How the Right Embraces Climate Change

If you believe the science, and even the least sensationalistic predictions of what global warming will do in the 21st century, then you also believe that people on all points of the political spectrum will eventually come to accept the reality of human-caused climate change.

The questions is, how do conservatives get there? After years of denial, hostility and obstruction, how will those on the right manage to fold this particular piece of reality into their worldview?

I think a clue to this process can be seen in the evolution of the right’s thinking about the Iraq War. Back in the 2000s, of course, opposition to our invasion, occupation and mismanagement of Iraq was central to the politics of the left and a core point of division between red and blue. Those who opposed the war were, to many Bush supporters, unpatriotic, terrorist-loving traitors. To Democrats, the war was an immoral, unnecessary war of choice spilling horrific amounts of blood and treasure, while doing nothing to prevent the spread of terrorism. These contrasting narratives largely defined the 2004 (Bush-Kerry) presidential election.

Today, in 2017, we have a conservative, populist president who campaigned on retroactive opposition to the Iraq War (even claiming—falsely—he was against it from the beginning), voted into office by legions of former Bush supporters who now seem to feel about Iraq largely the way Kerry supporters did 13 years ago. How does this happen?

Selective memory and a re-ordering of the significance of events to support a revised narrative. Today, the populist right has embraced the idea that Iraq was part of a globalist political philosophy that runs through mainstream Republican and Democratic thinking. Iraq, they believe, stains Democrats as much as Republicans.

The primary evidence is the bipartisan “yes” vote in Congress in October 2002 authorizing military action against Saddam Hussein. Forgotten is the mountain of false and distorted intelligence put out by the Bush administration at the time to convince Congress that Hussein harbored weapons of mass destruction; the subsequent opposition to the war by mainstream Democratic politicians; the extreme unlikelihood that the war ever would have happened with a Democrat in the White House in 2003; and—most importantly—the strong grassroots opposition to the war among leftists and moderates which began in the run-up to the invasion and only strengthened as the war progressed, and the failure of the grassroots right to pull their support, even after no WMDs were found and Bush’s “mission accomplished” turned into a quagmire.

So how does this work for climate change? Via the Future Right’s downplaying of Al Gore and left-wing environmental activism, Obama’s support of climate accords and those on the left (and moderate right) supporting policies like a carbon tax, and instead putting the focus on the forces of globalization and the political elite’s failure to act for reasons of economic self-interest. “Look at all the money given to Democrat [sic] politicians back in the twenty-teens by [insert carbon-emitting multinational],” they’ll say. It will be a much harder sell, given the very clear history of the right standing in the way of progress on climate, but I think they will try to pull it off.

Some might say it doesn’t matter how conservatives get there, as long as they get there. Let them have their own version of history, if that helps. But the problem, as with Iraq, is how much damage is done before they make that leap—and in this case, much of it may be irreversible.

How can the Current Left help them along? By doing what they can to de-politicize the climate debate. The fate of our planet (and species) should not be a political shibboleth, and if the right will cling fiercely (for now) to climate change denial as a cultural and philosophical touchstone, the left must try to loosen that grip by not using environmentalism as a political bludgeon.

The ACLU and Holding the Line on Speech Protections

In the wake of the violence in Charlottesville this week, some are calling on the ACLU to rethink its historic commitment to defending free speech across the political spectrum, regardless of the unpopularity or offensiveness of the message. The best way to ensure an equal voice for disenfranchised groups, it is argued, is for the ACLU to consider power dynamics and historical context when choosing whose First Amendment rights to defend.

I have a hard time with this position. It’s untenable to ask the ACLU to choose which political speech is worth protecting under the law and which isn’t. Free speech is not like housing or education or health care, where law and policy can be doctored to level the playing field; it’s the fundamental bedrock of democracy and civil society.

Even the perception that legal means are being used to amplify some people’s speech and suppress others’ (whether aimed right or left) is politically destabilizing and promotes radicalization. The alt-right, while not members of a historically disenfranchised group, already see themselves as marginalized victims of a liberal establishment. It’s important for the ACLU to maintain its historic stance as nonpartisan defender of civil rights.

Then there is the generalized erosion of public space, leaving us with fewer and fewer neutral forums for demonstration and debate. With private entities such as Twitter and Google blocking content as they please, now is not the time to weaken or bifurcate speech rights.

We should instead focus on, and support, all the ACLU does to promote freedom of expression, voting rights, criminal justice reform, religious freedom and the separation of church and state.