The strategy for future Republicans is so fucking easy.
It's not Reagan, its Teddy Roosevelt. Become the party of conservation, populism, trust busting and having a big stick again. Add in American trade policy reform and you have a golden ticket with the right candidate.
Although we know Teddy only became president because monopolies of the time wanted him as VP and out of the picture, but didn't account for an Anarchist gunman killing their frontman on the ticket. But whatever, go Bull Moose redux.
I mean, there
was a time the GOP was big on conservationism.
View attachment 1765894
Understood populism and the importance of trust busting, too.
I think the GOP wonks need to find a way to find a balance between protecting the labor and financial interests of the various "dirty" industries like mining, manufacturing, and energy (which in my opinion has the effect of protecting strategic resources for the nation) as well as preserving our natural resources and environment. Thread the needle, and they'd be able to draw in both more blue collar workers as well as suburban voters.
Edit: ninja'd by
@GuntPunt
Appologies in advance for off-topic sperging but yeah, you aren't wrong.
1) Fuck this climate change cult shit. Yeah, humans play a role in greenhouse gas emissions which has some minor fuckey effects on climate; but fuck the Paris Climate Accord, which is just paying money to China when we already have lower emissions than them; and fuck all these tax schemes and control-your-life schemes (California's diesel engine ban).
US GHG emissions have been on a steep decline for the past decade. We don't need globohomo authoritarianism to drop them.
2) Environmental mitigation law needs major reform. There is no reason Joe Average should need to jump through outrageous hoops to build a boathouse or extra shed because of some puddle that lasts for 20 days; while Carpetbagger Inc. can just pay for the proper permits and BTFO 400 acres of actual natural wetlands.
3) Holy fuck forest management. Most ecosystems in North America need some level of natural fire. It thins excessive growth and increases diversity of plant and animal communities. No burning = become California.
Furthermore, post-2017 USFS Timber Sales are not "selling America's forests", they bought of acres of industrial pine plantation, and are now selling the lumber of loblolly/sand pine/spruce/etc. planted in geometric rows so that they can begin rejuvenating diverse ecosystems without having to pay extra to cut down & remove good lumber but shite habitat.
4) Urban/Suburban development & "muh roads" are just as big, if not bigger, threats to wildspaces than are any natural resource extraction and/or point-pollution. The problem is, expanding developed areas of increasing population density benefit a certain political party who pretends to care about the environment, so they will never actually fucking address this issue because sprawl helps flip counties, remote prairies, pinewoods and swamps do not.
That pro-environmental positions have become politicized is such a shame, and even worse because the left only cares about nature in so far as it gives them more power, and nothing more.
Its not easy, but its entirely possible to balance the needs of the working population and the needs of nature.
/rant