Why We Should Support the Republicans
by Lorna Salzman
Some Republican policies such as nuclear power loan guarantees, oil and gas drilling, opposition to abortion, gay marriage and universal single payer health care and tax breaks for the rich are indefensible.
But when it comes to the issue of economic growth, it appears they are ending up on the the right side, though for the wrong reasons.
Not long ago the New York Times printed an editorial by one of its financial writers, David Leonhard, about the urgent need to restart economic growth. This is a classic American article of faith and was the purpose of the financial stimulus bill: to jump-start consumer spending which would then spur production of consumer goods and cars and revitalize the American economy.
In the course of his article, Leonhard blasted the Republicans for their focus on reducing the federal budget at the expense of stimulating the economy, thus neatly dividing the opposing camps of Republicans and Democrats, with economists lining up with the Democrats of course. This is not to say that Republicans are adopting a no-growth position. They would be horrified if someone told them that their position was identical to the steady state eco-radicals, most environmentalists, the Limits to Growth study, etc. They would probably deny it.
But if you look at just one recent action, the cancellation by NJ governor Chris Christie of a new cross-Hudson tunnel, you realize that fiscal miserliness can often work in favor of the environment and energy conservation. In addition to the NJ decision, a bunch of states, mostly in the south, have rejected federal stimulus funds intended for projects that would create jobs for the unemployed. Some of these, it was hoped by pro-growth advocates, unions and liberals, would go towards new highways and infrastructure. Now these will not be built. In effect, the backlash against federal funds for most (but not all) purposes is going to prolong the recession and unemployment, and not least the construction sector and building trades, and others dependent on the creation of new households to buy consumer goods like major appliances, furniture and recreational supplies.
In turn, suburban and exurban sprawl will be severely curtailed, as it already has been by foreclosures. Tract housing as well as upscale McMansions are sitting empty, on overgrown lots, all over the country. Major development projects have been cancelled, either due to bankruptcy, lack of buyers, or failure to get financing. Such good news for the environment hasn't appeared for years. The darker side of this, however, is that the situation will not result in an honest re-thinking of how jobs and development should be addressed, where, on what scale, and for what purpose.
There are already many groups and communities who are already planning for the post-oil era, which in turn will, if not re-imagined soon, create economic and social chaos on a wide scale. Those who have studied the problem, such as the Post-Carbon Institute and James H. Kunstler and Richard Heinberg, fully grasp what will happen if no significant changes are made in our energy economy. But those in government categorically refuse to acknowledge the problem, which of course will be forced on all of us, in far more unpleasant ways, as a result of this refusal.
It is hard for many of us to abandon the false promises and false rewards on offer by the federal government in the name of equity and jobs. But how much harder it will be when the merde hits the fan, which will be sooner rather than later. Sadly, most liberals and enrolled Democrats have now been given a gift by the Republicans and Tea Party loonies, who will be depicted as heartless right wingers willing to let the poor and the sick die in the streets. Equally hard will be the realization that uncontrolled immigration from Latin America, which now enables the middle class and agribusiness to get low-paid nannies, lawn keepers and farm hands, will soon be transformed into a middle class of consumers who will demand the right to buy and consume on the same unsustainable scale as the rest of America. Here is a recent letter to the NY Times, entitled "Immigration Overload", that sums it up beautifully:
To the editor: "Immigration hardball" (editorial, Nov. 15. 2010) argues for a way for "illegal immigrants to get right with the law". Can we not question the wisdom of promoting amnesty and continued mass immigration in the face of millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans? Can we not cheer at the possibility of a sustainable energy future if we curtail continued population growth from immigration? Or are we condemned to actively promote the overpopulation of the United States by countries that are unwilling to curtail their growth and that refuse to provide for their own?" (Tim Aaronson, El Cerrito, Calif.).