It’s Time For The Red To Think Green
I don’t listen to the radio, but millions of conservatives do. Recently, John McCain has been pushing eco-friendly merchandise on his website. He’s been very active in campaigning green policy and seems to be one of the most environmentally aware Republicans in office. Much to my chagrin, however, the loudmouths of the party do not share his sentiment. Cue Rush:
At some point Republicans are going to have to decide whether to cross the aisle and vote for McCain. Clearly, he’s rolling the dice in thinking that the ‘green’ community and the independents and the yutes out there will buy into this global warming business and think he’s different than the average conservative Republican and that will stand him in good stead.
Cue Heidi Harris on Hardball:
Even the Democrats are probably going be disgusted with this. I’m furious,” Harris said. “As a conservative, I’m really disgusted with this. I don’t understand why he’s so focused on climate change.
If the Republican Party is going to restore itself, there are a few issues we are forced to reconcile with for the healing to begin. First and foremost, we must admit that George Bush is an idiot. Good? Great. Secondly, we must look at issues as more than left vs. right. I’m not talking about this Obama-style hand-holding and kumbaya; I’m talking about common causes.
Let’s start from the bottom and work out way up. Many Republicans identify themselves as evangelical Christians. As a Catholic, I believe that God made humanity the stewards of the Earth and the conscious protectors of His creation. The systematic pollution, raping and despoiling of this planet should be an affront to any good Christian. This alone should be reason enough for an evangelical Christian to support environmental causes.
At this point, I have a suggestion for our leftist friends. If you want to gain traction on your movement, frame your argument differently depending on your audience. When talking to conservatives, focus on the strategic importance of energy-independance. When you start yammering about global warming and climate change, many conservatives will be pushing the snooze button on you. Just a suggestion.
Back to the (R)’s though. There is a large non-religious segment to the Republican party too, but they have equal cause to be green. Right now, George W. Bush is in Saudi Arabia, being told by a Monarch (see: despot) that he doesn’t think the US needs more oil. We are more or less under the thumb of an oil cartel run by Kings and Dictators. Can we dwell on this for a minute? The leader of the Free World is UNDER THE THUMB of KINGS AND DESPOTS for the lifeblood of its economy.
Listen folks, I like to drive big cars and SUVs as much as the next red-blooded American. However, allow me to put this idea in your head: We develop oil-free or oil-minimal transportation. The entire Middle East takes a bullet train back to the 6th Century. Sound good? I know, I thought so too. It’s not easy though, but it’s the only choice we have. We are at a ridiculously weak strategic position because of our dependence on oil. We are never going to war with Iran no matter what tough talk anyone says. Want to know why? Wiki the Straight of Hormuz. Iran is going to do what Iran wants as long as they control it. Talk about being between a rock and a sandy place.
I know a lot of conservatives worry about the problems associated with putting laws in effect that can impact the free markets with oil, but throughout our history, we’ve put restrictions on the market in dire situations. We are in such. Between the pollution in are air, the weakness of our position and the damage we do to God’s creation, there is no reason any conservative should be opposed to environmental causes.
If Rush Limbaugh is going to view this as pandering to the left, then Hell, I’m going to pander to the left…right after I turn his show off. I’ll be damned if my grandchildren have to wear medical masks outside and have to submit to Saudi Kings. I think the majority of Americans understand this, but for some reason the standard-bearers of the party are ignorant of it. Thats why I think the first big step in restoring the glory of the party is Putting some green in our red.
Green evangelicals? If I’m not mistaken, the steward of the Earth notion fits well with Roman Catholic teaching and ideology. It doesn’t fit quite so well with the evangelical Protestants that swell Republican ranks. Those guys are happy to be apocalyptic, happy to claim the Earth as God’s gift to the righteous, happy even to embrace a kind of (permanent) frontier attitude about the environment.
<
p>Putting some green into the red could shed a big bunch of evangelicals. No?
<
p>Seekers of rationalization I don’t understand why it is but a number of conservatives who have posted here have run to the nearest available rationalization that global warming is not real or not man-made or not that bad. (Martian climate, anyone?) Why is that? You’re not going to get Republicans to propose policies to answer global warming if Republicans don’t see global warming as a problem that requires an answer.
<
p>On this point. I’ve tried. Trust me. However, this isn’t the only route to achieve your end. If they don’t respond to climate change, use the other positives of green policy to win their support. That’s why I’m about changing the frame of the argument.
