Life can be an amazing journey. We each have a unique life experience based on our individual choices. I have had the privilege of encountering many interesting people, Mike Stafford, an active Republican in the state of Delaware, is one of those amazing people.
He has written a very thoughtful Book, “An Upward Calling : Politics for the Common Good”, a comprehensive commentary on the state of the Republican Party. Please, allow this to be an opportunity to have a thoughtful discussion, avoid personal attacks and pretend like we are on the same team, the American team. In the end, we are all on this journey together, whether we like it or not!
I have reposted this opinion piece on the book from Dave Burris, however, I believe this book is worth the purchase!
From http://www.townsquaredelaware.com/calling-us-upward-in-the-face-of-extremism/
June 1, 2011 By Dave Burris
Things have gotten out of hand.
Recently in Slate, Jacob Weisberg wrote a description of today’s Republican Party that hit home with me. He said the GOP:
“…has moved to a mental Shangri-La, where unwanted problems (climate change, the need to pay the costs of running the government) can be wished away, prejudice trumps fact (Obama might just be Kenyan-born or a Muslim), expertise is evidence of error, and reality itself comes to be regarded as some kind of elitist plot.”
It stung a little to read that. And it stung, because even though it’s a bit melodramatic, it’s true. And even more true is the fact that the rabid GOP base commits open warfare on anyone brazen enough to break protocol in the most minor fashion. I’ve been watching and cringing this spring as respectable Governors like Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty, once champions of the environment, turn their backs on their former selves and on the natural world. Same thing with Mitt Romney on healthcare. And the list goes on.
These Republican leaders can’t go on the record to admit that there might be value in protecting the environment, or that immigrants might be people too; or that Romneycare and cap-and-trade both emanated from the Reagan administration and the Heritage Foundation. The reason they can’t is that the sane among us, the silent majority on the center-right, haven’t boldly stood up against the extremists to make the case for a pragmatic centrism based in traditional values.
That ends today as Michael Stafford begins what I hope will be a new era of sanity on the center-right with his book “An Upward Calling: Politics for the Common Good.” On issues like immigration, the environment, the budget and more, Mike lays out a case for ostracizing the demagogues in favor of a politics that works. Building on a foundation deeply rooted in his Catholic faith, Mike uses themes like agape – the Christian love of brother once referred to by Paolo Coehlo as “the love that consumes” – to make the case that we can do so much more together than we do when we see each other as enemies, as obstacles to avoid.
Many of the essays in An Upward Calling have been presented in various forms on sites like Coffee Party USA, Tommywonk and here at TSD. Each of them have been well-received, like a drink of water to a society parched by hateful extremism. But pulled together into one book, the essays are a call to something far better.
It’s time for us to ban the extremists to their mental Shangri-La, and return to a politics that sees the other not as an enemy, but as a possibility, and allow our leaders to seek the best solution, not the solution that pacifies the mob. It is that strength that is shown in this book, and it is a calling I plan to follow.
You can buy An Upward Calling in paperback ($9.99 here) or for the Kindle at Amazon.com ($2.99 here). In addition, you can follow Mike’s writing at his Facebook page.
Disclosure: I was so moved by Mike’s writing that I created a company to publish this book. What that means is that if you go and purchase it, Mike and I each stand to make several dozen pennies. In fact, if we sell enough, we might become millionaires. Okay, not really, but we can realistically become quarteraires.
Thank you Elena!
Right there with you on the agape. Unfortunately apathy seems to be the word of the day. Must be the heat.
Ok, if the GOP needs to address the “extreme wing” of its party, will the Democrats do anything about the “extreme wing” of their party? Honestly, I doubt it. Why? Because that is who is in charge in that party. When the head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Shultz lies about what Republican Paul Ryan’s medicare reform plan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-dnc-chairwoman-is-lying-about-paul-ryans-medicare-plan/2011/03/29/AGvBPFGH_blog.html)
or attacks Rebublicans for (gasp) actually wanting our immigration laws to be enforced (http://nation.foxnews.com/illegal-immigration/2011/05/31/dnc-chair-republicans-believe-illegal-immigration-should-be-crime), this would seem like pretty “extremist” politics to me. Her motto might as well be “GOP: Putting the ILLEGAL in Illegal Immigration”.
