I’m an environmentalist, in case you don’t know, and even have the embarrassing moniker ‘the armchair environmentalist,’ the title of my new book. (I’m not really an armchair kind of person, but the publisher had already decided on the title when they asked me to write it.) I’m also a fan of the Economist magazine, which is certainly not known for its support of green causes. I love the Economist for its brilliant international coverage, its sharp and consistent editorial focus (in brief, the market can fix anything). That focus was made clear when they early on supported gay marriage, for the simple reason that it would create greater social stability, which is good for the economy.
So you can imagine what I expected when I opened the magazine today to an article called “Greening Bush.” Green bashing, or something like it. But “Lexington,” their regular columnist about these United States, surprised me, proposing that Bush and the Republican Party need to go green, put the ‘conserve’ into conservative. S/he concludes, “The emergence of a Republican environmentalism would not only be good for the party, but for the environment [to tell the truth, I didnâ€™t realize the Economist caredâ€”this is a relief]. The current monopoly of the subject by the Democrats is a triple disaster. It institutionalises policymaking gridlock. It marginalizes environmental concerns. And it stultifies useful thinking. The greening of conservatism is a revolution waiting to happen.”
Here the link to “Greening Bush” but unfortunately all but the first paragraph is Premium Content. I’m sure it’s all premium stuff, but I do think they should offer a full article. How, otherwise, are you going to be convinced that you too need to Economist every week? Finally, I can’t help but mention that when my youngest brother got into Delta Force, the U.S. Army’s most elite and secretive commando unit, he took out a subscription to the Economist “so I’d know what was going on in the world.” Bad idea, it seemed to me.