Legislating Romanticism

Is there a problem with legislating romanticism?

I don't know if lawmakers drew directly on Carson or not or even if they moved from her to the Romantics that we've studied in this class, but the language within The Wilderness Act of 1964 certainly evokes the ideas we've been exploring throughout the semester. Ideas of "solitude" and a lack of "confinement"--of nature allowed free reign but also protected for the "scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value" it has for man--all this reminds me of the various readings and class discussions investigating the connection that man and nature share. Do I think it's problematic to legislate romanticism? Maybe that's simply the only alternative, the only way we can make positive changes--by appealing to people's imaginative and emotional responses. The language in this act is itself almost poetic: "forces of nature," "the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable," even the alliterations of "practicable its preservation": language like this speaks to us beyond the conscious level, touching the place that longs for meaning beyond mere words of practicality. Clearly the composers of this piece were trying to inspire a sense of investment on the part of the public. Seems reasonable to me. We protect that which belongs to us and defend the thing we love. Now here are the poets on one hand, and the legislators on the other, telling us, "Nature belongs to us--to all of us. It has value: historical, educational, scientific. It is part of our heritage. We love it." I guess I'm a lot more taken in by that than "It's good for you. It's your duty."