DOGE and the Value of National Parks

Do great parks need to be national?

Everyone is in defense mode right now against DOGE, Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s chainsaw approach to cutting government spending. That’s normal (the defense, not DOGE), but, as per normal, the defenses are mostly quite shallow. Nobody should be looking for truth from either side. What we should expect to get, and what we are getting, is narrative, as people cheer cuts of things they have a subjective dislike for and others man the ramparts to defend things for which they have a subjective liking. A finicky respect for truth is less important - less personally valuable - than a more persuasive narrative.

Let’s consider the national parks, because this is a subject close to my heart on which I am conflicted. I subjectively like national parks and the national park ideal. I like the preservation of historical places such as Anasazi ruins in the southwest, and I like the minimized commercialization of spectacular natural areas like Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks. Yet I am a libertarian, an anarchist philosophically, and so I doubt the propriety of national parks. Fortunately, I think it’s fair to say that objectively they are among the less offensive things government does, so as a general rule, I can ignore my internal conflictedness until we’ve resolved more serious issues (which is to say, unfortunately, forever).

Nonetheless, it’s good to check myself, and to keep myself honest. I have to recognize that my preference for national parks over the more exploitative and commercialized approach that would likely prevail if these resources were privatized is a subjective preference. It has no relation to any objective truth, because there is no objectively right way to manage these resources. None. Period. Every approach, from strict preservation to selling ancient artifacts on eBay for top dollar is based on a choice of which normative value should dominate.

And the normative value that dominates in our choice to designate areas national parks and national monuments is not “economic value.” So articles like this one from Frommers, defending against DOGE cuts to the National Park Service by pointing out that they create more value than they cost in public dollars both amuse me and irritate me. They amuse me because, as a political scientist, I know that of course people are going to push useful narratives rather than investigating for a more comprehensive truth. But they irritate me because I would like more honesty (every cynic is a frustrated idealist).

It doesn’t matter if national parks bring in more than they cost. Economic value is no the purpose for creating them. Well, it’s not the purpose behind the ideal of national parks and monuments, anyway. It may very well be part of the purpose of pushing for the creation of any particular one. But to openly defend them on that purpose is not only to obscure the ideal of national parks, it is to open up the question of value maximization, which could point toward privatization of the parks, or at least some of them.

Does “Publicness” Create Value?

Arguments about the value creation of national parks implicitly assume that the public ownership aspect is critical to value creation, as if there would be no, or minimal, tourism in such places if they weren’t designated as national parks or monuments.

There is an element of truth to that. It's limited in power, as I’ll show in subsequent paragraphs, but it would be dishonest to ignore that truthful element. The very fact that Americans - people like me - are so romantic about the national parks ideal means that simply by declaring a place a national park or monument we can dramatically increase its tourist appeal, causing a significant increase in visitation that economically benefits local communities. Places few people had ever heard of, like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, suddenly become famous (in that case, perhaps more through the controversy over the designation than the naming itself). There's a tremendous amount of nearly free advertising that a privately owned park probably could not get, because the national park/monument designation puts the site on a list that people actively seek out. And that free advertising helps local businesses make money off tourism.

We could sneer at that romanticism about national parks. Grand Staircase-Escalante did not become more beautiful or historically significant by virtue of its national monument designation, obviously. But the romanticism is a real-world fact with real-world consequences. You can’t wish it away.

But there are other considerations. One is that many of these places would almost certainly do quite well economically as purely private operations. The national park/monument designation does help bring free attention from the perspective of local businesses, but that doesn’t mean that free attention is necessary. Everyone loves to free ride, but absent the opportunity to free ride, many will buck up and invest as necessary in gaining the benefit. Old Faithful, for example, would not be hard to advertise as a tourist attraction on a purely private basis. Yosemite Valley could be a stupendous private resort.

In fact it was not fear that nobody would ever hear of such places that led to the creation of the national park ideal. It was the awareness that they would, and the fear of crass commercialization as a result, that led to the creation of national parks. That in itself is strong evidence that national parkification is not necessary to achieving the economic potential of many, not necessarily all, of these historic sites and natural wonders.

Second, and following right off that creation of the national park ideal, many of these places might actually be more economically valuable if they were not national parks/monuments. That’s what the ideal feared, so it’s certainly at least ironic that the parks are now defended for their commercial economic value. Looking at a place like West Yellowstone, for example, compared to what’s available inside Yellowstone itself, vividly demonstrates how much national parkification has restricted the commercial value of Yellowstone. The Park itself could hold many more hotels and human-developed attractions were it not constrained by the National Park Service requirement to “preserve and protect” the natural and historic resources. Why not, for example, allow people to pay to sit in hot springs (the ones that aren’t too hot, that is). Why not have river rafting inside the Park? Why not allow hang gliding, zip lining, bungee jumping, or a roller coaster that zooms out across the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone? Because people would pay to do those things, that’s why, not because they wouldn’t.

Third and last, there are competing valuable uses of some of these places (which makes creating new national monuments like Grand Staircase controversial). But because some of those uses are hard on the landscape or historical sites, they conflict to some extent with tourism, and are probably not compatible at all with national park style preservation. But that doesn't mean they’re objectively wrong; we just impose a different normative value in rejecting them. That value is not the normative value of economic efficiency, yet the Frommer article rests on economic efficiency as reason to protect the national parks.

I’m tempted to say it’s dangerous for national parks’ defenders to open up that line of thinking, because it tempts ill-mannered people like me - and most dangerously those who don’t share my romanticism about the parks - to start down that path of asking what is the most economically valuable approach to managing these resources. And the answer may very well not be to national parks’ defenders’ liking.

But in reality, it’s not dangerous at all, merely ironic. The real defense of the parks is that romanticism, and the economic argument is merely a buttress. People who might be tempted to start thinking, “I love the parks, but some people are saying they’re a waste of public money…” just want a little reassurance. They’re not actually going to start thinking deeply. They’re happy to get the reassurance, and then they’ll stop thinking about the issue at all. And any serious attempt to consider how to maximize the economic value of the resources will run into that brick wall of buttressed romanticism.

So what does this essay all mean? What’s the takeaway? Politics is shallow. People don’t want to dig deep and investigate ideas. They have feelings about things, and they just want arguments that will buttress those feelings and protect them from having to think deeply. So narrative rules in politics, not truth. Even the factual truth of the Frommer’s article is really mere truthiness at best, because it shies away from digging deep into the question it opens up. It goes just far enough to create a comforting narrative in defense of something the author really cares about for wholly different reasons. If you’ve read William Riker’s The Art of Political Manipulation (as you should; it’s an accessible read, not difficult), you’ll recognize this narrative effort as heresthetic. And it’s effective, as all good heresthetic maneuvers are. But if you want to be more than just a partisan or an ideologue, learn to recognize it, don’t comfort yourself that articles like the one in Frommer’s have revealed a great truth in defense of what you like. Make yourself uncomfortable by recognizing it for the mere political maneuver that it is, and take the time to think more deeply about the issue.

Or don’t. It’s your life. Nobody’s going to stop you from being a mere partisan or ideologue except yourself, and you’re only going to stop yourself if you choose not being so as a very strong value orientation.