The Hundredth Meridianrnby Chilton Williamson, Jr.rnWhat Do EnvironmentalistsrnWant?rnIn a world filled with perplexity, inscrutability,rnand conundrum, two majorrnmysteries at least are not unfathomable.rnWliat do women want? The answer hasrnhad human beings stumped from therntime of the origin of species, yet the answerrnis perfectly plain: they don’t know.rnThe question of what environmentalistsrnwant is of more recent vintage, but hererntoo there is no mystery, only a set of answersrnto be teased out: they know, butrnthey’re not saying. It would help ofrncourse if women spent less of their timerntalking about what even they don’t understand,rnand if environmentalists werernnot intent on covering up what they understandrnvery well and mean fanatically,rnbut then life, as the prophet said, is unfair.rnOut here in God’s wild West therndwindling percentage of the populationrnthat are really Westerners keep environmentalistsrnunder the most strict surveillance,rnas the German government keepsrntabs on neo-Nazis and the FBI tracks thernvast right-wing conspiracy. No one takesrnthem at their word, but that does notrnmean that their word is therefore takenrnlightly. Do environmentalists want torn”save” Yellowstone Park, or present itrngift-wrapped to a committee of the UnitedrnNations? Would the Greater YellowstonernCouncil be satisfied with managingrnthe park and the immediate drainagernarea surrounding it, or does it secretly envisionrncontrol over a region extendingrnfrom Great Falls, Montana, south to thernUinta Mountains in eastern Utah? Is thernenvironmentalist movement working forrnthe abolition of grazing on all of the publicrnlands, or in “sensitive areas” only? Ifrnthe latter is so, what is environmentalism’srncurrent definition of a sensitivernarea? Environmentalists hector us regardingrnthe need to achieve a sustainablernpopulation without coming clean by givingrnus the hard figures. Would 200 millionrnpeople amount to a sustainablernnumber of Americans? One hundredrntvvenbi’ million? Twenty million? Thernforcible reduction of a total populationrnof 260 million inhabitants to a sustainablernrump of 20 million would be badrnnews for 240 million living Americans,rnand perhaps die environmentalist dreamrnfor the future is less sanguinary. Yet whatrnenvironmentalists, if successful, have inrnstore for the country may be hardly lessrnunpleasant for everyone concerned.rnEnvironmentalists present themselvesrnas a nonpartisan movement in service torna transcendent cause beyond party politics,rnappealing to the most well-meaningrnand enlightened Americans of every politicalrnpersuasion. In fact environmentalismrnis very much an enterprise of the left:rnno maverick, it carries the brand of thernbeast high on its rufus flank. In this respectrnthe charge so often directed at environmentalistsrn—that they are indifferent,rneven hostile to the just claims of thernhuman race —distracts attention fromrnthe human-regarding aspect of theirrnagenda, which include tacit support forrncontinued mass immigration to thernUnited States in spite of demonstrationsrnshowing conclusively how maintainingrnimmigration at the present level assuresrnthat two generations of environmentalrnlegislation will, in two or three generationsrnmore, have been obviated completelyrnby a population explosion producedrnby Third World immigrantsrnincapable of telling a park ranger fromrna Juarez cop, or a snail darter from arnsardine.rnEnvironmentalism shares and approvesrnthe Establishment programrnbecause it is an important part of that Establishment,rnnot the enemy of it—as EdwardrnAbbey, a real environmentalist andrnan honest man, was. Though elected onrnthe Democratic ticket, Bill Clinton appearsrnto have gained the presidentialrnoffice while remaining indifferent to environmentalistsrnand their concerns.rnNevertheless, within a year or so of hisrninauguration, Clinton had launched thernWar on the West and commissionedrnBruce Babbitt as his McClellan. An explanationrnof how the turnaround camernabout may be discerned by a carefulrnreading of Alston Chase’s In a DarkrnWood, which inspires a possible scenariornfor the President’s budding relationshiprnwith the green lobbyists. Look here, theyrnmight have said to him, we know you’rerna big-city boy from Little Rock, Arkansas,rnmore interested in chasing skirts thanrnbutterflies, happier jetting to HiltonrnHead on Air Force One than scaling thernGrand Teton. But you and us—we canrndo business, see? Your aim as Commanderrnin Chief, Leader of the Free World,rnand the Man Who Shook Hands WithrnJohn Kennedy is to extend the reach ofrnthe federal government into every valley,rnplain, and mountain in America, everyrnnook and cranny in the life of everyrnAmerican. You want to deconstruct thernold Constitution and turn every one ofrnthe 50 states into a fiefdom of the governmentrnat Washington, Dee Gee? Well,rnwe want the same thing exactly. Play ballrnwith us, we’ll all be happy as skinnydippersrnin the Yellowstone warm springs,rnand we won’t even bug you aboutrnputting those condos down there on thernWhitewater River affer you and Hillaryrnleave office. To tell you the truth,rnArkansas is mostly ruined for us already.rnBut keep your hands off Big Timber,rnMontana, and Hillsboro, New Mexico.rnTed Turner and Jane want those.rnThe Clinton administration has begunrna renewed offensive on behalf ofrnrestive New Western interests concernedrnthat the War on the West has yet tornachieve the total effect recommended byrnWilliam Tecumseh Sherman as beingrnthe necessary and appropriate end ofrnmodern warfare. Addressing a public forumrnon the future of the American publicrnlands in Boise, Idaho, in mid-February,rnthe directors of the Bureau of LandrnManagement, the U.S. Forest Service,rnand the National Park Service—all threernof them Clinton appointees —insistedrnthat their agencies are firmly committedrnMAY 1998/49rnrnrn