Earlier in the quarter, students wondered where sustainability falls within the framework of the standard right-left American political dynamic. Is sustainability inherently a conservative or liberal notion? Might it sometimes contain aspects of both sides of this spectrum? Or perhaps sustainability is not reducible to this familiar dichotomy?
A sampling of Internet sources shows that there is quite a range of opinions regarding these questions. This post will provide some food for thought and, in so doing, draw on a sampling of sources that can serve as a starting point in addressing these questions.
In carrying out this analysis, I have realized that perspectives on “sustainability” can be understood as ranging along a spectrum.[1] Based on my small sample size and unscientific survey, this range of opinion seems to me to correlate rather directly with the political spectrum. From the political right to the political left, this spectrum ranges from:
- ** vociferous denunciation and claims of a conspiracy, to
- ** implied dismissal of the concept, to
- ** selectively re-claiming elements of the concept, to
- ** attempts to find common ground among liberals and conservatives, to
- ** internalizing some definition of “sustainability” based more-or-less on the Brundtland Commission and working to implement sustainable practices, to
- ** considering “sustainability” as being a critical moral imperative beyond question or dispute
For every analytical frame there is, of course, at least one item that falls outside of the frame. At least one of these is:
- ** finding a view of sustainability that does not fit nicely into either the “conservative” or “liberal” labels
Vociferous denunciation and claims of a conspiracy
Some opinion makers and average Internet citizens who self-identify as being on the conservative side of the political spectrum strongly assert that sustainability is a pernicious liberal idea. From the far conservative fringe, some members of the TEA Party are troubled by sustainable development, and see it as a prime example of “government forces [that] are making their move for total control of our lives.” Another example of a similar brand of extremist screed can be found here.
Similar to the above, Larry Miller asserts that “Sustainability [is the] The New Holy Grail.” It’s an open question how representative among political conservatives is his point of view, but he his highly critical of the label “sustainability” and claims that the term is ” batted about as the ruling class attempts to tell us what we are, and are not capable of doing.”
Along the same lines, Canada Free Press columnist Tom DeWeese wrote in August 2009 that “Sustainable Development [is the] The Root of All Our Problems.” DeWeese’s primary point is that the U.S.A. is “now throwing our liberties on the bon fire like a good old fashioned book burning”; “In short,” he continues, “it’s [sustainable development] all about wealth redistribution. Your wealth into a green rat hole.”
Implied dismissal of the concept
Moving incrementally from the far right side toward the middle of the current American political spectrum, I ran a number of Internet searches trying to find direct quotes and/or position statements from some of the current dominant Conservative opinion-makers, including Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and Glenn Beck. Surprisingly, I could not locate much in the way of specific positions by way of these broad Internet searches or by going to these people’s websites directly.[2]
My initial interpretation here is that these people do not want to engage directly with Brundtlandian sustainability, perhaps as a strategic decision to avoid the possibility of having to discuss a topic that they have not helped frame. I will identify this perspective as “implied dismissal of the concept” because of this lack of direct engagement with the idea, while trying subtly to re-claim elements of the idea of sustainability that they’re more comfortable with.
There are, however, two noteworthy exceptions to my lack of findings when searching for the perspectives of Palin, et al. that help support this interpretation.
Newt Gingrich’s official site, unlike all of the others listed above except Beck and Limbaugh, does have a search feature. My search on “sustainability” resulted in 2 hits. One, from 2006, referred to sustainability of the health care system, the other, from 2007, referred to an example of prizes incentivizing, in one instance, “sustainable” behavior. Searching “sustainable development” on Gingrigh’s site brought up ten results, none of which addressed in any way Brundtlandian sustainable development or brought up results that had the specific phrase “sustainable development.”
This article mentions that Newt Gingrich would be a keynote speaker at a Virtual Energy Forum in 2008. The article notes that Gingrich has a “background as an environmental studies professor” and was also advocating for “entrepreneurial environmentalism.” In this work Gingrich appears to be focusing predominately on the economic realm, with consideration for the environment relevant only to the extent that they can be tied with economics. My searching did not, however, turn up anything that Gingrich has said or written explicitly about Brundtlandian sustainability or sustainable development.
A search on Glenn Beck’s website brought up a few hits. Somewhat like Gingrich’s examples above, Beck also seems to understands “sustainability” solely within the realm economics. Further, he associates environmental sustainability with “socialism,” and, for Beck, socialism is unequivocally negative — see, for example, “March to Socialism – Green Jobs.”
