31 March 2010
I have spent the last few days visiting the Grand Canyon with my family, and I am inspired — inspired by the natural beauty; inspired by the power of the earth’s geology; inspired, most of all, by the positive role government can play in domestic economic and social development. If you have been to the Grand Canyon you know what I mean. The trails, the roads, the protected areas, and the basic viewing sights were all created by the Civilian Conservation Corps during the 1930s and 1940s. The entire facility is managed — with remarkable efficiency and high quality — by the National Park Service.
The Civilian Conservation Corps was one of the first major New Deal programs created by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 to provide work for unemployed young people around the country. In Arizona and every other state millions of young people worked over the next decade to build roads and other public facilities that supported long-term economic growth across the nation. Just look around. The facilities around the Grand Canyon are only one example. Almost every town and county still benefits from infrastructure built by government employees during this period.
Unfortunately, in our era of “small government” much of this New Deal infrastructure is crumbling and our economy is suffering. The Grand Canyon is a notable exception only because of the leadership of the National Park Service — yes, another government agency. If the free market had been given carte blanche in the Grand Canyon, it would probably look more like a suburban strip mall today than the beautiful and accessible public sight for 5 million annual international visitors.
The Grand Canyon proves the limits of the free market and the need for effective government investment and regulation, especially for the protection of basic public goods. All of the major industrial societies of the world have invested billions of dollars (and Euros) in domestic “stimuli” over the last couple of years, but where is the new Civilian Conservations Corps? Where has the money gone?
I am skeptical of government investments in large cumbersome bureaucracies with little direct connection to the average citizen. My skepticism extends toward large banks, corporations, non-governmental agencies, and even universities. Stimulus money is much better spent, on the model of the New Deal, for programs that directly mobilize and support young people who are idealistic, energetic, and committed to making a difference in the world. That was the Civilian Conservation Corps model — small bureaucracy, direct appeal to young people in search of opportunity, and investment in tangible public goods.
The Civilian Conservation Corps is a model that we should re-create today. Our best young citizens will sign up in large numbers. The costs would be a fraction of any new stimulus money. Most of all, the reawakening of public spirit will be contagious. We need a new Civilian Conservation Corps now more than ever before!
Originally posted on my blog: http://globalbrief.ca
Posted in Geopolitics
2 Responses to “We need a new Civilian Conservation Corps”
Liberty's Surest Guardian: American Nation-building from the Founders to Obama (Free Press/Simon & Schuster, Fall 2011)
Americans are a nation-building people, and in Liberty’s Surest Guardian, Jeremi Suri looks to America’s history to see both what it has to offer to failed states around the world and what it should avoid.
More at the book website >
Jeremi Suri is the Mack Brown Distinguished Professor for Global Leadership, History, and Public Policy at the University of Texas at Austin. He is the author of five books on contemporary politics and foreign policy. In September 2011 he will publish a new book on the past and future of nation-building: Liberty's Surest Guardian: American Nation-Building from the Founders to Obama. Professor Suri's research and teaching have received numerous prizes. In 2007 Smithsonian Magazine named him one of America's "Top Young Innovators" in the Arts and Sciences. His writings appear widely in blogs and print media. Professor Suri is also a frequent public lecturer and guest on radio and television programs.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Courtney. I am not surpised we agree. You ask some excellent and important questions:
1. Although many people claim to believe in small government, those are often the same people who support a large defense establishment, massive prisons, and social security. We need to remind small government activists that the above are all government programs. We should indeed try to trim our bloated government, but government has a definite and proven role to play in protecting public goods. The Civilian Conservation Corps and public infrastructure fit that niche perfectly. Instead of “small” or “large” government, we need smart government. That means less debt, fewer special subsidies, and more targeted modest investment in public goods.
2. Yes, many vital landscapes are ugly and unappealing at first look. This surely makes for a tougher sell than the Grand Canyon. On the other hand, beauty is culturally constructed, at least in part. Leaders need to make a case to the public about why a wetland is beautiful for what it adds to the human condition. Leaders should also emphasize how the replacement of wetlands with strip malls is EXTREMELY ugly, boring, and annoying. The human condition craves diversity, and there is a profound beauty in liveable spaces.
I think we can build a public consensus for the role of government in public goods and the preservation of beauty for the human condition. We can do that by enlisting our best young minds and bodies — through a Civilian Conservation Corps.
Thanks again, Courtney.
Surprise, surprise, I could not agree with you more on this. I think this idea gains credibility when it is mentioned by a moderate voice, especially a serious academic whose primary concern is not environmental conservation. Two questions:
1) How are we to overcome the visceral horror fiscal conservatives have about establishing and expanding government institutions? I am often tempted to downplay the resemblance of the CCC to what we need, because I worry that it will alienate its opponents further, but I am at a loss for alternatives. How do we make government investment in conservation organizations palatable again?
2) The Grand Canyon is an interesting example. Exactly as you said, it is one of the triumphs of the National Park Service, in large part because it has an important political advantage: it’s incredibly beautiful. The inspiring and picturesque places, however, are not necessarily the ones that have the most valuable in terms of the ecosystem services they provide. Many landscapes with less breath-taking views (eg wetlands) are, in fact, converted to strip malls, even though they represent much greater value to public health, scientific research, biological diversity, and raw resources for economic development. How can we engineer a shift in rhetoric to make not just conservation, but ugly conservation (http://endangered-ugly.blogspot.com/) politically palatable for the first time? In either of these tasks, what role do you see for academics outside the movement of conspicuously hardcore (and thus less politically credible) eco-warrior types?