As I described in a previous post, Ron and I have been meeting with a local Republican couple once a month over dinner to discuss politics in a friendly atmosphere. Each time we meet, we choose a topic, and March’s topic was how Governor Walker’s budget bill will affect the environment.
Just before this dinner, Ron and I had attended Conservation Lobby Day, where we’d become convinced that Walker has launched an outright attack on Wisconsin’s natural resources. As you can see from my recent posts, this is a topic close to our hearts as stream scientists. We were eager to know what Walker’s supporters thought about conservation and how they might justify his recent moves.
Carol couldn’t make it this month, but Scott agreed to come anyway. This was charitable of him, outnumbered as he was, and with Ron and I both holding master’s degrees in conservation.
We met at the Fitchburg Great Dane over Paoli portabella burgers, mozarella salads, and Scotch ale. Ron and I brought a haphazard sheath of pamphlets and memos from Lobby Day, which we handed to Scott, pointing to various statistics as we talked. For two hours, he patiently fielded our questions: Why take away state funding for recycling? Why take away water quality regulations? Don’t conservatives care about the environment?
It turns out that conservatives do care about the environment. At least, Scott and Carol do. Talking to Scott made me realize that the difference is in how we approach conservation: locally vs. nationally; by choice or by mandate. Understanding this difference could be a stepping stone towards working together.
Recycling
We started with recycling. Walker’s budget not only eliminates all state recycling funding, but takes away the state law requiring municipalities to recycle.
Ron and I knew that recycling was something Scott and Carol supported. In another conversation, Carol had been furious with liberal protesters for leaving their signs outside the C\capitol, where—of all things—the signs would get wet and be harder to recycle. We also knew there was bipartisan support for recycling because several Republican legislators have broken rank and challenged Walker on this issue, saying that his proposal goes too far.
Happily, we found similar overlap in our little conversation, which went something like this.
Ron: What do you think about Walker’s plan for recycling?
Scott: Well, I don’t know details, but in general I do think it’s best to get away from state mandates. That gives more power to local government; recycling might not be the best option for all cities in the state.
Me: But what if a local community decides that it wants to recycle, but can’t afford it without state funding?
Ron: Yeah—isn’t that an example of big government power, with the state preventing the local community from doing what they want to do?
Scott: (Pausing thoughtfully.) I can see the state providing some funding. I guess I feel like the money shouldn’t all come from the state, though. That would be free money, and when you give someone free money, they tend to use it whether or not it’s good for them. I’d rather see the community coming up with the money, and the state maybe providing matching funds.
Me: Woah! This might be something we actually agree on! That’s exciting!
It seemed we were off to a good start, possibly agreeing that taking away all state funding for recycling is a bad idea. My excitement elicited slightly awkward smiles from Scott and Ron, who probably sensed that we’d have to talk about this a lot more before we came to a meaningful agreement. But I still felt it was a start.
Conservative Conservation
I knew that until recently, recycling has often been bipartisan, even apolitical. That’s a good thing. But why haven’t more environmental policies become accepted by the mainstream?
Me: Do you think it’s politically risky for Republicans to break with the party and speak up for recycling, against Walker’s proposal?
Scott: Politically risky? No. And you have to keep in mind that although Walker proposed this, these changes aren’t being made just by him. This is also legislators, who represent different districts around the state; it’s not just one person.
Me: Okay; that’s true, although I do think if Walker led differently, the legislators would follow him. But getting back to the politically risky question… If it’s not politically risky for Republicans to speak up for the environment, why don’t we see that more often? Things are just so divided right now; conservation is seen as part of the liberal agenda, and Republicans can’t afford to look like they’re siding with liberals on anything.
Ron: Which is strange, because if you think about the word conservation, it has the same root as the word conservative. You’d think conservatives would want to conserve the environment, keep it the way it was in the past, and stop our resources from eroding so we can protect them for our children’s future world.
Scott: I think Republicans do believe in conservation. I mean, I’ve been involved in conservation, too. I’ve helped with invasive species removal near my house, and my son had a project where he had to find all the leaky faucets in our house and I helped him do that… We recycle…
Us: That’s great!
Scott: It’s more a question of how it should be done. When the government starts stepping in and telling me what to do in my own home, or on my property… That’s when I start having an issue. For one thing, when I’m told I have to recycle, it almost makes me…
Me: Want to rebel?
Scott: Well, yeah, in a way. It takes away the feeling that I’m doing something good, and gives me the feeling that I’m just doing something someone’s telling me to do.
Ron: But you have to have government, and rules, for certain things.
Scott: Right, of course. But I think things should be as local as possible. The county or the township knows whether something really makes sense locally, much more than the state or federal government. Like with land purchases—how can the state know whether a city should buy a piece of property to keep it from being developed? Or whether a recycling program or a transit program will work in every area? You have to give local governments the power to make those decisions.
This part of the discussion was eye-opening for me. It’s tempting sometimes, in the conservation field where I work, to feel that you’re fighting a juggernaut of corporations and conservatives who just don’t care about natural resources. Talking to Scott, I could see that he’s not a part of that juggernaut, if it does exist.
The image in my mind changed: rather than fighting each other, it’s more like we’re fighting on the same side, both wanting to protect natural resources…but coming at it from different angles so that we get in each other’s way.
Phosphorus and Water Quality
We moved on to several other environmental issues that are affected by Walker’s proposal—stewardship, public transit, environmental education. Eventually Ron and I warmed to the issue dearest to our hearts: phosphorus.
Me: Can we talk about water quality? That’s sort of Ron’s and my pet issue, since we studied it and we work with it at the Department of Natural Resources. So, Walker’s trying to repeal the phosphorus rule that was passed last December. The rule basically limits the amount of phosphorus that farmers and cities can put into lakes, streams, and rivers, and it’s one of the most progressive rules in the country.
