|
Thursday, 31 January 2008 |
|
What the G.O.P. can learn from the Green Party about going green.
While I was an expatriate studying at Oxford this past semester, I became acquainted with some of the mysteries of British politics. My quest naturally led me to the Conservative Party, also called the Tories. After recent events in British politics, it has become apparent that the Conservative Party is anything but irrelevant, as its gutsy young leader David Cameron has demonstrated. My months of immersion in British politics were aided by one of my professors, Thomas Gibson-Robinson of St. Catherine’s at Oxford, who is a stalwart Conservative. Initially the British Parliamentary system seemed bizarrely like an inebriated cricket and rugby match — very British, but deadly. One YouTube clip of Mr. Cameron debating Prime Minister Gordon Brown in the House of Commons proves that debate in the United States Congress is tame and childish compared to the brilliant quips and zingers that fly in Parliament. It is not only the style of parliamentarians that could school American legislators. The Conservatives are not without substance, either. On one specific issue especially, the Conservatives have demonstrated both savvy politics and good sense that the Republican Party would do well to emulate. The Conservatives have been aggressive in making the environment their issue while adopting a moderate approach that calls neither for human deprivation nor destruction of the ecosystem. While it is certainly true that the Conservatives are not as conservative as Republicans, they are not entirely liberal. Mr. Gibson-Robinson told me, "I would actually say that the Republican Party and the Conservatives have diverged slightly, the Conservatives being more central than they used to be, which perhaps reflects the attitude needed to win an election in the U.K." In reference to the environment, this is all to the good of the Conservatives. A quick glance at the Republican Party website reveals only a stance on "energy" that simply addresses the need for cleaner and permanent energy sources. While that is certainly important, it is not a broad answer to the larger question of a sustainable, healthy environment. Unfortunately the G.O.P. website abstains from saying anything environmentally friendly — not even about recycling. Considering that I have "conservative" friends who are voting for Barack Obama because the environment is their most important issue, I cannot help but think Mr. Gibson-Robinson was right when he said, "They [the Conservatives] could certainly teach them [the Republicans] about the environment. I personally believe the Republican view is outdated at best and scientifically bankrupt at worst." The Conservatives sometimes err on the side of government intervention in a manner that the Republicans could certainly improve upon. As their "Stand Up, Speak Up" report states, "The Conservative Party aims to improve the quality of life for everyone through a dynamic economy, a strong society, and a sustainable environment." In their report they stated, "In line with the principle that the polluter should pay, the government should phase out taxpayer subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, which are estimated at £150-250 billion per year globally." This is a recommendation that conservatives in the US should agree with philosophically, but many Republican politicians would shudder at the thought. Mr. Gibson-Robinson noted, "I think this is an immensely positive thing. It is something, in the U.K. at least, which is only a vote winner…." As the presidential election approaches in the U.S., the Republicans should adopt a strong policy on the environment. The Conservative Party has been exceedingly aggressive in denouncing the Labour Party’s government waste and improper taxation. Considering our own national debt and spending, the Conservatives seem to act upon the conservative principles the Republicans claim to posses. Regrettably, they also possess socialistic tendencies, but it would be impossible for any British politician not to commit to funding services like universal health care and still be elected. Even Mr. Gibson-Robinson remarked, "I think one is hard pressed to argue that a universal health care system is bad. The only thing that does present a problem is that it is not profit-driven, and therefore inefficiency is not hunted out as ruthlessly. But on the other hand it does enable an equally high standard of care for everyone, rather than based on their ability to pay, and it is apparently more cost- effective than the American model." Or it could enable an equally bad standard of care across the board. While I have been here, one of my friends got sick on a Tuesday and was unable to see a doctor until the following Friday. The Conservatives do seem to acknowledge that British socialist tendencies can have too strong a sway. For example, David Cameron recently spoke out on the government ineptitude in response to the national postal strike, which resulted in mail reaching me more than two weeks after it was sent. The Conservatives have worked hard to curb waste and achieve government accountability. Specifically, they have castigated the Labour Party for pilfering from the public’s pensions, creating a disincentive for the poor to marry, not to mention bureaucratic mismanagement. Mr. Gibson-Robinson observed, "They state they want to reduce the waste in public spending. This is a huge issue for a lot of higher rate tax payers. It was estimated that at least £250 billion was wasted every year through bureaucracy." Considering that Republicans in Washington have come to love pork-barrel spending, the Conservative Party has something to teach its American cousins. Finally, the Conservatives have aggressively engaged the British public. The aforementioned "Stand Up, Speak Up" campaign demonstrated a real desire to listen to the public and advocate on their behalf. As Mr. Gibson-Robinson noted, "In all honesty, they [the Conservatives] appear to have a pretty good idea about what is wrong with British society. Whether they can sort it out is another matter, but they appear to be quite in touch with people at the moment." Mr. Gibson-Robinson also remarked that the Conservatives could teach Republicans about "focusing on issues at home. As I understand it the Republican Party has been criticized of late for not doing enough to sort out issues at home and is spending too much time sorting out international affairs. It appears the Conservative Party has realized that what people care about most is what is going to happen to them in their own country, not what is happening thousands of miles away." While it is vital that the Republicans address international issues, Mr. Gibson-Robinson’s remarks are worth hearing. The Conservatives have not ignored international affairs, and they are strong on national defense, according to Mr. Gibson-Robinson’s comparison: "I would say they [Conservatives and Republicans] have a broadly similar attitude to national defense. They both want to rid the world of suspect and potentially dangerous regimes…." A prominent concern for the Conservatives is their almost Clintonesque way of playing to public opinion. Accounting for what the public wants is important, but one wonders if they have too readily abandoned their principles. Mr. Gibson-Robinson said their public relations savvy has been accompanied by "not enough concrete policies yet." So while the Conservatives obviously have their faults, the Republicans could clearly learn from the Tories. After all, as my British friends like to remind me, the U.S. is a young nation. It might be wise to emulate our elders. |
|
Articles 
