Within modern conservation rhetoric, we are used to hearing fairly gentle rhetoric about caring for Earth and appeals to preserving natural beauty or animal habitats. The stronger rhetoric usually come in the form of what might be construed as that which firmly places responsibility and culpability (appropriately) for the current environmental misuse on humans in the developed world. It would be far more unusual to hear environmental rhetoric that appeals to patriotism and governmental efficiency, and uses language appropriate to times of war. Consider the title of Richard Lieber’s speech: “Administrative Management in the Government of the United States.” It certainly doesn’t sound like it has anything to do with the environment. However, on closer examination, it deals with extensively with the environment, and in a way quite unfamiliar to the modern audience.
Richard Lieber's speech "Administrative Management in the Government of the United States," uses conservation in government as a comparison (and a trope) for conservation of natural resources. He appeals to shared national values, and thus constructs environmental discourse as a domestic concern. The speech dates around 1943, only a few years after President Roosevelt’s New Deal program created several work initiatives which focused on environmental conservation and building national parks. It is a persuasive (or deliberative) speech, but there are elements of epideictic rhetoric which strengthen the patriotic relationship between the author and the audience – many of which come early in the speech, in an effort to establish common ground between the author and the audience. Consider these rather stereotypical phrases: “country of unlimited possibilities,” “self-made Nation, “Will the US remain God’s country?” and “safeguard of life and liberty.” It strikes the reader as a bit strange that conservation of natural resources would lead to all of these things.
The controversy in this particular speech might be articulated as, how should government conservation efforts be structured to best achieve competent service in national parks and long-range conservation of natural resources. Lieber broadens his appeal to his audience in ways similar to Kaufer’s concept of using analogous cases to analyze a situation. While he directly relates government waste and disorganization to conservation of natural resources, it is possible that he is advocating for different administrative organization in other ways as well. For example, Lieber makes several broad statements which appeal to stereotypical American values. Consider this quotation: “Do we not believe fervently that the present antiquated and broken down administration of public affairs is really the true safeguard of American life and liberty? (page 3).” This quote implies that the problems of the conservation programs are perhaps only reflective of larger governmental issues, while also appealing to patriotic fervor often pervasive in times of war.
Lieber first notes that the war was one that the United States was not prepared for, and some of the excess cost was due to “lack of order in the government.” In using this first example of the major issues caused by government disorganization, Lieber is beginning to set up his extended analogy about how conservation is related to governmental organization. He assumes that his audience believes that efficient, small, and well-organized government is preferable to large and disorganized government, and draws the parallel to natural resource conservation.
The rhetoric in this speech sounds very similar to rhetoric of war – appropriate to the historical time period, but curious to the modern reader. “A weak administration can neither advance nor retreat successfully. Those who waiver at the sight of needed power are false friends of modern democracy. Strong executive leadership is essential to democratic government today. Our choice is not between power and power, but between responsible but capable popular government and irresponsible autocracy.” Consider the militant language in this passage: Lieber talks of “advance and retreat,” spreading democracy (sound familiar?), power and autocracy – all topics at the forefront of his audience’s mind. This is not the only instance of war-like rhetoric and metaphor. Earlier in the speech, Lieber states that current conservation efforts are “…barnacles of waste, incompetence, and corruption and incrusting the ship of the State, impeding its progress and endangering its safety. I wonder we [will] do to prevent slovenly, wasteful, and wildly extravagant action with order?” Here, naval-type language and more appeals to safety also aid his effort to show the urgency of conservation.
Convincing the audience that conservation is a pressing issue was something of an uphill battle. As the US was in the middle of a world war at the time, conservation might have been seen as something less than imperative. However, in order to construe conservation as pressing, Lieber constructs his argument in ways that appeal to national identity and security. Lieber equates conservation of natural resources with national well being: “We need first to guard out natural resources, which are necessary to national well-being and security. Second, to bring about greater harmony, order, efficiency, and economy in government….Unless conservation is entrusted to one department present wasteful methods will continue.”
Lieber’s effort to demonstrate the urgency of conservation ends with yet another metaphor, but this one isn’t related to war. He writes that conservation efforts are often weighed down with the “…heavy dew of congressional appropriations. The travesty of conservation in this case is no different from that of branches of our resources. Branches…they are, boughs, limbs, and shoots, twigs and sprigs, all suspended in midair from political skyhooks…All of the branches are there, missing only is the supporting trunk, deeply rooted in national soil.” This metaphor seems far more appropriate (even close to cliche) to conservation discourse than does that of war, but it yet again ties together government and environment, stressing the overall comparison of government and nature.
Interestingly, Lieber’s last line in this speech is, “The time is now!” In order to convince his listeners that the time for conservation was then, all of the war rhetoric which sounds so strange to modern readers was completely necessary and appropriate. It is even possible that the comparison Lieber creates between government and conservation works the other way around as well. Perhaps Lieber is emphasizing that well-run democratic government is that which is worth conserving - natural and worth fighting for.
Careful examination of Lieber’s speech, then, reveals how urgency is constructed. Through this speech, the issue is constructed as urgent because of the analogies and metaphors Lieber uses as comparison points. Lieber ties conservation to an epideictic issue (patriotism that is usually present in time of war) that is tied to an obviously urgent current situation, and a deliberative issue that is in public interest (efficient and non-wasteful government), thus constructing conservation as equal to and related to these issues – which isn’t something that immediately meets the eye.
No comments:
Post a Comment