I am all for a return to civility. I am all for a “Big Tent GOP”. I’ll consider a call from a fellow Republican for the party to do some soul-searching. But what I am not in favor of is heeding the calls of Democrats to stamp our “extremism” when “extremism” to them means conservative Republicans. To these calls I respond: “My speck. Your Log.”
Steve- I know few, if any, D’s who are in favor of open borders and very few who favor “no consequences” for our current undocumented population. The book has several essays on comprehensive immigration reform & earned legalization, aswell as the heavy political price paid by the GOP for embracing the last “immigration panic” out in California (Proposition 187). I’d ask that you read them with an open mind and remember that no less a conservative icon then the Gipper himself was always a supporter of immigration reform. As for Paul Ryan, his budget plan is also addressed in the book- to get a sense of what I have to say on it, just check out David Frum’s series of essays on his site- it is basically a proposal crafted to serve the interests of the very wealthy and is, frankly, difficult to defend from the perspective of the middle or the working classes. I, for one, have little hope of saving up enough money to cover the added costs of purchasing coverage comparable to Medicare given the rate at which healthcare costs are increasing… do you?
Mike S,
I do believe if we ever had the opportunity to speak face to face, you would find me very open-minded. You would also come to learn that as a local party vice-chairman, I am frequently in the middle of intra-party squabbles, trying to resolve them for the purposes of keeping a “Big Tent” from sagging. On socio-political issues, I try to do the same.
As far as saving for retirement & medicare supplements, I have my own ideas on this subject. If you can, you should come to a private screening of a documentary I will be hosting, soon. Our problems are much, much bigger than this.
Hi Steve- we have a lot in common, I should have said this explicitly in my earlier post, but I’m the author of the book being reviewed above- I was GOP officer (a region chair and on our state and county executive committees) here in Delaware and I have pretty extensive experience working on federal, state, and local election campaigns. Right now, I’m the local coordinator for a national org- Republicans for Environmental Protection. The fellow that wrote the review above, Dave Burris, is also a former party officer up here, and if you go to the Amazon page, you’ll see reviews by another local officer was a long time staff member in the late Sen. Bill Roth’s office as well as our former communications director.
I have been crying for a return to sanity since Clinton! I am tired, I am so tired. I have always been a “fierce Independent” so I could yell equally at idiots on both sides. Lately, it seems that is all there are – idiots on both sides! I am getting laryngitis! Not good, since I am the assistance music director at my little mission chapel. Prayers said daily and candles lit for a return to sanity!
“has moved to a mental Shangri-La, where unwanted problems (climate change, the need to pay the costs of running the government) can be wished away, prejudice trumps fact (Obama might just be Kenyan-born or a Muslim), expertise is evidence of error, and reality itself comes to be regarded as some kind of elitist plot.””
So…you’re basically agreeing with this …..spin.
Let’s see…climate change….prove it. NONE of the predictions are coming true. No warming has been recorded since 98. The models are flawed. And politics ran the show. Yet disagreement with it is supposed to be evidence that conservatives don’t want to protect the environment.
The need to pay the costs of running the government – nice spin for the current fiasco. Apparently the desire to LOWER the costs of the government is a bad thing. Please explain why we suddenly need to TRIPLE our deficit from 2008 spending to 2009 and propose to spend over a trillion in deficit spending from now on. Why doesn’t Congress agree even to freeze spending. No more new spending.
So we just want to wish it away…. As opposed to the Democrats that have YET to even propose a budget in OVER TWO YEARS. Why is it that its always the Conservatives that are the “extreme” but I never see this type of book attacking the left? This type of comment plays into the premises of the left.
The game has changed. Americans are tired of the spend, spend, spend. Start prioritizing and doing your damn jobs. Start actually debating in Congress. Make decisions. And if you aren’t in Congress but you are involved in the political machine, force the damn politicians to do their jobs. Stop supporting them.
