trapping blanket" so people can understand it; d) focus attention on technological solutions -- like fluorescent light bulbs and hybrid cars.

What each of these recommendations has in common is the shared assumption that a) the problem should be framed as "environmental" and b) our legislative proposals should be technical.

Even the question of alliances, which goes to the core of political strategy, is treated within environmental circles as a tactical question -- an opportunity to get this or that constituency -- religious leaders! business leaders! celebrities! youth! Latinos! -- to take up the fight against global warming. The implication is that if only X group were involved in the global warming fight then things would really start to happen.

The arrogance here is that environmentalists ask not what we can do for non-environmental constituencies but what non-environmental constituencies can do for environmentalists. As a result, while public support for action on global warming is wide it is also frighteningly shallow.

...


Whereas neocons make proposals using their core values as a strategy for building a political majority, liberals, especially environmentalists, try to win on one issue at a time. We come together only around elections when our candidates run on our issue lists and technical policy solutions.

...

The tendency to put the environment into an airtight container away from the concerns of others is at the heart of the environmental movement's defensiveness on economic issues. Our defensiveness on the economy elevates the frame that action on global warming will kill jobs and raise electricity bills. The notion that environmentalists should answer industry charges instead of attacking those very industries for blocking investment into the good new jobs of the future is yet another symptom of literal-scleroris.

More good news from the environmental community: not only won't we kill as many jobs as you think, we only want to raise your energy bill a little bit!