Rational
environmental arguments lost on many voters
by Tom Randall
The Heartland Institute
We are sure most of
you who read these pages are regularly baffled by how poorly
rational arguments on environmental issues fare in the
public forum.
The logic of maintaining forest
health by intelligent logging, and maintaining roads
to facilitate such logging and aid in fire
suppression, seems irrefutable.
Since global warming predictions
have proven to be grossly flawed, it is difficult to
understand why reasonable people don't reject the
"greenhouse gas" scare.
We watch in amazement when modern
herbicides and pesticides are labeled as harmful to
our health when our lifespans have increased nearly
40 percent since we began using modern agricultural
chemicals in the late 1940s.
And we are baffled when the public
accepts the notion that air pollution is responsible
for increased asthma, even when presented with the
facts that asthma has increased as air pollution has
fallen, and the greatest increases in asthma have come
in undeveloped countries.
This list of amazing contradictions
between fact and public perception could go on
forever.
The explanation, we fear more and
more, is becoming clear. Some personal examples seem
to be powerful indicators of what is at work here.
Know-nothing liberal elites
This is not a reference to the
activist elites who form the leadership of
"environmental" and other liberal causes. It
defines instead limousine liberals, academic liberals,
"social" liberals, the "politically
correct" "suburban" liberals, and those
who just don't feel very good about themselves and are
endlessly trying to do the "right" thing.
We talked with one such couple
recently. She's in her late 30s, he just turned 50. An
interesting age spread. The talk eventually came
around to how little we have in common, they
expressing their total lack of interest in politics
and government, let alone environmental affairs. They
did, however, believe that everyone should be paying
more taxes because they can afford to; that the
environment was being destroyed; and that only the
federal government, working with international
agencies, could save the planet.
We did have very little in common.
As it turns out, they do not even
read the front section of their preferred newspaper,
which in their case happens to be The New York Times
and the increasingly left-leaning Chicago Tribune.
That section goes immediately into the trash so they
can get on with the things in which they are
interested. They do not watch television news or
public policy talk shows, nor do they listen to radio
news. They develop their opinions primarily from what
they hear at dinner parties and other social events.
A fluke? Doubt it. Many of our
counterparts can relate similar stories. One is told
by a friend who served in WW II and later as a guard
at the Nuremberg trials. An avid hunter, fisherman,
and gun collector, he reads four newspapers a day and
five news magazines per week. Don't call him during
the evening news or the major political talk shows.
He's busy.
His daughter, her husband, and their
grown daughter do none of the above.
A generational thing? It doesn't
seem to be. We spent several days with friends in
Florida who were decidedly pre-boomer, nearer the age
of our WW II veteran friend. At breakfast each
morning, everyone had a section of the newspaper--but
the front section of the very fine Tampa Tribune was
nowhere to be found . . . until we opened the cabinet
door under the sink to dispose of a grapefruit rind.
There it was.
Aside from the stains from coffee
grounds, soggy corn flakes, and juice, the section was
still readable. We made it a point to get up earlier
on subsequent mornings.
In the evening, we excused ourselves
from the normal neighborhood festivities, where
everyone caught up on the "events of the
day," to spend a half hour watching the news.
Uninformed, but voting just the
same
The point is that all these folks
would appear to be the face of the uninformed liberal
elite masses. Among people who live in such an
information vacuum, a little fear goes a long way.
And, they are going to vote this fall. In all
likelihood, with nothing else to guide them, they will
votes their fears.
While conservatives issue policy
studies and set forth rational, reasonable arguments
concerning the environment, the opposition simply
relies on a few fears, wins elections and, as Dr.
Walter Williams pointed out so well on these pages,
uses these fears to expand government.
For those of you who read this and
work on elections, whether for issues or candidates,
there's a clue here.