The Gipper may have been a fan of immigration reform. We see what that got us. None of the reforms were implemented. He compromised and was screwed in the deal, just like the budget deals. Any “consequence” deals like the Dream Act, etc, are crap. They are unenforceable and allow criminals to profit off of their actions.
Hi Cargo, yes, we think Weisberg’s critique is essentially correct (though as Dave says he uses inflated colorful language to make his point).
A couple points- the science on climate change is proven, at least in the scientific sense, menaing “with a high degree of confidence”- that’s why evey signifigant scientific acedemy in the world agrees on this point…
Right now, I think the radicalization of the political Right is a far more pressing and serious problem then anything going on on the Left- in some ways, one might even argue that this radicalization is paving the way for a second Obama term- but we’ll see how that plays out.
You have a lot of very diffuse and unspecified rage against Congress for spending. And its easy to say something like “no new spending.” You are well informed enough to realize how empty that slogal is. 20 years ago, we (the GOP) have very detailed policy proposals for reforming welfare (for example), but now we just have empty slogans. Figuring out what to cut (and how) is a monumental task- and honestly, spending is only on half of the equation. Our refusal to look seriously at the other half- revenue- is doing a grave disservice to the nation right now.
The Gipper had the political sense to realize that nativism is a foolhardy and erroneous political course- he probably looked back at the Know Nothings and various other movements in our history and drew the necessary conclusions.
@Steve Thomas
All political parties misrepresent the ‘other side.’ How did health care get the name ‘ObamaCare?’ How about ‘death panels?’ The Dems are no worse or no better as far as misrepresentations go.
I would say both parties need to reign in their extremists.
Mike is right about the open borders statement. I know one person who has ever advocated open borders and he is not a Democrat. I have read time and time again about the ‘open borders’ crowd. I believe at times those words were directed at us here at Moonhowlings.
@Steve Thomas
Steve, I don’t know about intra-party but I will vouch for your attempts to bring warring factions together in order to see their common ground.
OK. Let’s narrow the scope a bit. Talk to me specifically about CO2. I would like to know the theoretical relationship between CO2 emissions and climate change. AGW adherents are fond of the comparison between CO2 being causal to AGW and gravity, ergo please articulate the theory expressed as an equation, and factor out emissions which are not anthropogenic.
I’m a fan of renewable energy. The issue here for me is that not only can the relationship not be proven, it’s that there aren’t even any *theories* published which quantify the alleged relationship that stand up to peer review. There are some pretty compelling economic and national security reasons that argue for accurately pricing carbon, but speaking as a quant that models complex systems for a living I know all too well how much fudge goes into producing outputs.
Of course, you won’t be able to produce this. That’s because no one can. There are no shortage of people who are so convicted of this belief without so much as a modicum of understanding about how the models work (or don’t) and how the inputs were derived (in any analytical system, garbage in=garbage out). Of course, the fall back position is bleating “the science is proven.”
No, it’s not. And wishing won’t make it so. Believing thus requires a leap of faith. Come to think of it, that makes it a lot more like a religion than a science.
Most of science is based on inductive rather than deductive reasoning. Not everything fits into a formula.
How about just accepting that over this century the growing seasons have gotten significantly longer. Start there and start asking why.
Are we all so arrogant we think we can crap up the earth with chemicals and chemical reactions without having any impact?
Elena, you cannot be serious. How can people pretend they are on the same team when, right out of the box, a whole bunch of them are referred to as the “rabid GOP base” and, in effect, told that they must strive to make their viewpoints acceptable to the likes of Stafford, Burris, and Weisberg so that we can all enter a “new era of sanity.” Inflated colorful language, indeed. What a laugher! If one is going to use the Alinsky tactics of castigation, denigration, and undermining from within, one at least ought to try to do so without such transparency. Cargo hit it on the nose in his first try: “…premises of the left.”
@Moon-howler
No.
