A Critique of Congressman Morris K. Udall’s “Loving Criticism” of Conservation
By: Kalista Jordan-Debruin
Tags: Environment, Conservation, Morris K Udall, Critique

An essay written for the 2020 Udall Scholarship

While accepting an award in 1974, Congressman Morris K. Udall gave a speech entitled “The Environment at Valley Forge” that outlined his “loving criticism” for the conservation movement. Today, we face an environmental tipping point as Congressman Udall did in the 70’s. He argued that the United States overused its resources and a change in the idea of “the good life” was necessary. Instead, we found new non-renewable resources and ways to extract those resources, but we have come to the day that we must redefine “the good life.” Congressman Udall’s criticism to improve the conservationist movement was necessary, and much of his advice rings true today.

The first problem Congressman Udall discussed is its abandonment by the government as it “[was] essentially non-partisan, non-political” and the conservationist movement lacked political pressure. Today, the environmental movement is absolutely political and partisan. However, it’s as if the environmental movement has become too partisan. If in the 70s the environmental movement lacked political and partisan pressure, today it has too much and the result, a dearth of action, is the same.

The second critique is that the environmental movement hadn’t transitioned to a “positive movement” and is seen “as a group of anti-everything fanatics who care more about bird life than human life.” I believe the environmental movement’s greatest issue is its inability to convey the fact that the environmental movement, the social movement, and the economic movement are the same. Preserving a tract of land as Wilderness is more than reserving land for hiking: it is preserving biodiversity, clean water, and a food source. Transitioning to a “positive movement” meant creating “positive programs,” but these programs would be incomplete without representing the interconnectedness of conservation and equity.

The third critique Congressman Udall highlights is “a subtle form of elitism.” Congressman Udall states the need to “ally” with groups like blue collar workers and minorities. This type of language represents exclusion, a historical issue in the environmental movement that can no longer be; it is unjust and although Congressman Udall spoke in the language of the 70’s, his words capture this message. Working towards equity in accessing public lands is part of creating an inclusive movement. Congressman Udall believed in a “re-education effort which advances abroad and humanitarian themes” in regards to “the three “E’s” — energy, environment and economy.” I learned this in school, and it represents the message central to the movement.

Congressman Udall also has three solutions to his criticism. First, he promotes compromise, even while there is a line the movement may not cross. The issues in which compromise will lead to a solution and the implementation of compromise have changed. If a policymaker promotes funding for coal rather than renewable energy because she believes it will lead to job opportunities, the solution to this conflict lies in finding a way to replace coal jobs with renewable energy jobs. Compromise has shifted since the 70’s, but understanding the other side has not.

The second solution is in organization of the movement as Congressman Udall argues there is no “unified policy.” Because the environmental movement is inherently connected to every issue, how can one central issue be prioritized? Public lands are incredibly important, but how can their importance be justified if only a select few can visit them? I believe climate change has emerged as the dominant issue due to its status as inextricably linked to everything, but there are other important struggles, such as those related to environmental racism. The environmental movement needs to find a unified and equitable agenda to lead change.

The third and final solution Congressman Udall proposes is “getting back to the basics” in defining success. Happiness does not need to mean ownership, a concept the “minimalism” and “zero-waste” movements have conveyed. However, everyone deserves shelter, food, water, education, and healthcare. “Getting back to the basics” in the name of environmentalism does not mean denying people a decent standard of living. Redefining “success” outside of consumerism is, however, necessary for the environmental movement to succeed.

This speech was given 45 years ago, and portions of it read like it could have been given this morning. Other parts have impacts on the environmental movement today: the three “E’s” Congressman Udall referenced are an intrinsic part of what the environmental movement must be. Public lands are more than just land: they are part of a holistic movement that needs its leaders to be informed on intersecting and interconnected issues. In criticizing the conservationist movement, Congressman Udall laid the foundation of many aspects of the modern environmental movement. Inclusion, equity, and changing how the environmental movement is perceived are fundamental needs of the movement, but there are also aspects that have changed since Congressman Udall’s speech. His is a reminder and lesson on the roots of the movement.