Selectively re-claiming elements of the concept
Moving closer still to the political middle, perhaps, some self-identified conservatives posit that sustainability is a term that the left has corrupted and the right needs to re-claim. For example, Mitchell Langbert, an associate professor of business at Brooklyn College, claims that “sustainability” is “the latest term that the the totalitarian left has corrupted.” In reality, Prof. Langbert asserts, sustainability “Is a Conservative Ideology.”
A similar re-claiming effort on the part of self-identified conservatives includes the group Conservatives for Sustainability. This organization seeks to “promote sustainability in our world through the application of the conservative values of Liberty, Limited Government, Self-Reliance, Fiscal Accountability, and Equal Opportunity.” They explicitly frame the notion of sustainability in Left-Right political terms — and denigrate the Left’s perspective without qualification — when they assert that
- Unlike sustainability advocates on the left, we believe that sustainability is not a means of acquiring power and control. Conservative values can have a profound affect on creating real sustainability in the world while at the same time enhancing the value of the individual.
Alex Zorach also seeks to re-claim “sustainability” for political conservatives. His post “Sustainability: Building a Consensus between Liberals & Conservatives,” poses similar questions to the ones that prompted this post. He notes that “The term ‘Conservative’ even has the same root as the word ‘Conserve'” and writes that “There are many ways in which conservative ideals and approaches can be used to preserve, protect, and restore the earth’s ecosystems.” He provides many compelling examples of how politically-conservative people have and can contribute to sustainability efforts, but his focus is limited only to the environmental pillar of sustainability. (He is not alone in this.)
C.A. Bowers wrote his 2003 book Review of Mindful Conservatism: Rethinking the Ideological and Educational Basis of an Ecologically Sustainable Future to examine “how the misuse of our political vocabulary contributes to governmental, corporate, and educational policies that degrade the Earth’s natural systems” and also to suggest ways “to overcome this linguistic confusion to help recognize the fundamental connections between communities, sustainability, and the conservation of the world’s diverse cultures.” [Find Prof. Richard R. Jurin‘s review of this book here.)
Attempts to find common ground among liberals and conservatives
We have come now, more-or-less, to the middle of the spectrum of views on sustainability. Self-identified conservatives and liberals provide perspectives on this middle ground.
Michael Janzen claims that “GREEN is not about being liberal or conservative.” In this post he, like Zorach and others, equates “sustainability” with “green”/environmental issues, and in so doing urges readers to put aside political and ideological perspectives altogether. His wish is that people would “agree to disagree on all those social issues, you know all that stuff that has nothing to do with the planet and everything to do with how we interact with each other.” Janzen also implies a connection between “green”/environmental sustainability and economics:
- Lets [sic] tell the politicians, manufacturers, commercial agriculture, energy companies, and all the other big environmental polluters that we’re sick and tired of the trash and policies that support more mess and more out-of-control consumption.
From the middle-left comes Rich Bruer’s perspective. Bruer approaches the issue predominately from the economics perspective — at least in this post. He writes:
- I’d like to think sustainability is an apolitical issue. Still, [Psychologist Jonathan] Haidt’s liberal-conservative characterization helps explain why liberals dominate sustainability gatherings. . . . We’ll reach and influence more people by attending to both sides of the sustainability equation: change and stability.
Internalizing some definition of “sustainability” based more-or-less on the Brundtland Commission and working to implement sustainable practices
Another perspective comes from people who internalize Brundtlandian sustainability to one degree or another and strive to find ways to achieve this goals. For example, discussing a July 2010 conference of sustainable business leaders in Monterery, Calif., J. Marshall Roberts writes that participants were mindful about the need to avoid portraying intolerance when they discuss sustainability issues outside of their community of the “converted.” Roberts’ frames his discussion in terms of our current political climate and dominant opinion makers:
- participants showed a general distaste for ‘all or nothing’ absolutistic leadership and communication styles—such as those often adopted by FOX News anchor Glenn Beck, former president George W. Bush, and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. To the systemic worldview of today’s sustainable business leaders, such absolutistic communication styles are often seen viewed as shortsighted and counterproductive, at best. Unfortunately, if they aren’t careful, sustainability leaders run the risk of becoming absolutistic themselves—further alienating mainstream audiences from their vision. Either way, if present trends continue, expect further ideological polarity between mainstream ‘red’ state consumers and sustainable brand innovators in the coming months (source).
