Global Warming - Post-Modern Religion

Here's an article you shouldn't miss. This time I get the satisfaction of having said it myself before someone else said it better.

Global Warming as Mass Neurosis

Consider me an Unbeliever

Here's a good reason to start blogging again.

Global warming hysteria is now so widespread, so absolutely pervasive, that corporations are co-opting it as marketing. "Carbon Offsets" and other such laughable scams are big business. And my kids, not even old enough to begin official indoctrination in school, get the new gospel via cartoons. And it's not even controversial at all! It is becoming the new national religion.

This excerpt from a Mark Steyn article really captures the problem with the modern environmentalist movement.

The biofuels debacle is global warm-mongering in a nutshell: The first victims of poseur environmentalism will always be developing countries. In order for you to put biofuel in your Prius and feel good about yourself for no reason, real actual people in faraway places have to starve to death. Read the whole article here.

Ethanol was a bad idea from the start. It exists because it makes Global Warmists feel better about themselves - a clear violation of separation of church and state, in my opinion.

Not nearly as surprising is how quickly people will turn on the whole thing when gas and food prices go up a little bit. That's the trouble with religion - it's all fun and games until they start asking you to make sacrifices.

1968

Now it is time to disparage the state of the contemporary American left and, for a change, I'll be direct and to the point. FDR's strategy to use the resources of government to help out the little guy during the Great Depression has become an overbearing, intrusive, wasteful, and counterproductive government machine. The political movement that set out to protect the powerless and truly disenfranchised in the early 1960s has become a conglomeration of perpetual victim groups and the elites who claim to know what is best for them (and everyone else too). Finally, and worst of all, the patriotism of the World War II generation of liberals gave way to skepticism over Vietnam and then frank opposition to any projection of American military power ever since. While I believe that history has proven the ideas of the American liberal movement wrong, I can understand the first two and might have even joined in if I had been there. On foreign policy though I have no sympathy and find the current stance of the American Liberal something between naive and contemptible.

Where (or when) did it all go wrong? The economic ideas were wrong from the start. But when did the honorable (if ultimately misguided) social ideas of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy become so wrapped up in divisive identity politics. Where did the patriotism of the Greatest Generation give way to the anti-Americanism of the new radical left? Answer: Grant Park, Chicago, the week of the National Democratic Convention in late August 1968.


In 1968 American politics belonged to the Democratic party and the Liberal establishment. But at the national convention the "revolution" that had followed the Summer of Love took to the streets to oppose the Vietnam War, which at that time was still supported by most of bourgeois America, and to support the anti-war candidates Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. Violent riots broke out between the Chicago police and the protesters, mostly college students. Hubert Humphrey, the establishment candidate, went on to win the nomination and then lose the general election by a tiny margin to the previously unlikely Richard Nixon.

So although they lost that battle, the revolutionary left had now thrown down the gauntlet. They had made a loud statement and probably cost the Democrats the general election. (A big chunk of usually Democratic votes went to the reactionary George Wallace and who knows how many switched to Nixon or, more likely, just turned on, tuned in and dropped out) Those riots were the opening salvo of the revolutionary takeover of the Liberal movement. The baby-boomer college kids who protested, fought the cops and rejected the establishment candidate Humphrey went on to become the leaders of todays Democratic party, the universities and the media. It's been downhill ever since.

At the Water's Edge

In thinking about this posting I realized that I have a third goal to add to my justification for making yet another blog: to persuade the American left to return to a more moderate position, to come back to it's senses. I realize that this might result in more Democratic political victories but it is a price I would consider worth paying just to have both political parties on the same side against the determined and increasingly dangerous enemies we face in the world outside our borders.

Ever since Vietnam liberals have found it nearly impossible to see any US military action as a positive or necessary thing. Thus they view every war or intervention through the prism of their version of the Vietnam conflict. They have tried so hard to make the Iraq struggle Vietnam redux. They did the same with Afghanistan and the first Gulf War. Even non-military actions, such as the sanctions against Iraq before 9/11/01, often came under fire.