Evangelicals are called to be “good stewards” of God’s gifts. There is scriptural relevance for this, in the parable of the good steward, in Luke 12:41-48.
<
p>For a better understanding of this, I think you could find this article illuminating.
<
p>http://www.religion-online.org…
Quoting the decidedly unfundamentalist Christian Century and quoting Luke, even, reveals nothing about how evangelicals/fundamentalists interpret God’s call to them.
<
p>Christian scripture is a highly flexible thing. Before the Roman persecutions, baptism meant one sinned no more — or else one was out of the church. After the Roman persecutions, the doctrine that “we’re all sinners” took hold. In the Middle Ages, Christian scripture justified restrictions on Jews — if not outright pograms. Now, it mostly doesn’t. The injunction not to work on the Sabbath has been variously interpreted: does it remain a requirement or has the new covenant superseded it.
<
p>The question I was asking JoeTS was political not exegetical. I was asking, “How open are evangelicals to being green?” and not “Should evangelicals be green?”
<
p>Of course, they should be. Are they?
Besides, Laurel knows more about this kind of stuff than I do. Where is she?
<
p>Perhaps she’ll comment.
It’s no secret that you can back up nearly any activity by some biblical passage or other. if you want an excuse to either
you’ll certainly find a verse to your liking. In my experience, when it comes to Christians, it isn’t what is in the Bible that drives their actions, it is what portion of the Bible speaks to them which they will then reference as guidance.
<
p>Given what I said above, I think all Christians by nature should be environmentalists. They are, after all, cherry pickers, lol! đŸ˜€ (that was a good-natured joke – hopefully it will be received as such)
<
p>But seriously folks, there is a new-ish and still rather small movement among some evangelicals to actively engage in green issues. I heartily welcome this. I look forward to working side by side with some of the very people who despise my very existence. I say this seriously. There is nothing like working towards a common goal to break down misconception between the parties involved.
have you ever had a sit-down civil conversation with one of those that you presume “despise (your) very existence”?
<
p>and if you ever do, please don’t be shocked if those “very people” don’t immediately pick up on your munificence and enlightenment.
<
p>
but how can there be a normal conversation when someone refuses to look past their bigotry and find any commonality with you? i am perfectly happy to converse with anyone, if they can lay off the hellfire judgments. some people are not capable of that. it is a shame. this is why i don’t always come out to certain people right away. if they get to like the real me first, they’re not as likely to immediately switch into Judge the Sinner mode when they learn “the rest of the story”. i also rarely tell openly religious people that i’m atheist until we know each other better. this is because i am tired of my statement of non-belief being taken as a direct attack on their faith.
<
p>i am not some high and mighty snob. i grew up in the church. i was told by clergy in my own family how gay people deserved to die from aids because it was god’s retribution. that i am even willing to consider making relationships with such people still amazes me. perhaps i had evangelism drilled into me so deeply a tchurch, that i am still evangelizing, just not in the direction they intended.
What are the odds they would be responsive to my line of argument above?
so not to be evasive, but i really couldn’t answer fairly. you’ll have to reach out to some yourself and see what range of responses you get. i do wonder, though, if they might be a little gun shy of political usury at this point. i would approach them as a green christian who happens to be republican, not as a republican who wants them to dress up the party for improved public palatability. i think some/many will be turned off by any glimmer of greenwashing, intended or not.
George Bush Sr and Jr will go down in history as two of the most incompetent fools to have ever served in the White House, only to be preceeded by James Earl Carter and William Jefferson Clinton. All blundering fools.
WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
<
p>- Form a more perfect union instead of encouraging racism, sexism and homophobia in your party ranks.
<
p>- Establish justice instead of twisting language to justify torture, racism, sexism, homophobia, economic inequality and favoritism toward corporations.
<
p>- Insure domestic tranquility instead of running negative political ads and supporting divisive policies.
<
p>- Provide for the common defense instead of military contractor excess, bloated weapons stockpiles and invasions.
<
p>- Promote the general welfare instead of promoting corporate welfare and benefits to the super-mega-ultra rich.
<
p>- Secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity instead of denying liberty to those you suspect of terrorism, denying liberty of privacy to citizens and thinking so short-sightedly that our posterity has no chance.
<
p>- I’ll add one more: preserve the wall between Church and State with every action you take. Never let your policy decisions be based on belief instead of knowledge.
<
p>NEVER!
<
p>But if you did these things then, hey, you wouldn’t be Repugs any more!
<
p>And that would be a good thing.
<
p>Stay tuned — this is a future part of my series.
