How Do Right-Wingers Justify Their Stance on the Environment?

[Arugula Latte]

Something has puzzled me for a long time. I cannot understand how "regular" right-wingers and conservatives and Republicans can dismiss away environmental concerns with the "tree-huggers" dogma. I know that high-ranking people like BushCo. truly don't give a rat's ass if the air, water, and land is poisoned for centuries because Corporate Profit truly is their god, but what about these average Joes who go along with the official line? Do they just convince themselves there's nothing to worry about? Do they not care about their own children's health? Do they truly not give a crap about future generations?

Can any former Repubs here or people who have right-wing friends enlighten me? (I've managed to construct a life for myself that is largely free of conservatives & wingnuts, so I don't get much first-hand insight into these things.)

Any input is appreciated. Thanks.

[Killarney]

1. One example

Many of them don't believe that global warming exists and is a real problem. They laugh it off.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

3. There are some DUers on this board that poo-poo global warming

It just amazes me that they fall for the right-wing studies that were, of course, commissioned by chemical companies, automakers, and other polluters to disprove global warming.

[wysi]

8. I believe...

... that it's still an open question, scientifically speaking (but I am not ignoring the fact that there are a lot of studies done intending to support a particular point of view!). But the fact that the issue is not resolved scientifically does not mean that we should pollute and generally make the planet unlivable for future generations. That is, irrespective of whether it's getting warmer, we shouldn't be doing what we're doing!

[ComerPerro]

2. Honestly, I don't know

how they justify their stance on ANYTHING

[salinen]

4. The mindset of the greedy selfish

does not include future generations of animal, vegetable, or mineral.

[ComerPerro]

5. Well, but at least it would make sense if their positions could be

justifited by greed.

But they can't

Your average hardcore FReeper is middle class. The GOP does NOTHING to help or promote the middle or lower class.

What I can't figure out is, why do these creeps spend so much energy working to promote a bunch of millionares who don't give a shit about them???

[sendero]

35. because ...

... they come in two flavors. The "praise Jesus" flavor has been sold that the Rep party is more godly since they are against abortion and such.

The other flavor is the "economic deludiniod" who thinks he/she will be a millionaire someday. This flavor in particular gives me a good laugh, the odds are 99.99% against them.

[stepnw1f]

6. Just Food for Thought...

Of course I am speaking of Right-wingers that are educated, when I say this. cough. I believe it a neurological disease right-wingers have. I believe they see the world in terms of black-and-white, easy or hard, because it fits their picture perfectly. Most repukes are very comfortable living in worlds that suit their needs and only their needs. It's a neurosis that begins in selfishness itself, however they become Obsessive Compulsive (OCD). It's very similar to addiction and the way addicts view the world. I know because I am an ex-addict or recovering addict.

[rman]

32. neurological / chemical

There may be something to this. Research has shown there is a hormone-like substance that regulates the tolerance to taking risk: low levels of this substance is correlated with thrill-seeking and criminal behaviour, high levels correlate to fobia-like fears.

[maggrwaggr]

7. it goes to their basic disdain for actual democracy

In the 1980 election, when Reagan was running against Carter, I remember a poll that said 61% of republicans wanted tougher, not lighter, laws against pollution and environmental protection.

Yet when Reagan got into office, he appointed James Watt secretary of the interior. Watt ridiculed environmentalists and made it quite clear that his intention was to use natural resources, including our wilderness areas, for any sort of profitable recreation or corporate interest.

I, too, have never figured out why a "conservative" would want to poison our land, ruin our air and water and wreck our own forest's ability to grow trees and filter our water supply.

But they seem to want this, simply out of some childish need to spite the "treehuggers".

It's just awful, and it is the #1 reason I am a yellow-dog Democrat.

They seem like petulant children to me in a lot of ways.

Of course, the fundies believe it doesn't matter, that the rapture is coming anyway, and that the earth is an awful fallen place, and soon we're gonna be in a better place, oh and don't forget, God put the animals and the plants here for us to use.