We are not so arrogant that we think that polluting has no impact. We just disagree with a certain theory that has been completely corrupted by politics, has contradictory data, has secretive scientists, uses bad science to build flawed computer models, and cannot reproduce any results. CO2 is not pollution.
Global warming may be happening. There is a big glowing thing in the sky that directly impacts that……and THAT has been changing all the while.
That said, only the AGW crowd are saying that global warming is a bad thing. The Viking and Medieval warm periods were eras of prosperity.
I can tell you Mike S that your book will not make its way into my library. I find your tone to be condescending. You imply that anyone that disagrees with your “facts” is either ignorant or extremist. I do not mind disagreement, but I do resent your attempt to marginalize your opponents as extremist.
Let’s take the issue of climate change. Your statement that the science is settled (which is incorrect) is a sorry attempt to say that the opinions of your opponents do not matter. But if you are truly reasonable, then should you should be willing to consider the following:
1) There are plenty of climate scientists who have reservations about the impending doom and gloom of climate change. But they believe they must keep quiet in order to avoid jeopardizing their funding stream and avoid retaliation. I can give you examples of great scientists who waited until retirement to express their misgivings.
2) You seem to be suspicious of corporations and the very wealthy. But there is also a huge financial incentive for the climate crowd. The worry about the approaching doom ensures public support for funding of expensive climate satellietes, big, expensive climate research and field studies, EPA regulation, and government support of alternative energy sources and green industries. Instead of blindly following the climate demagogues, you should follow the money and see which entities/people benefit the most.
3) There are still big questions about the science. There is no question about the basic physics– increasing carbon dioxide causes a very small warming in the climate. To get the very large warnings predicted by the models, climate feedbacks, which are phenomena that amplify or dampen the initial warming due to CO2, are needed. An example is the water vapor feedback, which is thought to be positive (i.e. amplifies the warming). However, almost all of the feedbacks have to be large and positive in order to achieve the strong warming predicted by climate models. This seems counter to the rich, highly variable behavior generally observed in the environment and is not really supported by anything other than model runs.
I know this discourse is unlikely to change your mind. But if your goal is really more respectful debate, then you should argue your viewpoint based on their merits rather than trying to denigrate your opponents. You are guilty of the same behavior of which you are accusing others.
Kelly, I don’t think the goal is really more respectful debate but rather selling books/ebooks. I think the author is off the mark. I also think he’s trying to appeal to a market of ‘independents’, centrists and partisans that want to use the book as proof positive that the right has shifted too far to the right.
I’m content reading and listening to my Ron Paul iphone app.
this is what I have seen from the GOP, a very small tent. If republican DARES to speak out in support of reaching common ground, they are called a RINO and kicked out of office. The budget “showdown” over planned parenthood demonstrated the insanity of what is wrong with the extreme faction of the GOP. When RR was President, he took PRIDE in reaching across the isle. Laying in his hospital bed after being shot, who did he call by his bedside, Tip O’Neil. Democrats weren’t seen as the enemy in those days by republicans.
I believe I have a unique perspective, I am very close to someone who believes that democrats are the enemy and I also am close to someone who believes that the republicans are the enemy. Where does that attitude get this country, NOWHERE!
What Mike is suggesting is that NO ONE is the enemy. He wrote the book from HIS republican conservative experience….DUH, why would he write about the left? Is there an extremist left, well yes, but generally speaking, the extreme left is pretty ineffective, they don’t have the organizational skills or the fervent religious paradigm to really impact much of anything.
Living in PWC during the height of immigration hysteria was frightening. People were afraid to say that they were not in support of the resolution that morphed over and over and over again. If people are afraid to speak their feelings in public, that is enough to demonstrate that there is a major problem. Being in an article in the Washington Post should not be seen as an opportunity to intimidate those who “dare” to offer an alternate point of view. And yet, that is exactly what happend to me. Let me tell you,, it was the disgusting rabid anti democratic comments on BVBL that demonstrated to me there was something really really wrong happening in my community. Those people bragged about being REAL republicans.
