X/@SenAdamSchiff
California Senator Adam Schiff went on social media for a full post that contrasted the Republican Party of yesteryear with the Republicans of our current time. This was met with an outrage from conservatives, with more discussions centered on environmental policy and party identity.
Advertisement
Schiff opened his post by saying, “Republicans didn’t always demonstrate such hostility to the environment.” Thus, an entire presentation was made of Ronald Reagan’s radio address, dated 14th July 1984, in which the president spoke ‘gloriously’ of environmental achievements, smog controls passed in California, improvements to national parks, and also extending Superfund cleanups under his administration.
“Part of the secret I mentioned is that I happened to be Governor of California back when much of this was being done,” quoted Schiff, reinforcing the sense of urgency by stating: “he was one of the first to recognize that states and the federal government have a duty to protect our natural resources.”
“The Republican Party wasn’t always like it is today with respect to environmental policy. There was a time when clean air, clean water, and protection of the environment were a priority of the Republicans,” Schiff ended with a commentary. “Whatever happened to those Republican values of states’ rights, the freedom to innovate, and family values when it came to environmental policy?” he inquired with some erudition.
An immediate deluge of responses appeared to endorse the partisan characterization. One user countered: “Nobody denies there is climate. We deny the communists’ mission to destroy our energy industry because of false narratives.” Another confronted the alleged falsehoods, “Schiff is lying again. Republicans are against POLLUTION; this speech is about SMOG, not CO2,” upholding the argument that Republicans are against pollution, even if their broader concept of environmental protection might not be.
Some comments viciously dismissed issues of climate, with one sort of saying, “Climate change is about the political climate…not environmental. Your climate change hoax is exposed.” Several launched personal attacks against Schiff, with one promising, “I’d love to see this guy Adam Schiff convicted for multiple crimes. He needs to sit behind bars and rot.”
In the foreground, a few splinter groups emerged as they tried to bring back brisk discussion into policy. “Let’s push for nuclear power then,” one declared, while another shot down alarmist claims with local weather data: “Now, in the middle of May in the Bay Area, the temperature is mid-50 degrees. 30 years after the global warming to the climate change-alarm is still ringing.”
That is to say that the dialogue is extolling environmental policy to one of the most polarized arenas in American politics. Where Reagan once bragged of bipartisan environmental achievements, you now find mutual accusations of bad faith: Democrats accuse Republicans of climate denial while the Republicans fire back that environmental regulations are economic sabotage.
With his call to history, Schiff was not invoking Democratic climate proposals so much as he was invoking Republican inheritance. The thunderingly negative backlash would seem to indicate that Republican users today show almost no interest in an environmental policy that since has appealed to some apart from its Republican roots. Instead, the thread reveals more about current divisions of politics than potential areas of agreement, as Reagan’s environmental record has now become the Rorschach inkblot for the polarized climate.
Advertisement
These conversings of increasing temperatures, official as well as political, narrate how far the environmental movement has come since Reagan’s days of bipartisan conservation to the winner-takes-all. The responses evidence each other since both sides view environmental policy through lenses of fundamental distrust rather than shared stewardship, whether regarding climate science or political motives alike.
This story originally appeared on Celebrityinsider
