Courtesy of the National Park Service.
The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
The success of our liberal democracy requires a mutual sense of empathy between all citizens. The rights and liberties of every person depend upon their toleration by others as well as a recognition that each person perceives the world in a unique way. A functioning legislature requires a basic respect of national laws and customs by all political parties, regardless of whether they agree with each other. Good governance requires that the ruling majority respect the views of the minority, even when it is legally permissible for a majoritarian body to inflict punishment on underrepresented groups. In short, a “good” government, as I understand it, requires all citizens to value the common good and appreciate both why people think a certain way and how their preferred policy will affect others.
Unfortunately, just when America needs it most, this empathy is in short supply. From so-called “culture wars” to battles over economic redistribution and health care, a widespread lack of mutual understanding and respect for opposing beliefs has had a disastrous impact on social trust and the ability of political parties to compromise. To understand the dynamic driven by this lack of empathy, one need look no further than one particularly polarizing issue: climate change. While it has been mostly relegated to the sidelines during the tumultuous years of the Trump era, it is all but set to come back with a vengeance in the upcoming 2020 elections.
The climate change debate suffers from extreme polarization because each side has retreated to an absolutist position. The alarmists believe that climate change is a serious problem that requires an urgent government response, as reflected by their proposition of a radical “Green New Deal.” According to a Change Research poll, this group makes up approximately 25% of the population. On the other hand, the deniers believe that climate change is not happening or is not a significant problem, and that governmental efforts to reduce emissions will significantly hurt the economy. According to the same poll, this group makes up between 25% and 43% of the population. Unfortunately for our democracy, a supermajority of Americans have taken an absolutist line on this issue, leaving little room for compromise. For better or for worse, the federal government will have to make a decision on this issue. One side will lose the policy debate and be governed by the policies of those with whom it profoundly disagrees. Like it or not, this minority will have to respect the majority and the democratic process by which this decision was made. This, after all, is the cornerstone of a pluralistic liberal democracy.
So who will win? To understand the political dynamics of this decision, let’s turn to Canada. Their general election in late October brought the climate change issue to the forefront of their national discussion. As in the United States, support for governmental action to reduce emissions is divided along regional lines. Oil and gas-producing regions express strong disapproval towards carbon taxes and other green initiatives. Conversely, urban, coastal regions with diversified economies generally express the opposite sentiment. These attitudes neatly align with federal political parties. The right-leaning Conservative Party sides with oil and gas-producing regions, while the left-leaning NDP sides with urban, coastal regions. The Liberal Party has attempted to straddle the middle ground on this issue. They have approved several oil and gas pipelines but have also compromised economic growth with legislation to cut emissions.
Unfortunately for the Liberals, compromise has not proved popular with the electorate. Any compromise seeking to sustain the economies of oil-producing regions has been seen as traitorous by many on the left. In fact, the election results saw a significant defection of votes from the Liberals to parties advocating stronger action on climate change. By a similar token, the Liberals’ efforts to introduce a national carbon tax have been met with severe disappointment in oil-producing regions, leading them to lose all of their seats in the oil-producing Prairie provinces. The result of the Liberal Party’s platform of compromise has only fostered anger and a deeply polarized electorate, foreboding vicious inter-regional animus in the coming years.
How can such a dilemma be solved? Perhaps empathy and mutual understanding provide an answer. Just like the deniers, the alarmists have a strong argument on their side: they propose immediate action to stave off the worst effects of climate change. The short-term economic pain may be a worthy sacrifice to prevent a long-term loss in agricultural productivity, an increase in expensive natural disasters, and rising sea levels. However, since the greatest share of emissions are currently produced by large industrial nations like China and India, it may be that these efforts and the sacrifices they demand will be pursued in vain. Emissions are projected to rise substantially regardless of the measures taken by the advanced industrialized countries, meaning that the economic sacrifices advocated by the alarmists would all be for nought.
Strong arguments also exist on the other side. This argument’s credibility stems from its recognition of the economic costs of climate change policies. Regions with a heavy economic dependence on oil and gas will suffer a prolonged economic slump should emissions-reducing legislation pass. “Green New Deal” supporters often express their support for “transitioning” oil and gas workers out of their jobs within the next 5 to 10 years. However, such a view is patronizing, particularly for those whose skills are not transferable to other industries. Many supporters of the “Green New Deal” who do not live or work in the energy industry proclaim that people who live thousands of miles away and work in an economy based on fuel extraction must simply give up their livelihoods at the government’s promise that something better will come down the road. It is truly shocking that it has become acceptable to say this in mainstream institutions, and it shows a complete lack of empathy. While this may be a result of naiveté, we must do better – our society hinges on empathetic and thoughtful political discourse. Let this be a warning to the candidates in the 2020 election. The “Green New Deal” may be a winner in the primaries, but it will not be popular among a very wide swath of the population.
More generally, any controversial policy imposed against the will of a large group of people will meet great resistance, especially if the policy promises harsh and disruptive consequences. If controversial policies are passed, people will turn on one another with all the passion and ferociousness of a political faction scorned. As Isaiah Berlin puts it, “there are many different ends that men may seek and still be fully rational, fully men, capable of understanding each other and sympathising and deriving light from each other.” Only by taking the time to think deeply about our shared humanity and common interests can we design policies that are both just and popular in these unsettled times — even if it means learning to compromise and live with partial victories.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.