David Suzuki Is Conservative?

Here's a link to an article by Dan Gardner of the Ottawa Citizen titled "The not so good old days."

The reason why I post the article is less for his interesting (to me anyway) depiction of David Suzuki (seriously, get over it. Things weren't better in another era, David) and more for his attempt to equate Suzuki's environmental bantering with conservatism.

Suzuki a conservative? Who knew?

Gardner begins:

"Ask someone of a progressive bent to identify annoying mental habits of conservatives and a few points are likely to come up.

There's the tendency to see simple cartoons instead of complex realities. The disregard of contrary views and evidence. The lack of appreciation for science and technology. And of course there's the embarrassing nostalgia for a golden age that never was.

Which brings me to David Suzuki.

No one describes Canada's patron saint of the environment as a conservative. He and his fans certainly don't. And most conservatives would laugh at the suggestion.

But there is a certain type of environmentalist -- green comes in many shades -- who typifies the worst qualities of conservative thinking. And David Suzuki typifies that type of environmentalist."

Remember Dana Carvey on SNL with his "in my day" sketch? This is what I thought of while reading the article.

If I read his opening correctly (and I think I d0) I must conclude this is a specious argument. Linking Suzuki's thinking to conservatism that is.

I have no clue what type of conservative he is referencing so forgive me if I just assume conservatism in general.

First off, it's interesting to note that he does a good job of refuting Suzuki's beliefs with facts but fails to accord the same reasoning (and respect) towards conservatism. To dismiss conservatives as simpletons is absurd and without fact is to give into perceptions.

Conservatives, I would submit, actually understand the complexities of history more than given credit for. In fact, history has always been the strong point of conservatives. His conservative slugging also suggests conservatism has not evolved -or is incapable of evolving; which of course is not the case. Conservatives, like liberals, have been on the wrong and right side of history and have learned from this.

Conservatives believe in small and limited government, fiscal responsibility and the power of the individual to enhance society. By contrast, liberals now accept government as a necessary force to reign in our flaws and vices. Unlimited government is tolerated so long as it aims to make society better no matter how inefficient. Society comes before the individual.

Now to some of you astute readers, you should be wondering "but isn't the collectivity a tenet of conservatism?" Yes, it is. However, somewhere in the 20th century, and I could be wrong since this is just an amateur assumption, wires were crossed. Ironically, conservatives now look to preserve and protect the institutions liberals built while liberals are looking elsewhere. Where, I'm not sure.

Suzuki does not possess any of the aforementioned conservative traits. And being "grumpy" is a trait not easily defined by ideology.

Instead, Gardner grabs one aspect of conservatism - traditionalism - and applies the tag to Suzuki. And even then, the notion of traditionalism is not as myopic as Gardner seems to believe. Traditionalism, after all, is the glue that binds culture.

On the idea of "harking back to a good old days" Well, liberals are guilty of the same thing. Everyone pulls things (facts, whatever) out of context to prove a contemporary point. Notice how every culture of the past, Natives for instance, are always romantically depicted by liberals- as but one small example. If anything, the idea as the West as a corrosive force finds more solace in liberalism than it does among conservatives. In fact, liberals tend to also believe man is the enemy - not conservatives. And this falls closer in line with Suzuki.

Does this mean liberals grasp "complexities" more?

In my view, Suzuki doesn't "typify" any ideology per se but if he does it's more in line with liberalism.

Last, let's speak of aging for a sec. How does he know if grumpy old men weren't once liberals?

I don't even know what "a person with a progressive bent" even means.

In the end, who owns the right to "progress" anyway?