Climate Change: Republican Renaissance?

The Republicans are a party in crisis. Having lost the election, they’re now wracked with internal strife and prospects for a turnaround in the near term appear dim. The reasons for this decline are primarily demographic: their values, platform, and policies are now dangerously out of sync with the mainstream, and diverging further every year. Exploring this divergence could fill an article of its own, but it’s best summed up by the Republican party’s recent “autopsy” of their 2012 election failures which concluded the party is simply “too old, too white.”

Have they considered cloning?

Faced with these demographic challenges, Republicans understandably fear they’ll be marginalized and irrelevant within a generation. They’re in need of a renaissance, a new narrative that draws attention away from their current controversies over “legitimate rape”, and funding cuts for social programs. Building this narrative requires a bridge issue, one that appeals to broad new audiences without compromising the party’s core values.

That issue is climate change.

Whoa! How could climate change possibly be a Republican issue? After all, isn’t it counter to the interests of Big Business, and don’t dozens of Republican congressmen openly deny the science behind it? How can climate change possibly become the issue that saves the party?

Let’s begin with a truism about politics: perception is reality. Perception matters more than policy, and political packaging is one of the Republican party’s core strengths. Consider their success establishing narratives like “lower taxes grow the economy” and “immigrants are stealing American jobs.” While each of these is empirically false, a combination of intuitive packaging and endless repetition have forged them in to cultural truisms. Republicans’ current branding of climate change includes phrases like “job-killing” and “left-wing conspiracy,” which has, over the years, turned their base squarely against the issue. But if they change that branding, perceptions from the base and the public at large will change with it.  So let’s begin!

Climate change threatens our freedom!

What? That’s stupid. But wait: if you’re a rancher or a farmer in the American West, your freedom is enormously constrained by the horrific drought of the last two years. You don’t get to choose what you’re going to plant, or what cows you’re going to slaughter.  Your freedom to make a livelihood in your chosen profession is under serious threat. And at the other end, shoppers are losing freedom of choice at the supermarket, as climate change destroys certain crops and makes meat unaffordable.

God commands it!

Right out of the gate in Genesis, the Bible states “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it,” a responsibility we violate as we continue to pollute our air and water. Furthermore, addressing climate change fulfills the Christian’s commitment to aid the poor (whom climate change hits disproportionately). Across the country, religious leaders are beginning to understand climate change in its moral context and seeing it as an opportunity to apply their creed in the real world.

Our national security depends on it!

It’s telling that despite our numerous active military conflicts and warnings of thermonuclear annihilation from North Korea, America’s generals and intelligence agencies continue to identify climate change as our top threat. It’s no coincidence that the countries American forces are engaged in are some of those hit hardest by climate change! Climate change makes basic resources like food and water scarce, which in turn breeds unrest and radicalism…things that never turn out well for America. Admittedly, addressing this new kind of national security threat takes a major shift in thinking. Once we accept that we can’t kill our way out of resource shortages, we’ll realize our national security dollars are better spent on efforts like developing renewable energy and educating women in the third world.

And what are the rewards for pursuing this strategic rebranding? First, Republicans would win their most prized demographics: non-whites, the young, and the poor. Second, flanked from the left, Democrats would be made to look out-of-touch and the party of the establishment. Finally, as climate change sheds its partisan taint, bills to address it will begin sailing through Congress, government will begin working again in the eyes of the people, and Republicans will get all the credit. Refocusing the party on climate change is akin to hitting the reset button: in one logically consistent move, Republicans would halt their decline and be revitalized, while preserving their core values.

Bipartisan powers, ACTIVATE!

Bipartisan powers, ENGAGE!

Now before we get too enthusiastic about the idea of a Republican embrace of climate change, let’s be honest with ourselves: it would never happen. While resistance to massive change is to be expected, the biggest reason the GOP will not pursue this strategy is that they rely on campaign contributions from Big Oil to get elected. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Yet if there were anyone who could transcend this paradigm, it’s Chris Christie. Who better to pursue this issue than the governor of a state wrecked by Hurricane Sandy? While he might be persona non grata with party leaders at the moment, he is still highly respected by the rank and file as the rarest of birds: someone who puts his constituents ahead of politics.

Climate change is the issue of our time. Today’s arguments about its science and legislation will be replaced with tomorrow’s responses to food riots and accommodating climate refugees. Yet the grimness of climate change is matched by its political opportunity  — the opportunity to command an issue that will dominate human culture for generations. For their continued relevance in American politics, for the health of a democracy that needs diverse opinions to thrive, and for the sake of humanity’s future, let us hope the Republicans are the ones to embrace this opportunity.

6 thoughts on “Climate Change: Republican Renaissance?”

  1. So Republicans have to ignore basic science, forget that all the dire predictions by warmists are flatly wrong from the hurricanes to the ice caps melting (I LOVE how you mentioned Hurricane Sandy in this as if CO2 actually caused it!) Once that happens then they’ll get a lot of votes from people who don’t understand science?!

    Once Republicans support funneling hundreds of billions of dollars through our government in the name of “global warming / climate change / climate weirding / whatever Democrats dream up next to install fear” THEN the world will be better (poorer, more stupid, and less free but the rich will be richer!)

    1. Hi GardenGnomeLF, thank you for reading and commenting.

      I’d like to engage you on the level of the “basic science”, if you wouldn’t mind. From your comments I assume you have problems with the current state of climate science. Are you of the opinion that climate change is a hoax, that climate change is real but not man made, or that it’s real and man made but not a big deal? (feel free to tell me more about your views, those are just the three flavors I know.)

      Also, I’d like to know which climate scientists or research institutes you trust for information on this important global issue. Thanks,

      -Eric

      1. Climate change has always happened and always will happen.

        If you notice two big things pointing to this being a scam. ALL the major people touting this global warming do not actually live their lives in a way to show they believe it to be true. Not even in little ways. The day I see one of these conference not populated by people who fly in on private jets driving in on limos and they just teleconference because they are THAT worried, then I’ll start listening to them.

        Second, let’s pretend it is real. You COULD deflect sunlight by injecting material into the upper atmosphere, for example. People who talk about such things are shunned. The ONLY allowable reaction to global warming is to call for taxes and more government control. It is no coincidence that a lot of the government subsidies go to corrupt partners of those in government.

        If I ever see someone publish raw data from satellites (and not the “value-added” data from satellites), give out the equations, spread sheets, and programs that take the raw data and get a temperature result and (most importantly) have these equations accurately predict future temperatures based on measured CO2 output and such THEN I’ll start believing them.

        I would also like to point out that IF people actually believe CO2 caused climate change and the earth was going to be destroyed, the ONLY VIABLE path is nuclear power. Let’s say you have an occasional nuclear incident like Fukashima or such. It would be bad of course, but not Earth destroying. Why aren’t environmentalists pushing nuclear plants? Occasional isolated problems is vastly better than their dire predictions!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>