Is there some common ground between a 'Green' philosophy and conservatism?

[Scam of God]

I think so. And by 'Green' I don't mean a sort of generalized concern for the environment - I myself am concerned for the environment, though not by any means an advocate of State-sanctioned environmentalism - but a political philosophy that unduly prioritizes environmental preservation, even at the expense of economic or technological development.

To be sure, most parties that label themselves either 'conservative' (in America and parts of Europe) or 'liberal' (Europe more generally) tend to be more in favor of, for instance, the development of nuclear energy than their left-winged counterparts. And I think there's a pretty solid explanation as to why - it's the price they pay for their continued co-option of laissez-faire elements. But I do not think that this position is really grounded on any philosophical basis.

Prior to the Cold War, most conservative parties in the Western world were the parties of the landed agrarian gentry: what they opposed was industrialization and the unwashed masses that teemed into the cities as a result. Perhaps the finest example of authentic conservatism in this vein was Bismarck - and he, too, enacted the very first environmental reforms in Germany, which were quite popular among his farmer base.

Now, needless to say that prior to the twentieth century what we might call 'right' and 'left' were a little different: Bismarck was an economic interventionist and a protectionist, as were most conservatives of the day - economic nationalism is the original conservative political economy, an heirloom of the mercantilist stage of economic development. And it seems quite fitting and proper that these were the original 'greenies' of Western political history.

If it can be agreed, then, that there are some underlying philosophical commonalities between the two, then what changed? I can only believe that the rise of international socialism changed it: the nationalists picked up most of the right of the liberal movement, and were forced to dilute their original preference to preserve the coalition. If so, then might it not be that the rise of the so-called 'evangelical left', which isn't really left at all but which has nevertheless seen fit to appropriate concerns like environmentalism, is actually a reversion to pre-Cold War politics, and hence a natural continuation of the unfolding of conservative philosophy?

I like to think so, because it fits neatly into a point-of-view that I've come to believe in very greatly: that the Cold War, and World War II to a lesser extent, distorted the political process of the West, forcing alignments where there would otherwise have been opposition and causing everything political to skew, and that we now are in the midst of a great unraveling of that period of history.

But that's for a later date.

[jokerman]

Both Green and Fascist philosophy stress a post-materialist worldview.

[Jacobtm]

I'd like to see more evidence of pre WWII "greens". For instance, Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft probably fit into your definition of "green", but do they fit as "conservative"? What do you even think "conservative" meant before WWII?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Both Green and Fascist philosophy stress a post-materialist worldview.

"Post" Materialism?

[jokerman]

Both Green and Fascist philosophy stress a post-materialist worldview.

"Post" Materialism?

I'm not sure I need to explain myself on Green philosophy (though if I do I will comply) but one of the central parts of the ethos of Fascism is the desire to forge a third way between the "materialist" philosophies of capitalism and communism, both of which see the world essentially through a materialistically determined lense.  The overcomming of the "money" power with "blood" power.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Both Green and Fascist philosophy stress a post-materialist worldview.

"Post" Materialism?

I'm not sure I need to explain myself on Green philosophy (though if I do I will comply) but one of the central parts of the ethos of Fascism is the desire to forge a third way between the "materialist" philosophies of capitalism and communism, both of which see the world essentially through a materialistically determined lense.  The overcomming of the "money" power with "blood" power.

My criticism was not based on fascism "intellectual" theory (which only goes to show the distance between what people believe and what they say they believe is huge) but the idea of a "post" materialist politics - which the emphasis on "post". Ideology to a large extent is a counter to materialism in itself; not even liberalism or the strongest right-wing republicans claims up front to be materialistic in the sense you are refering to (again see above).

[jokerman]

Both Green and Fascist philosophy stress a post-materialist worldview.

"Post" Materialism?

I'm not sure I need to explain myself on Green philosophy (though if I do I will comply) but one of the central parts of the ethos of Fascism is the desire to forge a third way between the "materialist" philosophies of capitalism and communism, both of which see the world essentially through a materialistically determined lense.  The overcomming of the "money" power with "blood" power.

My criticism was not based on fascism "intellectual" theory (which only goes to show the distance between what people believe and what they say they believe is huge) but the idea of a "post" materialist politics - which the emphasis on "post". Ideology to a large extent is a counter to materialism in itself; not even liberalism or the strongest right-wing republicans claims up front to be materialistic in the sense you are refering to (again see above).

No one claims to be "materialistic" because of the negative connotation associated with the explicit concept.  However,

Social Democrats of the 20th century have focused on "rights" (that is, positive rights) to various material objects.  A good wage, various employment protections, a social safety net, etc..

I think a Marxist might claim that all ideological is dominated by materialist forces.  A Marxist accepts this and thus sees the critical moment of history as the seizure of the means of production by the proletariat, which will theoretically solve everything.

Capitalist Puritans worship materialist forces.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Both Green and Fascist philosophy stress a post-materialist worldview.

"Post" Materialism?

I'm not sure I need to explain myself on Green philosophy (though if I do I will comply) but one of the central parts of the ethos of Fascism is the desire to forge a third way between the "materialist" philosophies of capitalism and communism, both of which see the world essentially through a materialistically determined lense.  The overcomming of the "money" power with "blood" power.

My criticism was not based on fascism "intellectual" theory (which only goes to show the distance between what people believe and what they say they believe is huge) but the idea of a "post" materialist politics - which the emphasis on "post". Ideology to a large extent is a counter to materialism in itself; not even liberalism or the strongest right-wing republicans claims up front to be materialistic in the sense you are refering to (again see above).

No one claims to be "materialistic" because of the negative connotation associated with the explicit concept.  However,

Social Democrats of the 20th century have focused on "rights" (that is, positive rights) to various material objects.  A good wage, various employment protections, a social safety net, etc..

I think a Marxist might claim that all ideological is dominated by materialist forces.  A Marxist accepts this and thus sees the critical moment of history as the seizure of the means of production by the proletariat, which will theoretically solve everything.

Capitalist Puritans worship materialist forces.

All true; though usually they are not radically materialist about (what material substance is "the market" or "society" exactly.... or even "the state"?

An ideology is an ideal and a thought system to which goals leading to that ideal can be achieved. Though its true left-wing socialist movements in the 20th Century saw the world in precise material terms though their goals were not; fascism always claimed to see the world in poetic or aethestic terms (didn't Walter Benjamin define it as "the aethesticization of politics" or something similiar?) though the roots of that go back way further. I blame the Victorians, again.