I came across this recent piece by Jonathan Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy. He critiques recent promises by GOP presidential hopefuls that they will abolish the Environmental Protection Agency when elected. I like the post because Adler counters with an approach to environmental protection that is conservative in ideology, but constructive in application. Importantly, he acknowledges the basic importance of environmental protection policies. He suggests that a good first step would be the elimination of government subsidies of environmentally destructive behavior. Yes, that would make him a conservative who demands higher taxes in order to save fluffy critters and majestic trees.

Now, to be sure, I would disagree with many of the things Adler might like to see included in our national environmental protection strategy. For example, while I agree that one-size-fits-all may be clunky and inefficient, it is an effective way to limit the corruption of a nation-wide allocation of resources. To the federalist conservationist, I suggest the following exercise: type up your plan for de-centralized environmental protection, search and replace “environment” with “civil rights,” re-read, and ask if the last fifty years of American experience provides evidence that refutes the theory. I think it does. Also, rivers flow and winds blow, all without regard for state boundaries; your plan will need to account for that.

But the point here is that Adler’s is an endangered voice. He is the reasonable conservative who believes that “tear it down” is not a legitimate policy statement. He has not been pulled under by strident ideologues who urge a panicky dismemberment of state. Confronted with a challenging future, Adler responds with ideas, and he rejects the impulse towards fear. He seems to be driven by a love of America, not a distrust of his fellow Americans. That’s conservatism I can get behind.