But those are just the fundies.

[lastknowngood]

9. Look if you can justify believing the shrub is a honest

christen you can justify anything.

[maggrwaggr]

10. don't forget, they go beyond what the corporations WANT

Recently when Bush opened up wilderness areas for further logging, it went further than the corporations even wanted. Several of the big corporations that would supposedly benefit, like Staples, and (I believe )Weyerhauser said they didn't even WANT these forests opened up.

Again, it's out of a childish need to piss off their opponents.

[murphymom]

11. Jobs

Especially in a state like Oregon where there are a lot of small towns with economies based on the timber industry. When logging is restricted and the sawmills close there aren't any good-paying blue-collar jobs to take their place.

A lot of people aren't looking at the big picture, they are looking at their everyday survival. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

[DrWeird]

16. Not about the jobs.

If the lumber companies decided to retool for manufacturing second growth lumber than there'd still be the jobs. Instead they only wanted old growth forest and so they looked to countries were it was easier to cut down old forest trees, like in latin america. Given there's only a small amount of old growth forests left, it was only a matter of time before the lumber companies had to retool or lay off american workers.

[murphymom]

21. But from the point of view of the mill worker

it IS about jobs. Rightly or wrongly, they see the environmental movement as taking away their livelihood. That's the problem, to get the everyday person to think about the long term effect of the extractive industries and not just their own personal situation.

Small town rural Oregon is fairly conservative.

[Lindacooks]

12. Some honestly believe that God

will protect the earth and prevent humans from totally destroying it. Same with the nuclear arms race - many actually believe that God will protect the planet from nuclear winter.

I know it's really stupid, but that kind of mindset is just not going to be changed by anything except catastrophic environmental changes. Even then, they'll blame it on the devil, or liberals.

[Seldona]

14. Many of them believe the 'end times' are coming.

Why bother protecting the envirement when god is on his way?

I have seen this crap within my own family.

It is a discrace.

[ozymandius]

19. These are called "dispensationalists".

They turn my stomach. Nothing any dispensationalist has ever said to me is ever based in rational thought. To me, they represent where the human experiment has failed.

[LoZoccolo]

20. You'd think they'd want to maybe protect people...

...from any size disaster, even if it's not big enough to wipe out everyone.

I've heard stuff from real Christian environmentalists who believe you should be a good steward and take care of the earth, but to some of these people, evidently convincing themselves that they have enough faith to convince themselves they won't completely trash the planet trumps considerations of other peoples' health and safety.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. God gave them dominion over everything

and therefore they have the right to use it as they see fit :eyes:

[wuushew]

25. Such as Rush Limbaugh

"My views on the environment are rooted in my belief in Creation," he writes. "I refuse to believe that people, who are themselves the result of Creation, can destroy the most magnificent creation of the entire universe."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-environcreation.htm

[theHandpuppet]

33. I also know some RWingers...

... who believe that God gave us the earth to use or use up as we please, and cite passages in Genesis to support their beliefs. Since they also believe that God will return before we completely destroy the planet they don't worry about trashing the planet for future generations. They're just waiting for the Rapture.

[DrWeird]

13. Republicans are against the environment

precisely because liberals are pro environment.

It's out of spite.

Do they just convince themselves there's nothing to worry about?

Yes, the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is occuring. It's standard republican rhetoric to point out anecdotal evidence (sure was cold this winter, hah hah), point out the work of some hack psuedoscientists (Lomborg, for instance), or just plain fuck everything up (Rush confusing global warming with the ozone hole). When cornered they'll just fall back on the standard creationist tactic and say there's not enough conclusive evidence. (see above).

Do they not care about their own children's health? No.


Do they truly not give a crap about future generations? Ha ha. Hell no.

The only thing republicans truly care about is their own paycheck. They'll perform partial birth abortions for interracial muslim homosexual couples if there's a steady income in it for them.

