The New Right & Anti-Environmentalism

In 1964, the Wilderness Act was passed with broad support among both parties. As people banded together from all walks of life to support the protection of wilderness because the campaign appealed to “patriotism, spirituality, outdoor recreation, and a respect for nature” (Turner). As the environmentalists continued to negotiate with the federal government over land protection, opposition to the federal regulation of land began to build. The Sagebrush Rebellion emerged in the West during the late 1970s as a regional reaction to the involvement of the federal government in land regulation. As James Morton Turner explains in “The Specter of Environmentalism”: Wilderness, Environmental Politics, and the Evolution of the New Right,” the forces “behind the sagebrush rebellion were the emerging institutional structures of the New Right, joining citizens, corporations, and think tanks in promotion of conservative goals” (Turner). The “centerpiece,” as Turner calls it, of the Sagebrush Rebellion was that states had the right to manage the land within its borders because the state was most equipped to manage the land in alignment with the interests of the locals. Although the Sagebrush Rebellion maintained support from ranchers to CEOs, the focus of the movement was on furthering states’ rights, a staple of their agenda that wasn’t necessarily reflected by the New Right nationally. The Sagebrush Rebellion died down a bit with the reform that Secretary of the Interior James Watt pushed during the Reagan Administration. Watt focused on reducing the federal government’s involvement without emphasizing states’ rights, instead uplifting individual liberties. Although Sagebrush westerners and Watt were not completely in sync, the westerners were somewhat content. However, Watt had the effect of electrifying the environmental movement. Turner reports, “Between 1979 and 1983, membership jumped from 48,000 to 100,000 at the Wilderness Society and 181,000 to 346,000 at the Sierra Club, and their budgets grew proportionately” (Turner). As pushback intensified, Watt folded, and Reagan ended up passing more wilderness legislation than any other president had before him. 

After the success of the countercampaign against Watt’s anti-environmental reforms, the Wise Use movement in the 1990s reintroduced similar populist views that laced the Sagebrush Rebellion. Financially backed by the mining industry, the Wise Use movement sought to encourage people to keep public land open and free to use. Turner notes that the Wise Use movement was not the Sagebrush rebranded because the Wise Use movement focused on informing citizens about their individual rights and encouraging them to participate in politics to protect such rights. Turner argues that Wise Use “succeeded in reformulating anti environmental politics in the late 1980s—deflecting attention from the vested interests of the states and industry and placing aggrieved western citizens at the center of its campaigns” (Turner). 

Movements such as Sagebrush and Wise Use helped to shape the New Right because they furthered opposition to an “overbearing” or “overinvolved” federal government. We also see more importance placed on the economy rather than the environment. Traces of the New Right in this sense are palpable today. An example would be Trump saying “Drill Baby Drill” during his 2024 presidential campaign.