a profile of crichton's dabblings in conservative-land....
http://magazine.audubon.org/profile/profile0505.html
i dont see much of anything compelling in crichton's argument, but i am curious about the basis for such appeal as it seems to have here.
i would be interested in seeing something approaching a coherent critique of the present state of eco-politics from the right---i know the general outlines of the very general attacks that you hear directed at "environmentalists" from the right pundit set---and it is the usual thing, a series of arbitrary general claims about environmentalists as some kind of fifth column, fronted by groups like the sierra club (which often gets painted as if they were some variant of trotskyism)---tactically, the focus is usually on groups like earth first---discursively the target is often peta--etc etc etc---in its generality, this narrative seems par for the course in the curious world of right politics--the usual caricatures of the opposition, the usual disregard for empirical information.
but the narrative is never explained--rather it is activated and deployed more or less readymade.
how does the notion of scientific expertise get formulated for the right?
where does the assumption about the neutrality of science come from? how is it defended?
why should anyone assume neutrality for scientists as a community, alone amongst almost all communities?
how did the opposition scientist/environmentalist get set up?
what prompts folk who oppose the movement in general to assume that all scientists oppose ecologically oriented action?
if this assumption does not hold, where does its correlate come from--that environmentalists are dilletantes who encorach upon the purview of neutral scientists?
what is the basic objection to politics that are informed by ecological considerations?
do you really have to assume that there are no significant environmental problems in the world right now to be a conservative (no global warming, no desertification, no problems with industrial waste, no problem with centralized agriculture from the enviromental viewpoint)?
on what basis do conservatives oppose sustainable agriculture, sustainable communities?
what is the alternative? "market forces"?
in a context where for 20 years it has been fairly common practice for corporations to purchase friendly researchers who are willing to build particular types of premises into their work, how did it come about that corporate sources are seen as neutral and environmentalist sources as political?