Let’s examine these views:
“If republican DARES to speak out in support of reaching common ground, they are called a RINO and kicked out of office.”
Conservatives do this because said “common ground” always seems to be in favor of the Democrats. The Democrats do not cross the aisle and pass conservative bills. If we get to where the Democrats want us, but only slower, how is it different to keep said compromisers in office than to vote for a Democrat?
“When RR was President, he took PRIDE in reaching across the isle.”
The Democrats then are not the Democrats now. Then, compromise was possible. Yet RR still was screwed in many a deal because of the Democrat majority. Furthermore, today’s Democrats are a winner take all group. See the previous Congress and Obama’s “I won.” attitude.
“the extreme left is pretty ineffective, they don’t have the organizational skills or the fervent religious paradigm to really impact much of anything.” Um… they got Obama elected. That’s pretty effective. Obamacare was rammed through. Cap and Trade ALMOST made it and its still being implemented by regulation. They might not have gotten everything, but energy prices are STILL going up and our resources are being restricted. Obama’s choices for secretaries are still socialists.
Apparently, the conservatives are the enemy. We’re the “extremists.” Those that want limited government, less spending, and a closer adherence to the Constitution seem to be the “enemy.” Otherwise, why denigrate us as “extremists”? We want THE OTHER SIDE to compromise. We want THEM to reach across the aisle. We want them to make a deal.
Hmm…..still no budget from the Democrats. Two years…that must be a record. Still no reasonable alternatives being offered to tax and spend other than Ryan’s plan. And the GOP that’s supposed to be living up to their OWN WORDS AND PLATFORM, can’t cut spending either. That spending “cut” was, after the gimmickry was removed, actually in the millions, not billions. Where’s this supposed compromise from the left to reduce spending by even 1 FREAKING PERCENT? Obama is either not serious, incompetent, or lying about reducing the deficit, because NOTHING he has put forward and nothing the Democrats have put forward address spending. In fact, the REPUBLICANS are almost as bad and only the Tea Party efforts have kept their feet to the fire. They are finally worried more about their constituents than the press.
Sorry, Elena, but the distinct impression from this thread was that those Republicans who do not agree with Mike are the enemy. Either that or Mike and friends do not quite understand the principle that you will not have a productive conversation when you start out by insulting the other side. The attitude in evidence seems to be that compromise is in order but only so long as that compromise fits my view and rejects yours. Hardly a starting point — especially when the implication seems to be that the other guy’s views are in the realm of insanity. Call this a rebuffed attempt to reach across the intra-party aisle if you wish; but it appears to me to be a badly botched attempt, if that is indeed what it was.
Look, the same crowd that cries about having any of their preconcieved notions challenged are usually the first people to cry RINO RINO and start screaming at anyone who diverges from the prevalent orthodoxy. And they take it all so deeply personal, which is honestly inexplicable to me. Anyway, a number of us have had it with canned talking points and empty slogans, we’re looking for something better, something that’s intillectually and morally more defensible. The Tea Party does not have much of a future imho… and it does not point the way to something better for our nation.
Also, very briefly on the climate science- if reports like the 2007 report by the IPCC, last year’s National Academy of Sciences Report… heck *any* of the reports issued by various national academies across the globe, do not persuade you, nothing I say can. I’d refer anyone interested in the science to http://www.skepticalscience.com/ which has a pretty through discussion of all the main denier talking points on this issue.
@ Wolverine- calling the President a socialist, talking about Death Panels, birtherism, the list goes on… it *is* insane, at least if we posit a world where objective truths exist that can known by the application of reason.
Mike:
1. You have just generalized to the max about the Tea Party and everyone else who may oppose your own views on the issues. If you did a scan of the posts by “conservatives” on this blog, for instance, you would find almost nothing from your offered list of sins in #22. What you would find are some pretty civil discussions of issue differences. Those are the rules of this blog, and they are welcome rules for all of us. This blog in particular is the wrong place to toss out accusations of opponent “insanity” or “extremism” or whatever. You could not help but see the negative reaction to your debate methodology on the part of some of these same “conservative” posters who post here because they are confident of not being trashed for their opinions. Debated for sure, but not trashed. The proof of the pudding in this is that these posters keep on coming back here. We all know a good and civil thing when we see it.