I don't believe that Democratic politicians are unaware or unconcerned about the serious threat we face in the combination of the struggle in Iraq, the two-headed menace of Iran and Al Qaeda and the complicity of Syria, Russia, China and North Korea. Not to mention the Balkans, the Sudan, Somalia, Palestine, Hugo "El Mono" Chavez in Venezuela, FARC in Colombia etc. etc. etc. And I'm sure my liberal friends are indeed patriotic for the most part. But to put it bluntly, I think that the Democrats are putting partisan political strategy above national security and above the obligation we have as a prosperous, powerful and (hopefully) moral democracy to help people out there struggling against terror and tyranny. It is getting extremely dangerous to have a nation so divided against itself.

Please read this linked speech by Joe Lieberman, pleading with his own party to cut it out. Here's an excerpt.

. . [T]here is something profoundly wrong--something that should trouble all of us--when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran's murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base--even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.

Are You Questioning My Liberalness?!?!

OK, let's get this over with. I've made it clear enough that I am not a "Liberal" or progressive so I have to call it like I see it. Nevertheless I want to be as fair and accurate as I can be.

Unfortunately, I have a very dim view of the current liberal movement. But I respect the tradition and it's contribution to American politics so I'll write about that before I disparage the sad state of the contemporary American Left.

In my very first posting I referred to the presidential election of 1932 between Republican President Herbert Hoover and Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. This was the election when Democrats became the "liberal" party and establish the foundation of it's modern incarnation. Republicans had controlled the White House all through the prosperous and peaceful 1920s. Herbert Hoover was a brilliant and popular president, winning the nomination and general election in 1928 by a landslide. He was a moderate, considered part of the Progressive movement but more pro-business than his predecessors. His undoing was that he presided over the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing depression.



FDR probably had the election in the bag from the get go. But as part of his campaign he did something that was seen as shrewd but trivial at the time but that would have long lasting significance: He dropped the Progressive label that had become a Democratic heritage with Woodrow Wilson and began to refer to his philosophy as "Liberal." It was a rather far fetched ploy since he was not at all proposing more free market economics and small, less intrusive government, quite the opposite. But the Progressive label had become a liability: Wilson's League of Nations never worked, the Prohibition was a disaster and, worst of all, the Republican candidate Hoover was seen as a Progressive, even if only by association.

Hoover's reaction to FDR was to insist that clearly the Republicans were the more liberal party - more free market and against the League of Nations. And, obviously, prohibition was inaugurated by President Wilson.

But FDR won and ever since then the Democrats have called themselves "Liberals." So what does the term mean in it's new incarnation?

FDR's essential justification for claiming to be a liberal was that he was offering a new kind of freedom that seemed a lot more attractive to most people in those dark days of the early 1930s: Freedom from want, freedom from hunger and unemployment, freedom from fear. Sounds pretty good, right?



To offer this kind of new freedom FDR and his brain trust created dozens of new government agencies to provide new services for the people. The size of the federal government grew 10 times over. Of course, in order to pay for this new taxes had to be levied but they were presented as a temporary measure to solve a crisis. (There's a lesson in that somewhere, I think).

So the bottom line is that the liberals are interested in using the power of government to solve people's problems. At first that was primarily in the realm of economics but with the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s it was extended into social issues. The liberals wanted to make sure that no one's rights were infringed upon or denied, to make sure that everyone acted in a liberal fashion, and felt that the government could and should do the making sure.

The dilemma for liberals is that using the government to make people change, even if you consider it a change for good, requires force - and that isn't very liberal.

When it came to foreign policy, things are even more confusing. Before 1968 the liberals (i.e. the Democrats) were the interventionists and the conservatives were generally isolationists, although both vigorously opposed Soviet communist expansion. Our involvement in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam was promoted and undertaken by Democrats/liberals and opposed by most Republicans. Now it is just the reverse.