[jbm]

15. I've often wondered that myself..

and I've semi-concluded that maybe the reaction is psychological.I'm absolutely no psychologist,but it seems to me that a lot of conservative assumptions are fear based,and their reaction is to implement some over the top control thing. True environmental damage would seem overwhelming to an average Joe conservative,because his gun won't help him and his wealthy 'superiors' won't save him. Denial is the only answer.

[spanone]

17. Most conservatives think that environmental safeguards are hoseshit

they blow it off to too many governmental regulations that stifle productivity in business. In other words they could care less.

[salinen]

18. Thugs are also convinced

that if they put what they know through their gigantic brains, never soiling their hands with science, that they will divine all the answers. Mother Earth will get her revenge.

[Laszlo_Hollyfeld]

22. A guy I grew up with explains the environmental issues

like this.

There are two families of about average wealth, 2 children each.

In the first family the parents save responsibly, live frugally and take great care to safeguard an inheiretence for their children. Knowing this, the children in this family have never really applied themselves relying instead on what would one day come to them.

In the second family continually tells their children that they prefer to spend their wealth during their lifetime and to watch their children enjoy the fruits of their labour. Know that no great pile of money will fall out of the sky for them one day, learn to provide for and rely on themselves.

In the same way, environmental issues will be resolved if and when they become a crisis.

Now, -on the face of it I actually believed this for a while. It makes a kind of sense most of us can relate to, and I've never been an especially bright guy.

But then I started to think about it and the analogy fell apart a little. We're not talking about a very good comparison.

It would be closer to a working analogy if instead of an inheirentence the family was beating holes in the walls of their home with a sledgehammer. In the first family they try to keep their children safe and warm even with gaping holes in the wall. And they look for ways to repair the holes. In the second family they tell little Billy and little Susie to go get a blanket if their so damned cold, and if the hole in the wall bothers you, get a paper-route and hire someone to fix it with the proceeds, - oh and (blam!), - here's another hole in a different wall. You can whine about that one now too.

[NewJeffCT]

24. God

God won't allow the earth & America to be destroyed, so big business can do whatever they want...

[Woodstock]

26. My take on it

The Republicans at work just don't think about it. If it isn't on Fox, they don't think it exists. They have blind faith in Bush. They really don't know what he's up to. Amazing but true. They haven't the foggiest.

I do know a former Republican. She developed an interest in wildlife. Along with that, she came in contact with environmentalists and learned about how the wildlife she loved are dying out because of loss of habitat. She told me, "How can you care about the environment and be a Republican?"

[forgethell]

27. Just a suggestion:

why don't you go over to Free Republic and ask them. Do it tactfully, without letting on your are a LIBERAL (you can get banned even faster there than here, they have NO patience with disruptors). Maybe ask what arguments you can use against your fanatically liberal significant other, or something. I'm pretty sure they'll give you an answer. They like to opinionate just as much as we do.

Good luck.

[stevedeshazer]

28. Calvinism

Manifest Destiny.

The answer (at least in North America) lies in the difference between the invading Euroculture which values resource extraction as a short-term benefit versus the perspective of aboriginal N.A. culture which views the individual as a small part of a greater whole.

[leesa]

29. I know the Fundies say it doesn't matter because the Rapture is coming

and they are all riding up to heaven in Cadillacs. Never mind that their god said we were to be stewards of the earth and its creatures.

Lots of denial. We want to use tons of fuel and gas so we will just deny any and all science that might contradict what we want to do.

[0rganism]

30. My take: there are 4 kinds of rightwing environmental outlooks

1. Rich corporados: They don't care about pollution and destroying the environment, because it's profitable and they can use their vast estates to shield themselves from the results of environmental degradation.

2. Religious nutjobs: They don't care about pollution enough to have it sway their votes on abortion and other religious-minded issues. Besides, if things get really nasty, Jayzus comes back to rapture them out of trouble.