The Green Power Academy outlines the process of “Writing and Implementing a Sustainability Plan.” Ciel S. Cantora at Bright Hub asks “What is Sustainability and its Relevance to Poverty Reduction?” Shay Walsh provides guidelines titled “Corporate Sustainability: Implementing Environmental and Social Issues.”
Considering “sustainability” as being a critical moral imperative beyond question or dispute
William Shaub, in asserting “Glenn Beck vs Environmentalists,” writes that “all self-proclaimed members of the green movement and believers in sustainability should view Glenn Beck as . . . . a fear mongering, anti-progress televangelist who carelessly demonizes those with whom he disagrees.” Shaub’s focus is predominately on the environment (at least in this post), and his evidence for the claims against Beck is supported by clips of Beck’s show in which television personality attempts to demonize environmentalists and equates health care reform with Eugenics.
Architect Cameron Sinclar asserts that “Social and Environmental Sustainability is a moral imperative.” The InterAcademy Council “Presents Sustainable Energy As Moral Imperative.”
From a politically conservative point of view, staff at the National Association of Scholars assert — and critique — what they perceive to be moral imperatives associated with sustainability education, in their post “Teaching Sustainability: Moral Imperatives and Psychotherapy.” Based on reviews of the sustainability education webinar they link to on their page, these NAS representatives state that this event “surprised us in several ways” because they found in this presentation “two novelties: the insistence that sustainability isn’t and doesn’t aspire to be a distinct branch of knowledge, and the effort to advance the sustainability movement by means of persuasive techniques drawn from unconventional psychotherapy.”
Also within this category are perspectives among some on the left who dismiss conservatives by claiming that present-day American Conservatives are being disingenuous when they speak of sustainability at all. Thwink.org has at least one discussion thread on this general topic, “Conservative views of nature = deceptive??.”
Finding a view of sustainability that does not fit nicely into either the “conservative” or “liberal” labels
Finally, we’ve arrived at views of sustainability that are not readily categorized into “conservative” or “liberal” notions. After the Future analyzes the question, “Sustainability: A Dem or GOP Value?,” and finds that
- The way I see them, both conservatism and liberalism are forms of illness–Conservatism because to obsess about conserving dead forms causes a kind of soul stagnation that results in extreme cases in what I’ve called zombie traditionalism, and Liberalism because humans are not open-ended, reprogrammable machines, who can do or be anything they imagine. There hasn’t yet emerged a constituency with a worldview that embraces in a robust way what I imagine as health.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this is a limited study designed to spur conversation and thought, not to assert anything definitive. See note [1].
—-
[1] Some caveats to keep in mind as you consider this analysis: naturally, these points along this supposed spectrum tend to fade into one another, and it’s not impossible for some perspectives on sustainability to exhibit elements from more than one point along the spectrum. Also, this is not a definitive study by any means — I offer this as a starting point for discussion & thought.
[2] My searching brought the following results:
- ** General searches that included each name plus iterations of the terms “sustainability,” “sustainable development,” etc., did not bring up anything specifically from these people within the first few pages of results, but the searches did bring up many individual interpretations of these people’s actions and words
Regarding official websites:
- ** Sarah Palin doesn’t seem to have an official website, only a Facebook page
- ** I couldn’t get to audio files on Rush Limbaugh’s site without subscribing
- ** Ann Coulter’s website doesn’t have a search feature
- ** Rudy Giuliani’s “Giuliani Partners” website does not have a search feature and is also quite light for content; his unofficial website’s landing page still says “Rudy for President in 2008!”
–
I would be of the persuasion that sustainability is not reducible to the familiar liberal/conservative dichotomy.
And thank you for picking up and engaging with my post about sustainability and the liberal-conservative spectrum!
I was thinking about what you said about focusing on the environmental pillar of sustainability. When I wrote that post, I chose to focus more on environmental sustainability for the purpose of that post, but I definitely think about other aspects of sustainability as well, including both the other two classically identified “pillars” (social and economic), and also cultural aspects that go beyond the human rights and social justice aspects that people usually classify under “social and economic”.
