Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why Spanky doesn't believe in global warming?
- Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.
National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue.
Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that Representative Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat.
Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.
The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.
You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Senator John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.
In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah, Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to those hippies!
|
This is true but incomplete and offered without full context.
The author totally disregards that the Left does the same thing. The Left paints the fringe religious right as the mainstream of the GOP and uses their shrillness and lack of rational thinking to demonize economic conservatives. The Left refuses to argue with "libertarian" conservatives because it knows it can't win those arguments and by engaging in them would put into question the notion that economic liberalism that placates their biggest voting bloc (unions, teachers, those who want "security" and don't want to compete) has to be married to social liberalism.
The Left also distrorts statistics. The alleged "wealthiest" people in this country (many of whom are merely upper middle class - $300k outside Manhattan or DC is NOT wealthy) are said by many independent publications to pay anywhere from 40 to 50% of income taxes. The Left focus on this entirely from the perspective that it shows wealth allocation disparity, never once recognizing how much money those "wealthy" pay. The Left repeatedly paints the economic conservatives of the GOP as fat, rich white men pursuing policies aimed at screwing the poor. It tries to argue the GOP is actually making its money off the backs of the poor, except when a company moves its operations offshore, in which case the GOP is suddenly the party that allowed companies to abandon the poor. In simple sum, the Left refuses to acknowledge a force bigger than the Democrat Party or GOP is controlling the economic changes that are hurting the Democrats' core constituancy. Why does it do this? For the same reason the Evangelicals try to paint every debate as "Everybody v. Jesus" - because war galvanizes the base.
They both lie - all the time. Citing one and not the other implies a stream exclusively coming from one side where what you've actually got is something closer to an open septic tank.
You're also missing the biggest piece of the puzzle - nobody likes Lefties. I dislike both Lefties and Righties because I think anyone taking a side has to wear blinders and make a fool of himself to pitch his case. But Righties will admit they're gaming the system, or are so damn deluded they're comical. Lefties have this annoying, self-righteous attitude. They all come off like Paul Krugman - whiny, short, nasally... You can imagine them debating some crap from Mother Jones over organic wheat pancakes at the nearby Whole Foods. "Have you read Frank Rich's new book, 'What's the Matter with Kansas?' It's fascinating. These Kansans are so manipulated by the Religious Right."
I agree with them a lot, but when I have to listen to them, I just want to slap them. It's like a knee jerk Darwinian thing - an instinctual urge to muzzle the influence of something that appears, well... very defective, in every regard. As to their counterpart Jesus Freaks, I find them too loony to be annoyed or angered. Maybe that's it - the Left sucks because they don't give us the involuntary humor people like them are supposed to.