2. I am speaking personally as an independent who leans strongly to the conservative side and who happens to side with “Tea Party” sentiments on many issues. I am not a Republican or Democrat, have never been either, and have never even voted in a party primary. I have never hunted down a RINO in my life, although I will say that I have opposed many of them simply because I disagree with them on concrete issues. I do my own research and I make up my own mind. I have no problem with someone of differing political views and will, when so inclined, debate the issues. But I insist on a civil and respectful debate. You start the thing off by trying to lump me in with the far extreme of any movement and using ad hominem terms in so doing, and you had better understand that you are not going to get to first base. The conversation will just stop. Well, maybe it won’t stop. There are a couple of other blogs around here where old Wolverine has gotten the reputation of being a stump preacher about the tendencies of some bloggers on all sides of the political spectrum to denigrate, call names, make unfounded accusations, and commit all sorts of other debating faux pas which causes debate to degenerate into the politics of the average banana republic.
3. Notice my use of the phrase “all sides of the political spectrum.” Steve Thomas had an excellent point in #3. You point to the use of the term “death panels.” Well, sir, I have been around a long time with my conservative views and I have heard to no end, not only from the Left but also from many run-of-the mill Democrat partisans, that my goals are to starve old people to death, harm the children, and erase the civil rights progress of the past half century. Now I see that Paul Ryan is being depicted in opposition propaganda as pushing a senior citizen in a wheelchair over a cliff. And yet you are choosing to go after members of your own party with the same sort of generalized attacks. Honest to God, Mike, you DO sound like one of the opposition in disguise. To my way of thinking as an observer outside of party ranks, that is a Hell of a strange way to try to achieve party unity.
“Look, the same crowd that cries about having any of their preconcieved notions challenged are usually the first people to cry RINO RINO and start screaming at anyone who diverges from the prevalent orthodoxy. And they take it all so deeply personal, which is honestly inexplicable to me.”
This sentence is SO perfect.
“same crowd that cries about having their “preconceived notions” challenged.” Which notions are those? I mean, since most of the Tea Party and many conservatives are just telling the “orthodox” republicans to live up to their own words. And it seems that its the “mainstream” GOP that is having THEIR notions challenged and that’s causing upset. It’s not the “RINO” that is diverging from the prevalent orthodoxy. The GOP’s current orthodoxy fits right in with the “RINO” ideas. Its the conservatives, finally tired of the lip service and the failures to challenge the Democrat orthodoxy, that are the challengers.
And, OF COURSE WE TAKE THIS PERSONALLY. The problem is that YOU don’t. The Democrats do. The socialists do. And we also take the INSULTS personally. If you’re really trying to keep the conservatives and Tea Party members in the GOP, you’re not doing a great job of it.
Progressives were furious when Obama compromised on the bush tax cuts and also when the public option was stricken from the healthcare bill. Please don’t tell me that Democrats don’t compromise.
The reality is that their was right wing hysteria overy health care reform. So on one hand Ryan wants to do away with medicare as we understand it today because the program is bankrupting us and yet was unwilling to work on REAL healthcare reform. What is driving medicare costs is the unstainable growth of healthcare! What I recall, very vividly, were the attacks by republicans against democrats regarding new restrictions on medicare under the new health care bill. What blatent hyprocrisy to now suggest that medicare be scrapped completely for vouchers. Vouches will cover nothing if health care costs continue to skyrocket!
No, the “right wing” reaction was justified because the bill is a horrible, dishonest, POS that actually takes money from Medicare and DOES NOT reduce ANY costs. To anyone.
And if health care costs continue to skyrocket and we don’t reform medicare, then its going broke anyway. More and more doctors refuse to take medicare patients.
I love how you state that the GOP was unwilling to work on “real” healthcare reform but forget that those same Republicans WERE LOCKED OUT OF THE ROOM, literally, where the pre-written bill was being discussed. It wasn’t even read by those that supported it.