So what's up with liberals today? The movement described above doesn't sound too unreasonable, it sounds very good in many ways. For the last 30 or so years the liberals have become more and more radical and coercive, more isolationist and less and less liberal. Fitting then that H. R. Clinton wants a new label. And for once I support her agenda.

Can't We All Just Get Along

I know, that's a really tired line. The truth is that people get along a lot better than it seems from what they show on TV and report in political articles.

As I mentioned before, people choose their politicians and party affiliation for all sorts of differing reasons. Try as I might I've never been able to come up with one critical idea the explains how people line up politically. I don't think that one idea or principle exists.

Now that I am mature, seasoned and sophisticated I've come to believe that all the issues in American politics can be grouped into three essential categories: Foreign policy, economic policy and social policy. What makes each of today's political movements different can be understood by how they approach each of those three areas.

With no further ado . . .

The Conservatives
Some say Conservatism is not ideological but a matter of temperament. In my opinion, most American Conservatism is ideological in some way. American Conservatives generally support military force when deemed necessary, believe in market economics over government planned economics, and favor traditional social mores in whatever way they can. But there are disagreements in all of these areas and thus there are subcategories. Here are a few that have earned their own nicknames.
PaleoConservatives Pro-military but non-inverventionist on foreign policy. Willing to use
law to promote and preserve traditional culture but believe most issues should be decided,
on a local or state level, OK with market economics, but puts more value on
social/moral issues and supports some protectionism; emphasizes fiscal conservatism
E.g. Pat Buchanan.
NeoConservatives The label really refers to former liberals who now favor a more
forceful, interventionist type of foreign policy. Generally more liberal in social policy.
The label doesn't truly apply to economic policy. Thus Dick Cheney may be seriously free
market while Joe Leiberman still loves that old-time government economic planning, but
both are thought of as Neoconservatives. E.g. William Kristol
Constitutional Conservatives Generally join the Neoconservatives on foreign policy,
particularly since 9/11. Favors free market economics wherever possible. Believes
that contentious social issues should be dealt with according to Constitutional guidelines,
otherwise flexible on the social tip (in the Classical sense of the word). E.g. Me and my hero
James Taranto.

* It is important to note that these three groups do not represent all conservatives. In fact, I think they probably make up only a small minority. But they are the influential ones, the ones competing for the minds of the many different people of a conservative persuasion.

The Libertarians I don't mean to give these guys the short shrift, it's just that their ideology is so clear and consistent. They are committed to an almost completely free market economic system and personal liberty with as little government intrusion as possible. Generally non-interventionist in foreign policy. E.g. Ron Paul.


Next posting - The Liberals.

Jim Imitates James

My goal here is not to change the words we use to identify political movements or philosophies. In fact I will heretofore use liberal and conservative, left and right, in their customary way; this isn't about semantics. It's just funny to me that the "conservatives" are the more flexible and dynamic party while the "liberals" are entrenched in old, rigid, establishment positions. Conservative thought is out in front and the liberals are the reactionaries. What's in a name, right?

My reason for bringing up the philosophical roots of the two sides of the modern political debate is to sharpen our understanding of the principles that shape it. In order to win the debate you have to not only know where you stand but why.

Why do you and your friend, someone just like you, take up opposing sides on political issues? If you were to ask different people why they were conservative or liberal you would likely get many different answers. I guarantee they wouldn't all make sense.

My ultimate goal is to bring conservatives of all stripes closer to my version of conservatism. Any liberal out there open minded enough to convert would be bonus. Those I convince will then join the already growing cadre of like minded, principled conservatives whose ideas I believe will define the political debate in the future. I really believe this will happen with or without us - I just want to say I got in on the ground floor.

Next posting: Categories and definitions. (I'll bet you can't wait.)

P.S. - If you are dying to know where I stand read the blog of my hero, James Taranto.