Ron: And repealing the rule is ridiculous. The DNR and farmers and cities worked really hard to pass it, over several years. It’s a compromise. And we have to regulate phosphorus according to the Clean Water Act; if we don’t regulate it, the feds will come in and force us to, which would be harsher. Walker says the rule will hurt business, but phosphorus is one of our worst water pollutants. It causes the algae blooms in lakes and streams, so it actually loses tourism money for Wisconsin. I just don’t understand why we wouldn’t want to regulate it.
Scott: I really don’t know specifics about this issue. But when you talk about phosphorus, one thing does jump to mind. I remember a few years ago, they passed a rule that banned phosphates in detergents?
Us: That’s right.
Scott: But I have my own septic system. So why does it matter to anybody else what detergents I use? If I live at the bottom of a valley, and none of my water flows anywhere, then why do I have to take phosphates out of my detergent?
Ron: You could be right. If you are one of the rare people who lives in a place that has no water leaving it, you might be a possible exemption. Your water’s still probably going into the ground, but phosphorus isn’t as much of a groundwater issue, so maybe regulating you isn’t as important.
Me: But, unfortunately it’s just a lot easier to make one-size-fits-all rules.
Ron: The vast majority of people do have water that flows somewhere else, and if every local government made its own phosphorus rule, it would just be really inefficient.
Me: Plus, let’s say we in the city of Madison decide to clean up our water, and we clean up the entire Yahara River system. The Yahara flows into the Rock River, right? Well, let’s say that the next community downstream has really bad pollution, and after the water leaves Madison, it immediately gets polluted again by them. They’ve totally negated what we’ve done! Because water flows from one community to another, or one property to another, isn’t that where the larger government has to come in?
Scott: I guess I can see that. I guess water does cross boundaries, so in that way, there might be a place for the state government to step in. Or when you’re talking about the Great Lakes, maybe even the federal government.
I got the feeling that Scott had simply not thought about water this way before. To us, with our master’s degrees in water conservation, it’s obvious that water is a conduit between homes, cities, counties, and states. But to someone who’s never taken an environmental class and isn’t surrounded by environmentalists, that concept may simply be new.
There’s so much anger from liberal conservationists towards conservatives who back Walker’s plan. But could it be that we’re making poor assumptions? Maybe part of the problem is simply a lack of education among conservatives on conservation principles. Maybe we need to get back to the basics. (I’m sure there are other issues on which conservatives want to educate many of us.)
As with recycling, I felt that with phosphorus, there was potential for common ground between us.
Regulation, Freedom, and Trust
Underlying all of these issues—recycling, phosphorus, etc.—is the issue of regulation in general. Our two sides differ widely on how much government power and regulation we want. Why? I’ve always assumed that conservatives dislike regulation because they prioritize business over the environment…or over health care…or over the poor. But talking to Scott, I learned that that’s not how he sees himself.
First of all, it’s important to get away from black-and-white thinking: it’s not so much that Scott doesn’t want any regulation. We just disagree on the appropriate degree of regulation. To say “conservatives don’t want regulation” is to grossly distort things and dismiss any possibility for compromise.
Second, it’s not all about business taking priority. Scott does care about recycling and water quality (as well as the poor and health care). He simply has a different paradigm for how to approach conservation: more at an individual and local level, with fewer mandates from the state and the feds.
I believe this different paradigm has to do with some underlying value differences between us and Scott (and most other conservatives). In particular, the differences lie in our concept of freedom and our trust in other people.
On freedom: Ron and I see regulation as preserving our freedom. Regulation protects us from the actions of a few people who might damage the water, the air, the soil—all those elements that make up the “commons” that we all share. As Ron says, “One person’s freedom to pollute limits my freedom to have clean water.” Scott, on the other hand, sees regulation as restricting his own freedom, punishing him even if he’s not one of the “bad actors.” This outlook is clear from his question on phosphates: Why should I have to change my behavior, if I’m not doing anything wrong?
As I write this, I can imagine my liberal friends rolling their eyes at Scott’s comment, but regulation’s restrictions can be far from trivial for some businesses, farms, and individuals. In many cases, it’s only natural to resist.
Along with differences in how we view freedom, I think liberals and conservatives have different paradigms on trust. At one point in our conversation with Scott I said, “Correct me if I’m wrong, here. I’ve come to believe that in general, conservatives tend to trust individuals and market forces more than liberals do, and we tend to trust the government more than you do. Is that right?”
Scott nodded thoughtfully, agreeing. “That sounds about right…But, why is that?” he asked.
Ron began to speak again about the need for regulation, and as he talked, I was startled at a thought: It’s not so much that we liberals trust the government, but that we don’t trust other people. We want them to be regulated. This thought caught my attention because I’ve always thought of liberals as more idealistic and hopeful than conservatives about human nature. Can it possibly be that we trust people less than conservatives do?
I later bounced this thought off of another liberal couple. The husband said, “I think it’s not so much that we trust the government, but that we see the government as necessary.” His wife added, “Yeah—we don’t trust the government or individuals. I don’t trust anybody!”
We all laughed, but it’s true. In general, conservatives want fewer limits on their behavior, trusting that most people will behave well when left on their own. We liberals, on the other hand, want the government to regulate others, just in case.
It’s important to understand these differences in philosophy. I think it’s also important to respect them. Neither perspective is intrinsically evil, and although philosophy and values can change, more likely they won’t. The better we understand and respect each other, the better we can communicate and find compromises.
The conversation with Scott was enlightening. There’s more to it, but I’ll save that for another post. I look forward to many more dialogues with him and Carol in the future.
I would like to see these conversations on a national venue, anonymously.