Liberals as Preservationists

By: Bryant Wade Capley

The impulse that drives much of the Liberal movement in our time is preservationist.  One might believe this more easily about Conservatives, but it as at least as true of Liberals.  The most obvious manifestation of this is the typical bent the Liberals efforts on Environmental issues.  But even while their more Socialist views advocate a remaking of society they too at the fundamental level betray preservationist desires.  It is worth discussing these points and then other matters.

            The Liberals on the Environment generally wish to limit development as much as possible.  They proffer many of their proposals on the basis that they are attempting to prevent the destruction of the Environment or just as commonly that they are trying to save the planet.  Depending on how one wishes to define terms, the first assertion is certainly true, at least to a degree.  The latter notion, however, is laughable.  Mother Earth does not need us to save her from anything.  If we continue in our temerity, she will simply shed us like the slimy sentient freaks of evolution that we are and she will do it without a second thought.  In fact short of active and very deliberate efforts to break the Earth up into asteroids and dust with our combined nuclear arsenal, this planet will remain right on schedule for her date with doom about five billion years hence.

            The destruction of the Environment can, depending on what one destroys and how important it is, may be quite injurious to humanity and could end our tenure on this planet.  The Liberals know that they have to be careful in how they present this aspect of things as it might motivate moderates to safeguard only those ecosystems that are regarded as essential to our continued survival or even comfort.  Again however, we can always use technology to avert this problem because of the very dynamism that the Kyoto Protocol and other economically crippling measures would do much to stifle.  It is heresy to argue that we can invent our way out of the Environmental problems that we create but there you are. 

The argument that does hold some resonance with Conservatives and Liberals alike is that the Environment ought to be preserved because it has some intrinsic value.  This is the one of the underpinnings of radical environmentalism.  This is what is behind efforts not only to preserve pristine environments but also to restore ecosystems such as the Everglades, at the expense of private property rights if need be.  If it is the immediacy of having to save the planet which charges Liberal environmentalism then it is the belief that the environment and endangered species and all the rest should be preserved as inherently precious that sustains it in the long term.

It is interesting then, that Conservatives such as President Theodore Roosevelt were amongst the first to turn a hand to preserving some portion of the environment in the form of national parks.  Again these works were not seen as part of a larger crusade to save the earth or humanity, but instead, were labeled as what they were Conservation.  This writer is a proponent of conservation and of reasonable restraints on pollution (as the local devastation caused by the latter can be extreme) but nonetheless it is essential that we recognize an important truth: the environment is subject to terrific transformations whether we like it or not.  One need only remember that a few ferns and some rare reptiles are all that remains of the Age of the Dinosaurs.  Thus, without advocating inaction on Environmental issues on this basis it suggested that we consider the long term realities of any form of conservation when deciding what sort of impediments to economic growth and what impositions on property rights we are willing to accept.

But, what of the Liberals as seen in their more Socialist aspects?  How are they preservationist here when they are at their most radical?  These questions are more difficult to consider, as the answers are less obvious.  Pruned of the labels that suggest, (but do not really entail) the remaking of society their plan is really to adjust the Capitalist or Free Market System in such a way that its most painful properties are ameliorated.  Through various forms of legislation Socialist nations in Europe have tried to make it where a person can keep the same job until retirement.  People are to be allowed to ossify, to find a comfort zone and remain within it, thus, obviating the need to develop and improve themselves to meet the demands of an often brutal and exploitative labor market.  In short, while changing the street signs and bumping down the capital pigs a few notches many Socialists really want the economic street system to be relatively static without much wrenching construction.  Naturally, income redistribution will help those who occupy lower places in that system (or so they believe) but again little changes fundamentally.  Thus, one can see the preservationist values of the radicals at work.

This writer actually feels sympathy for some of the hidden impulses that have been laid out.  Few of the individuals who favor Capitalism as an economic system truly relish the market forces which have turned many Americans into nomads in their own nation, force to move about from job to job or even place to place just to stay afloat.  A good number of staunch Republicans, who are farmers, will, if all government intervention were to cease, be forced off the land by these same market forces.  Thus, in a society where pensions are being steadily replaced by other forms of retirement compensation that force workers to labor well past age sixty five people will likely be forced to accept a number of dislocations even in a single lifetime.

The fact is that early capitalism entailed a disruption of traditional lifestyles that was often fiercely resisted by those who stood to be displaced.  One need only remember the oft told the story of the sabot (the wooden shoes from which the word sabotage comes) used to destroy labor saving machinery to see this.  It is again heresy to say it, but the capitalist system does require some regulation by government to keep it running smoothly.  The Socialist prescription however does not work.  By providing short-term benefits to some it hamstrings the system as a whole in the long run.

It will seem like a digression, but according to Science Fiction if society becomes technologically advanced and materially wealthy enough then, great stability will be achieved.  We will become what I call (I think but Im not sure that I am coining a phrase with this) Galactic Elves.  Essentially (and look at Tolkein and other fantasy writers to get an idea) Elves are a race highly advanced in technology, with relative social equality, a very high standard of living, extraordinarily long life spans and of course a low birth and death rate.  In Science Fiction there is often an elder race (usually) non-human that has these characteristics.  It is a superpower in the galaxy but one loath to intervene capriciously in the concerns of others.  It is these aliens that originally earned my label Galactic Elves.  It is worth noting that Isaac Asimov in some of his novels writes about the Spacers, a group of humans, which generally meets this set of criteria.  The only danger these groups face (beyond aliens as powerful as themselves) is that they lose so much of their dynamism that they retain not even the will to keep on going.  Again look at Tolkeins and other fantasy elves that choose to depart the more dynamic Middle Earth (or its equivalent) for some undisclosed location.  Elder races from science fiction often end up doing something similar.