3. Propagandized resource extraction workers: After listening to shills like Limbaugh and Booortz tell them how environmentalists are all liars who make it harder for them to get jobs, they come to hate the environment itself. They'll sport bumper stickers like "ask me how to cook spotted owls" or "Earth First: we'll log the other planets later".

4. Some actually DO care about the environment. These folks tend to the moderate side on more than one issue, and may even regret that the republican party has turned away from the ideals of Teddy Roosevelt. They don't see the Democratic party as presenting a significantly more responsible policy, and there may be other issues (e.g. taxes, abortion, affirmative action) that turn them away from embracing the Democratic platform.

[Hekate]

31. "End-timers" figure Armageddon will cancel out the environment

The Bush regime is packed with people who not only passed the neo-con litmus test but also the far-right-religious litmus test. This goes back to Reagan appointing James Watt as Sec'y of the Interior: both believed that since the end was near there was no reason to conserve. But this time it is much, much, much worse: the self-serving confluence of religion and utter greed.

There's a lot of that line of religious thought among quite ordinary citizens as well, and a string of novels that feeds into it -- I think it's called the Left Behind series. (see links below; also cross-check those links with home-schooling movement and home-schooling textbooks)

But I think that for an awful lot of Americans -- quite apart from any of the above considerations -- there is both a sense of entitlement and a fuzzy belief that the miracles of science will solve these pesky environmental problems with no effort or sacrifice on their part. The runaway popularity of SUVs -- gas-guzzling, prone to roll-overs, deadly to anything they hit, unsafe around schools because they can climb curbs without the driver becoming aware -- just staggers the imagination of anyone who has an imagination.

When the Bush Regime turned its eyes toward the oil in the ocean just off the Central Coast of Calif., where I live, I realized that Big Oil truly has no incentive to conserve for the future, and they won't stop what they are doing until the last drop has been wrung from the earth.

Periodic talk about alternate energy sources, when it comes from the corporatists, is nothing more than a stalling tactic. When the State of Calif. required auto companies to come up with a certain percentage of electric and hybrid cars a flock of them were produced and leased (not sold) in the Los Angeles area. Last year the leases began to run out and all those cars had to be returned to the dealer. In an interview in the LA Times every one of the drivers said they'd purchase those cars in a heartbeat -- but the Bush Regime had nullified California's requirement and American auto makers stopped producing them. (The Toyota Prius is selling well here, though.)

Ordinary people can be educated, I am convinced of it. But as long as advertising for pernicious products is protected as a First Amendment right, it's easy to play on a lot of peoples' inherent laziness and fuzzy logic -- regardless of political party or religious affiliation.

Hekate

~~~Psst. Who's this God that talks to George W. Bush? Pass it on.
http://wiredheart.hispeed.com/july02/kent_southard_nf.html
"The True Face Of The Conservatives Behind Bush"
http://www.politicalamazon.com/cr-links.html
Political Amazon: "Christian Reconstructionism Links"

[Loonman]

34. Screw the right wingers

Maybe they'll get cancer from dioxins or PCBs.

[Lone_Wolf]

36. Market forces...

Market forces was the basic reason I was once given by a wingnut.

First, he argued that businesses have a profit motive not to pollute. That the public, which contains customers, would not tolerate a corporation that pollutes. So a corporation that pollutes would face a boycott and it's less polluting rivals would gain market share. His argument makes several assumptions which probably aren't true.

Second, he said if pollution were to become a problem, then there would be a profit motive to companies to come in and fix it. Thus, there is no need to worry about it. Basically, he was arguing that capitalism is the most efficient way to fix problems. I think it is the columnist Thomas Sowell who often brings up points very similar to this in his rightwing columns. This people who hold this point of view often forget that rampant capitalism often creates problems in the first place.

The faith these people have in the "free" market is simply unbelievable.