If we hated election season anymore, we would advocate for monarchy. We would trade this rancorous debate for no debate. We would replace distortions of political ads for the relative integrity of other ads. For chiropractors and mattress stores.
But we aren’t there yet. We still pay grudging attention to what the sides are saying (and not saying). We have our interests—our special interests—and we don’t want them squeezed out by other and usually better resourced interests.
Because we are old people, we think of ourselves as being both conservative and conservationist. We think we are becoming more of each every day. Strangely, that often means having a foot in two distinctly different political camps—one conservative and one conservationist—with those feet being pulled farther and farther apart.
Most recently, a story from Fox News suggested a Romney win would lead to “more accountable” and efficient management of the national parks. Which sounds great because who doesn’t hate unaccountable, reckless and inefficient management of something as miraculous, gorgeous and virtuous as our parks and wildernesses?
But we don’t know that they are poorly managed, or wasteful, or profligate. No one has ever complained of the National Park Service purchasing $500 toilet seats or $200 hammers. No one has reported rangers going on $800,000 team-building exercises in Vegas.
To the contrary: unless we have been lied to, our public lands generate sizeable returns (between $4 and $10 for each $1 of investment) despite being run on a shoestring budget. In business terms, this looks like a tightly run and very profitable enterprise, albeit one that requires government funding. Like a sugar beet farm. Because we are conservative in fiscal matters, we are reluctant to have it messed with.
Image: Two Bridges Trail, Bryce Canyon National Park, by Norma Thrower via nps.gov.