Why only focus on right-wing so-called “extremism”?
What about raising the debt ceiling higher and higher so that the administration can safely spend their way past the 2012 election, and open us up to the very real possibility of default?
Nope, because any effort to try to curb spending is “extremism.”
What about the insane ideology that puts the environment above and beyond human life and safety and our nation’s economic viability? That uses up rainforest food supplies to create biofuels? That stacks up HOV lanes with single-rider hybrid SUV’s that get incrementally better gas mileage than my two-person Toyota yesterday? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. It took us over two hours to get from Manassas to DC yesterday, thanks in part to all of those marginally eco-friendly non-carpoolers.
You think that’s crazy? You’re an EXTREMIST!
How about the healthcare “reform,” as Cargo mentioned? If it’s so good, why are so many Democrat “friends-of” exempt? Why the rush to pass a bill “so we can see what’s in it”?
You didn’t trust that process? You think it’s collossally expensive and potentially unconstitutional? You’re an EXTREMIST!
Wow, not that anyone ever broad-brushes conservatives or anything.
I agree with Mike that we need to tone down the rhetoric, on both sides, and work to find sensible solutions, as did Ronald Reagan.
My biggest problem with Mike’s argument, and that of many others, is equating being environmentally responsible and a legitimate conservationist with buying into global warming theories. My conservationist pedigree is impeccable. Even being a lifelong Republican, I supported a Democrat many years ago in a Congressional election in a conservative district because the Republican had been bought off by development and utility interests. They wanted to dam up a pristine river valley in Appalachia. The result would have been destruction of thousands of acres of virgin wilderness (a quickly disappearing resource) and displacement of many, many low income people from their homes who did not have the means themselves to fight this nonsense. Guess what. We won!
When visiting the Muir Woods National Monument north of San Francisco in the 1990s, I gladly signed a petition an environmental group was promoting to stop a plan to allow logging in our national parks, and spent some time speaking with them urging them to stop bashing Republicans and attack the source of the problem, Bill Clinton, whose idea it was to allow the logging. By the way, a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, is responsible for the National Parks system.
I support the Rural Crescent in Prince William County and measures to control pollution and other environmental problems. I’ve considered myself a conservative Republican environmentalist and conservationist all of my life.
However, I can think independently and rationally, and refuse to jump on Al Gore’s global warming band wagon. As some of the other posters have commented, it’s more of a political movement than serious science. It’s as much faith-based as any religion. Moreover, many people are becoming very rich promoting this theory, including Gore himself who is a founding partner of an investment firm that trades carbon offsets. Academics can’t argue against it because it’s the foundation of their dogma now. No one gets research funding to say differently.
Many other credible explanations exist to explain temperature fluctuations. The climate in the 1930s was very similar to what we are experiencing now. The ice age ended without a single car exhaust blowing CO2 into the atmosphere.
So, going forward, please don’t question my sincerity as an environmentalist or conservationist, or scapegoat all Republicans, just because we can think for ourselves and exercise a little critical thought when people like Al Gore are trying to sell us a bill of goods, and then turn around to get rich off their own scheming.
@ Need to Know- You ought to read the book before offering up a critique of what it says or does not say. In fact, it makes an argument for clean energy, conservation, and reducing our dependence on foriegn oil that is independant of AGW (thought it discusses AGW as well). Also, isn’t it silly to reject the mass of scientific evidence supporting AGW because of Al Gore? With science, its not about believing or disbelieving, its about attaining a level of confidence that a given proposition is true. Here, AGW meets that standard. I have an article “My Road to Damascus” on Coffee Party USA and Town Square Delaware that disucsses AGW in more detail- I’d also refer you to Tucker’s excellent article on Frum Forum. Also, your assertions about academics are in error, in fact the reverse is true. Oil industry research funding, and the prominance of being trotter out by conservative media and politicians and a scientific “skeptic” (its a small group, which ought to tell you something right there) await any researcher willing to “question” the “accepted orthodoxy” and sow doubt. In my opinion, when you delve into this issue, you soon realize that the conservative “skeptic” case is something much akin to a Potemkin village.. or as Rep. Bob Inglis put it we’ve got a bunch of folks who slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night and know better then the researchers working in this field what is going on. Inglis’ remarks are on YouTube and are well worth listening too.
