Environmental Street Fighting

by Greg Walcher on February 16, 2018

Kenny Rogers’ classic tune about the “Coward of the County” concludes with the pearl of wisdom that “sometimes you’ve got to fight to be a man.” As much as we wish otherwise, there are times when fighting cannot be avoided, especially when our safety, families, or even country, are threatened. That’s why many leaders, from Lincoln and Churchill to Wilson and Bush, came into office with high hopes on domestic issues, but instead spent their tenure fighting wars.

Remember Churchill’s famous call to action, “we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets…” He was referring, of course, to the Nazis, the greatest threat to the survival of freedom in his century. He would never have used such incendiary verbiage to describe common disagreements on public policy, between members of different political parties in his own country.

How far we have fallen since those days of such precise language, to a time when the rhetoric of “street fighting” is used precisely that way. New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas is now famous for proudly boasting that he brings that “street fight” mentality to issues of “environmental justice.” Asked by one environmental reporter to explain the comment, he said, “My motivation was to primarily get into a street fight using power on behalf of the public interest.”

Is seeking power to get into street fights really the job of an attorney general? Granting that the phrase is rhetorical, not literal, many observers still wonder if such provocative images are helpful in addressing controversial issues. At least some top business leaders in his State think not. Carla Sonntag, President of the New Mexico Business Coalition (a sort-of statewide chamber of commerce) is among many saying, “Attorney General Balderas is talking tough with his ‘street fight’ rhetoric in regards to environmental issues, but that’s not what New Mexico needs.”

I have written several times about the decline of civility in our society, and the need for more open and honest dialogue on difficult issues. It seems especially notable in debates over environmental issues, where we are in a quagmire of partisan politics, divisive bickering, and lawsuits. Opposite sides in these contentious “battles” cannot talk to each other across a conference table, much less a dinner table, because they continually face each other across a courtroom table. It’s Republicans against Democrats, liberals against conservatives, East against West, ecology against economy, and environmentalists against corporations.

This contentious approach elevates the importance of minutia, lawsuits, meetings, and process, to the detriment of the environment itself. Americans have loved their environment from the very beginning and worked hard to conserve and improve it. That noble legacy is part of the history and culture of the West, and it needs to be encouraged and proudly passed along to future generations, not further divided.

That is why the essential first step in changing this contentious debate is changing the language. The world of environmental politics is filled with hype and spin, and it generally creates more heat than light. Politicians, reporters and lobbyists hurl accusations cloaked in the most outrageous terms. One side calls the other “enviro-Nazis” and “wackos.” They respond by accusing opponents of “pillaging” or even “raping” the environment (I myself have been called a “bulldozing wilderness rapist” and worse). Such abusive language causes people on both sides to dig in their heels, raises the level of anger, and in the end makes it more difficult to achieve consensus. We need to turn down the volume and admit to ourselves, and to each other, that we all care deeply about the treasures of the environment we live in.

There will always be disagreements on environmental policies, of course. Those issues create one of our generation’s most difficult challenges, namely, how to supply the natural resources needed to build a prosperous society – in a way that our grandchildren will be proud of. How can we use our abundant natural resources to improve our standard of living, while also preserving those resources for future generations? Those are the truly exciting questions for new leaders. Sadly, there is a great vacuum for such leadership in today’s environmental movement.

So often, the only reaction to environmental issues is to stop everything, hurl insults, and start a legal “street fight.” But if Lincoln could wish “malice toward none,” even after America’s bloodiest war, surely we could dispassionately debate a few political issues and make decisions as a community.

An edited version of this column appeared in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel February 9, 2018.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: