< PREVIOUS ] [ 2008 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
The Cold War was actually rather heated when I was
growing up in the 1950s and '60s. America was more or less
at war
with the Communists as a matter of foreign
policy. It affected our domestic discourse because
politicians so often sought to discredit their opponents as
Communist sympathizers
or comsymps
-- soft
on Communism,
just a little bit pink
or outright
pinkos.
Something as basic as the integration of public
facilities could be, and often was, denounced as part of a
global Communist conspiracy to weaken America. As Strom
Thurmond of South Carolina put it in 1961, It has been
revealed time and time again that advocacy by Communists of
social equality among diverse races ... is the surest
method for the destruction of free governments.
But despite everything, the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. And although China remains Communist in theory, in practice it is proving quite talented at capitalism.
Today, pinkos are passe. So what do you do when the need arises to discredit political opponents, especially on environmental issues?
Simple. We're fighting what President George W. Bush
calls a global war on terror.
So instead of accusing
your adversaries of being commies, which is so 20th
century, move into the 21st century. Call them
terrorists.
Witness the recent press release from an outfit called
Americans for American Energy,
based in Golden,
Colo. At issue was the leasing of the Roan Plateau in
western Colorado for oil and gas drilling.
Part of the plateau was originally set aside as a
Naval Oil Shale Reserve
by President Woodrow Wilson.
Back then, as navies switched from coal to oil, the federal
government reserved certain public lands for future fuel
supplies for the U.S. Navy -- the most notorious being the
scandal-ridden Teapot Dome Reserve north of Casper,
Wyo.
At that time, and even today, there was no economical way to extract petroleum from oil shale. No battleships were ever powered by oil shale, so control of the land passed from the Navy to the U.S. Department of Energy to the federal Bureau of Land Management.
Lots of people -- including local ranchers and hunters worried about the mule deer population -- oppose drilling on the Roan Plateau. They worked through the system to protest, writing letters, speaking out at public meetings and lobbying their elected officials.
They did nothing violent or destructive. But the press
release denounced them as economic terror groups --
eco-terrorists
who had launched an attack against
the U.S. Naval Oil Shale Reserve,
thereby weakening
American security, right when we are in the middle of a
war.
Greg Schnacke, president of Americans for American
Energy, explained that America can better support our
troops if our economy is strong. And producing more
American energy here at home -- instead of buying foreign
energy -- makes us stronger. But these eco-terrorists and
their supporters in Congress want to hamstring America's
ability to harvest American energy. ...
Thus does a peaceful, legal effort to protect public lands become an act of terrorism.
The energy lobby isn't the only one to play the name-calling card, however.
A couple of months ago, an immense (5.25 pounds, 12 by 14 inches) book landed on my desk. Thrillcraft: The Environmental Consequences of Motorized Recreation is a lushly illustrated anthology of passionate attacks on motorized recreation: motorcycles, ATVs, ORVs, snowmobiles, jet skis, dune buggies and swamp buggies, to name the most prominent offenders.
As someone who tries to tread quietly and lightly, I
certainly sympathize with the authors. But are motorheads
really practicing eco-terrorism
?
In the book's foreword, Douglas Thompson, president of
the Foundation for Deep Ecology, says so. Thrillcraft was
designed to document the pervasive destruction of
America's public lands by a home-grown crop of
eco-terrorists, people who wantonly disfigure landscapes in
the pursuit of thoughtless, gas-guzzling 'fun.'
Motorized recreationists are outdoors having fun. They might be boorish, loud and destructive. But does that make them terrorists?
Granted, there are some who knock down signs and tear
out gates. I saw their handiwork a few months ago at one of
my favorite hiking areas near town. Some four-wheelers had
contrived a detour around the big rocks that the BLM had
installed to block a deeply rutted, washed-out path up a
gulch. Those drivers were certainly vandals and
lawbreakers. I would call them jerks,
as well as
various unprintable epithets. But I wouldn't call them
terrorists.
What, after all, is terrorism?
My American Heritage Dictionary says it's the
systematic use of terror (defined nearby as intense,
overpowering fear), violence, and intimidation to achieve
an end.
Perhaps more pertinently, the U.S. State Department
calls it premeditated, politically motivated violence
perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational
groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence
an audience.
In our land-management disputes, there
certainly have been acts of terrorism, such as the pipe
bombs aimed at U.S. Forest Service personnel in 1995 in
Nevada, or the 1998 arson that damaged or destroyed seven
buildings at the Vail ski resort in Colorado.
But citizens who go to public hearings or offer their
opinions on motorized recreation, oil and gas drilling or a
host of other public-lands issues are hardly committing
acts of terrorism. These citizens may be our opponents.
They may be stupid or naive or misguided. But let's quit
calling them terrorists.
If you don't agree, then you must be a terrorist, or at least a pinko comsymp.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2008 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >