>My original argument was that environmentalists tend to denigrate the
>official democratic process ('too slow, corrupt'), to hold humanity in
>contempt ('consumers, polluters') and to hold the law of conscience
>higher than any popular mandate ('direct action').
Yet the problem here is that "environmentalists" is an elastic concept that includes far too large a group to encompass the supposed associated beliefs you attribute to them -- "contempt for humanity" and dedication to "direct action."
In fact, there is a rather large group of environmentalists dedicated to the official democratic process, who are explicitly allied with consumer movements, and see their cause as tied to a popular mandate that they pursue through he political system. In the US, an array of environmental groups from Naderites to the Sierra Club to more conservative groups like EDF and the Wilderness Society, pursue traditional politics with great dedication and build mass memberships on the basis of their belief that environmentalism is the democratic will of the majority -- which it is in the United States by a vast margin by every poll and most elections where it becomes a key issue.
There is a small group of environmentalists- what used to be called "deep ecologists" - which shares the attributes James describes, but to attribute the character of a rather tiny subset to the whole class of environmentalists is the logical problem.
By definition, any belief system that abandons humanism as a central part of its beliefs will march towards various anti-democratic values, since belief in democracy is dependent on a belief in the efficacy of human actions and human desires as an engine of justice and social elevation. But much of environmentalism is completely humanistic, so there is no tension between most environmentalism and a deep commitment to democratic action.
-- Nathan Newman