<
p>
I hear you, and I think that this is something both parties are guilty of. In fact, I’ve seen more negative stuff coming out of this Obama-Hillary race than anything the right has put out. I’m being very critical of my party while I do this, because it’s important to do so. I would kindly suggest you hold a similar lens to the democrats. That said, It’s my sincere hope that McCain keeps his word and stays positive.
<
p>
<
p>One of my favorite Republicans talked about this. Remember, the warning against the military-industrial complex was coined by Eisenhower. I think giving the contract for the new re-fueling planes to Airbus was a big step in making the market truly competitive, and competition rather than a symbiotic relationship between the State and defense contractors should help alleviate this situation.
<
p>
<
p>It’s my belief that the general welfare shouldn’t be a mandate of the state but acts of charity. It shouldn’t just be a Christian moral mandate, but a human one. The government machine is a huge waste of money when that money would be much better spent going to private charities. We need to find some way to make charities powerhouses in welfare. They do it better than government.
<
p>
<
p>I’m with Ron Paul in giving the Patriot Act the boot. However, there are legitimately people in this country who seek to destroy our lifestyle, and this is something that we all have to understand regardless on personal feelings on the war on terror. These people need to be locked up and a key needs to be thrown out. However, I’m all for giving them some due process before we strip them of freedom and treat them like the animals they are until they die of old age.
<
p>
<
p>This one is always tricky. To me, my religion is my knowledge, not my belief. I don’t know what else to tell you.
<
p>’Religion’, ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ are words which apply to things that you may be convinced are truth but cannot prove to others who do not hold those same beliefs.
<
p>’Fact’, ‘reality’ and ‘knowledge’ are words which apply to things which can be proved to be true.
<
p>As the saying goes, reality is that which doesn’t change even if you don’t believe in it.
<
p>If you are so religious that you cannot tell the difference between the things you believe are true and things which are actually facts, then you don’t belong in government imposing your beliefs on people of different faiths and no faith.
<
p>Public policy must be based on reality and facts or it will invariably be bad. If you need a non-religious example, think of the disasterous policies of Jim Crow down South or policies which forbad gay couples equal marriage rights and protections here in the Commonwealth.
<
p>When right-thinking people finally corrected those bad policies, government became better.
that drove ‘the new frontier’?
There were plenty of facts from scouts and Native Americans. There was plenty of faith on the part of the pioneers.
<
p>And yet, establishing a new frontier and governance of established countries are quite different, so that leads me to yet another guideline:
<
p>- Quit using false equivalences!
Capt. James T. Kirk?!
<
p>Mb
It hit me that you had showed that you didn’t know the difference between ‘the general welfare’ and ‘General Welfare’.
<
p>The first is a concept; the second the name of a relief program.
<
p>So, that leads to two other Guidelines:
<
p>- Become smarter!
<
p>- Become better educated!
<
p>And no, it won’t work to rely on private charity just as it didn’t work during the early years of the Great Depression, before the New Deal (capitalized means the name of a program).
While there is a lot of talk about who will do what when elected, the reality is that nothing changes much unless some large corporate interest leads the politicians. A couple years ago the voters fell for the line that it was the Republicans that caused all the bad things going on in the world. The people voted the Democrats in with a majority. Nothing changed.
<
p>The media (Remember, the newspapers started as propaganda organs for the parties and some still have the name “Republican” or “Democrat” in them) is fed by party/corporate needs. They aren’t going to care about “We the People”.
<
p>I’m just going to vote against all incumbents. Running unopposed? No vote. And send any money to these puppets? They wind up doing things to us, not for us. We’re expected to pay for the privilege? Hah!
Apparently you overlooked
If Gore had been President, we would not be doing foolish, expensive, counterproductive things in Iraq. If Republicans, with an irrationally hatred of regulation, had not been in ascendancy since Reagan, more sensible regulation might have prevented the current banking difficulties.
<
p>Your last paragraph sounds as if you think the best protection against the ugliness of corporate influence is to become a simpleton.
“If…”
<
p>This the same Gore that is hawking Bloom Energy, Amryis , Mascoma and stock in other companies? His whole thing is to make a profit. That isn’t a bad thing, I’d just like to see the process more open. Take the ethanol fuel thing. Is anyone left who thinks that the beneficiaries aren’t ADM, Cargill and other agribusinesses?