In the beginning of that post of mine, I mention that in addition to American society becoming less environmentally sustainable in recent years, I also think we’ve seen a destruction of community and a weakening of family life. I did not explore these topics any more in that post, but I have written about them in other posts, such as my newest one about neighborhood and community gathering spaces. The economic angle I tried to tackle in my post about why GDP is a poor measure of wealth and prosperity. But I don’t mention much about liberal / conservative in those posts.
Do you think it would be worthwhile for me to write something about the relationship between the social, economic, or cultural aspects of sustainability, and the liberal-conservative spectrum?
I’m ultimately trying to move people away from thinking in liberal vs. conservative terms, but I also want to recruit both liberals and conservatives. I also would like to promote a more respectful, truthful, and nuanced dialogue. I think conservatives would do well to assume more responsibility for sustainability rather than letting liberals “own” the idea, and liberals would do well to focus on the positive ways that conservatives engage in sustainability-promoting activities, rather than just judging or criticizing them for not working towards sustainability in the ways that they would like them to do so.
Alex, thanks for joining the conversation here at the SHP!
I appreciate the information. My goal in writing this post was to provide a brief, preliminary, survey, so thanks for the links in which you address other facets of sustainability.
Even though I was trying to write a “brief, preliminary, survey,” this post still took me quite a while to formulate. In part because the post had already taken so much time, and also because I wanted to present the information as objectively as possible, I realize, upon re-reading, that I myself did not explicitly answer the question I asked in the title of the post.
My answer would be that, like you, I don’t see a clear partisan delineation in the theory or practice of sustainability. However, a great many self-identified conservatives have rather strong feelings otherwise. What this suggests to me is that there is a fundamental difference between how I perceive the world and how this particular group of conservatives perceives the world.* Thus, even if I (and others) might claim “sustainability is pan-partisan,” other members of society would not make this claim, and so, as an historian, my goal is to try to understand the historical, cultural, and political dynamics that help explain the differences in perception.
In other words, although I don’t perceive the world in a certain way, the fact that many people do makes the topic interesting and worthy of some degree of analysis.
You ask if “it would be worthwhile for me to write something about the relationship between the social, economic, or cultural aspects of sustainability, and the liberal-conservative spectrum?” This would be great! If you were to do this on your blog, and provide a link in the comments to this SHP post, I’d be happy to engage with it in a follow-up post here on the SHP.
—-
* Note: If anyone reading this comment can provide links to self-proclaimed liberals who strongly assert that sustainability is a partisan issue, please provide links in this thread. I specifically address certain groups of conservatives in this paragraph because I haven’t yet found the corresponding strongly-held partisan beliefs expressed from the liberal side.
Thanks; I’ll definitely let people know about this post and this site when I write about the social, economic and cultural aspects of sustainability as it pertains to the liberal-conservative perspective.
I know what you mean about how a number of self-identified conservatives react negatively to the word sustainability. It’s enough of an issue that I find that I’m frequently pegged as a liberal just because I use the term sustainability. On the other hand, I’ve also been pegged as a conservative based on stances I took on other issues. Often, people make such snap judgments to label people: if they hear someone criticize a politician of one party, people will assume that I’m a member of the “opposite camp”.
One person that I’ve seen make the claim that sustainability is partisan is Peter Wood of the National Association of Scholars. However, I wrote to him in response to an opinion piece he wrote on the matter and I found that he was more than willing to engage in intelligent dialogue on the issue.
It’s easy to have a negative, visceral reaction when we see someone strongly voice some views that disagree with ours, but it’s rare that we will truly be unable to find common ground with, so long as we approach that person with respect.
It’s interesting that you mention the NAS. They’ve engaged me in some discussion of sustainability (here, for example), and I’m currently in the process — as long and drawn-out as it is — of writing more in response to their special journal issue and other things I’ve come across (such as in the Chronicle of Higher Education).
Broadly, I’ve found their materials to be highly useful in generating in-class discussions, and I’ve also personally found some of their contributors’ works to be thought-provoking. I’ve also found some of their contributors’ work to be somewhat less than fair-minded and academically thorough.
Wow, you are right. Sarah Palin doesn’t have a web site. Interesting.
I’ve been searching the web for 20 minutes for her views on sustainability and there is nothing directly attributed to her.
Jan, yeah, it is fascinating to me as well. There are some conservatives who are vehemently opposed to “sustainability,” but some of the current leading lights of the conservative movement simply ignore the concept. I have no idea what that is all about!