@ Cargo… you keep talking about socialists.. I wonder.. what do you think that word means? Who in American politics wants to nationalize large segments of the economy? Perhaps you mean those notorious Reds Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford who nationalized the northeastern freight rail industry to keep it from imploading in bankruptcy… I honestly don’t know.
The stuff you are getting from talk radio and Fox is garbage friend, empty, intillectually barren garbage. It is also in may ways a radical departure from (and in some ways, a betrayal of) traditional conservative values.
Actually, yes, Nixon did have some socialist programs. And who wants to nationalize large segments of the economy…hmmm… what was that about Obama liking single payor health care? And wanting to redistribute wealth? His words…
And see…here you say the things that I get from talk radio and Fox is garbage. You don’t even know if I watch Fox. I developed my conservatism from National Review, a Republican mother that grew up during the Depression, my observations of other countries that have used programs being touted in this country to their detriment, etc. How about majority ownership in companies? How about crony capitalism? Can you deny that Obama and his agenda is putting structures into place and people into place that will regulate and control ever more of our lives? As a Republican, how can you desire MORE federal government control over, well…anything?
Perhaps your definition of socialist is too rigid. Progressivism is a socialist philosophy. When I speak with people that have emigrated from Eastern Europe and THEY say that the current crop of liberals are developing socialist programs, I tend to believe them.
@Mike S.
Mike, you are passionate but not convincing. Again, you make assumptions about what I believe and I’m calling you on it.
First, I’m commenting on what you’ve written in this thread. It’s intellectually dishonest in a forum such as this or other form of public debate to say that someone who disagrees with you would understand only if they would just go and read your entire body of work. No; we’re commenting on what’s said here.
Second, I’m firmly in favor of developing alternative, cleaner sources of energy for many reasons, especially getting off our dependence on foreign sources for national security reasons, the fact that sources of fossils fuels will eventually run out, and to help our trade balance by reducing imports.
Third, as Cargo, I am not a product of Fox News. I also grew up with and formed my conservatism through William F. Buckley, “National Review” and campaigning fervently to get Ronald Reagan elected President. Moon, Elena and other longtime Moonhowlings readers can tell you that I have on numerous occasions in this forum decried the embarrassment that Glenn Beck is for serious, thoughtful conservatives.
Fourth, I put no more weight on global warming studies funded by the oil companies than I do tobacco industry-funded research that proclaims no proven link between smoking and cancer, or academic-funded research that says the earth is warming from anthropomorphic causes and that we must shut down our economy as we know it to avoid doomsday (oh, and by the way, accelerate use of carbon offsets and other programs that enrich Al Gore and his pals).
I am perfectly capable of reading research and opinions, understanding their sources, and thinking rationally to form my own conclusions.
I have to add one more thing. I’ve spent some of my career in an academic environment. Don’t even try to tell me that academic/university-based research is an open-minded search for truth. Your career as an academic is based on your publications record, not on your teaching or how much you help your students. Academic publications all go through peer review prior to publication, which is a means of ensuring that no one strays too far from the prevailing dogma. Absent this publications record, you will get neither tenure nor promotion. Academic research funded by third parties (i.e., foundations, government bodies, etc.) works the same way. The money goes to researchers who tow the line.
After some first-hand experience with this, I chose many years ago not to pursue such a career. I’m too independently-minded, not willing to sign my name to something that represents someone else’s position rather than my own, and not enough of a “team player” to ever be able to succeed in such an environment.
Saying that academic research is objective, while corporate-sponsored research (i.e., oil and tobacco companies) is not, is simply dishonest. All of this research is biased. We as citizens need to read it, understand the sources, and use own minds to come to a conclusion.