James Morton Turner’s article, “The Specter of Environmentalism: Wilderness, Environmental Politics, and the Evolution of the New Right,” explores the transformation of environmental politics from 1960s to 1980s, focusing on the rise of conservative opposition to the environmental movement in the United States. He explores how, after the environmental movement in the 1960s and 1970s, opposition to environmental politics, especially concerning public lands, became a central issue for the New Right. He highlights key movements such as the sagebrush rebellion and the wise-use movement, which played pivotal roles in reshaping Republican political agendas, especially in the American West. These movements, fueled by frustrations over federal land management, emphasized on local control, property rights, and a reduced federal presence in environmental decision-making, which Turner claims were central to the New Right’s rise to political prominence.
Turner’s analysis effectively outlines the ideological underpinnings of the environmental opposition, particularly the shift from a reactionary stance of state’s rights and anti-federalism to a more strategic emphasis on individual liberties and property rights. This transition reflects broader changes in American political culture, where conservatives began to frame their opposition to environmentalism not just as a fight against federal overreach, but as a broader defense of personal freedom and local autonomy. Additionally, his critique of the mainstream environmental movement, particularly through the focus on wilderness preservation is an insightful contribution. He argues that this focus limited the movement’s political appeal particularly in the West, where economic development and private property rights often took precedence over environmental concerns. He contrasts the success of wilderness advocates in the 1960s and 1970s with the eventual difficulties they faced in the 1980s and 1990s as conservative movements, underpinned by the New Right’s ideology, began to challenge environmental laws and public land policies. This demonstrates the understanding of how the environmental opposition became embedded in the rhetoric of the New Right influencing not only the policies of the Reagan administration, but also reshaping the Republican party’s relationship with the environmental issues. However, while Turner’s account is insightful, I do feel that it may oversimplify the dynamics of the opposition. By focusing primarily on the political elites and movements within the conservative circles, I think he downplays the legitimate concerns of the rural Americans whose livelihood were impacted by the federal land regulations. Many of these individuals, though allied with corporate interests, were genuinely concerned about the impact of federal oversight on their local economies, which involved industries like logging, mining, and ranching. The portrayal of the opposition as primarily motivated by elite corporate interests overlooks the grassroots nature of these movements and the personal stakes of the people involved, in my opinion.
The articles’ findings and claims can be connected to current debates over public lands and environmental issues in the United States. The Trump administration’s roll back of environmental protections, including reductions in the size of national monuments and the easing of regulations on mining and oil extraction on public lands, mirrors the ideological battles that Turner discusses. These policies reflect the continued influence of conservative backlash to environmentalism, particularly in the Western United States, where economic interests tied to land use and resource extraction are often at odds with environmental preservation efforts. Furthermore, the framing of these debates, where the expansion of environmental protections is seen as a federal overreach, and local communities push back against what they perceive as external interference echoes the arguments put forth by the sagebrush rebellion and the wise-use movement.
As climate change accelerates and the need for more stringent environmental regulations grow, the question remains: will these long-standing ideological divisions over environmental governance ever be bridged? Or will the increasing urgency of climate action further entrench the political polarization surrounding environmental issues? With climate change becoming an increasingly pressing global issue, the path forward for environmental politics will likely require bridging the gap between economic development and sustainable practices. Thus, it remains uncertain whether the current political climate will foster a more effective dialogue between environmentalists and their opponents or lead to further polarization.
Will Wright 