<
p>“If Gore had been President, we would not be doing foolish, expensive, counterproductive things in Iraq” I wish I could predict the “shoulda, woulda, coulda”. All I know is that a number of years ago lots of people voted for a guy named Lyndon because Lyndon said the other guy would cause a war. It didn’t work out. But Lyndon and a whole lot of politicians make big bucks on the war.
<
p>“If Republicans, with an irrationally hatred of regulation, had not been in ascendancy since Reagan, more sensible regulation might have prevented the current banking difficulties.” Gee, I thought we had a Democrat in there for eight years. I’ll check my history book.
<
p>Psst! Do you really believe that the people buttonholing you to save energy are saving any themselves? The saving and suffering is for you and yours. Don’t your jaws get tight when you hear Martha, Oprah, Al or any of the celebs with multiple SUVs, mansions, yachts tell you to save energy? They should. Otherwise you just become their sap.
ad hominem attacks.
<
p>Mb
he’s got too many bad votes and no-shows throughout his career. He’s got some good votes, but he’ll be hung on his shortsighted ones:
<
p> * Has voted against improving CAFE standards.
* Refused to back a push to strip drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in December 2005 from a must-pass defense spending bill. Lincoln Chafee and Mike DeWine crossed the aisle to get it pulled out. McCain refused to play ball.
* Forced aside Endangered Species Act provisions to get some pork for his state (a University of Arizona observatory on Mount Graham)
* Voted against a national RPS standard that would require all states to generate minimum thresholds of renewable electricity over a 15ish year time line [where conservation and education counted for a sizable chunk of that relatively small requirement]
* His League of Conservation Voters lifetime score is 24. This session, it’s 0 since he hasn’t bothered to show up to vote for a single important environmental vote in the 110th session. FYI, Obama and Clinton have lifetime ratings of 86, and in the 110th session Obama has a 67 [missed the other votes], and Clinton a 73 [missed the other votes].
* McCain blocked efforts to extend the tax credit for wind power, thereby eroding confidence in American markets and forcing a stutter not only in American installations, but helped push wind turbine technology and jobs away from American companies like GE and instead to folks like Vestas.
<
p>McCain will get no environmental love.
<
p>Where can the GOP get mileage? Exploiting their hatred of Middle Easterns w.r.t. oil. All they ever do is demand more domestic supply. Want to cash in on some enviros while also tapping flag waving? Have the GOP state that their goal is to reduce Middle Eastern imports to 0 by 2015. How will they do it?
(a) immediately crank up CAFE standards
(b) immediately crank up RPS standards
(c) immediately allow for national selling of power back to the grid
(d) immediately subsidize electric cars
(e) immediately get rid of sugar protection, which prevents the US from using sugar cane grown outside tUSA for fuel
(f) immediately crank money into public transit of the commuter rail variety
<
p>then, once you’ve done that and “put your money where your mouth is” on the demand side,
<
p> (g) immediately push for more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
(h) immediately push for drilling in ANWR (and hope that folks forget that it is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge)
(i) immediately push on coal-to-liquids technology
<
p>Now, I loathe (g), (h), and (i)… but once you do (a)-(f) and point out that it’s not enough with respect to oil imports, it will be really hard to argue against (g)-(i) for many folks.
Yesterday, I was talking to one of my few Republican buddies. He voted twice for The Worst President Ever (though not in the same election). He climbed on Obama’s bandwagon early on, crossed over to vote for him in the primary. In spite of his voter registration, he is in most respects a Republican.
<
p>Our conversation ended with a criticism of the Democrats: “What the Democrats don’t understand is that Republicans see politics as war.” It’s win at all costs. Destroy your opponent. To their detriment, the Democrats, he said, don’t see politics this way.
<
p>There is pretty much nothing the GOP won’t do for power from the Southern Strategy to voter suppression to a senseless impeachment. The Worst Presidency Ever is only the apotheosis of what’s been building in the GOP for decades.
<
p>My advice, for whatever it’s worth (and due to my political p.o.v., that may not be very much) is for the GOP to start cultivating a party ethos that isn’t hellbent on the complete destruction of the opposition. How? 1) Make arguments, not ad hominem attacks 2) when caught doing or saying something wrong, don’t defend yourself by saying that “The Democrats did that too.”
<
p>Mark
someday, when i have more time and coffee, this subject can be pontificated on more broadly. but if you take a few steps back (few years back, actually), you’ll see more easily the consistent pendulum swing of american politics.
<
p>about every 8 years, there is some kind of ‘rejection’ claimed by one party of the previous parties policies/worldview. it is as certain as the sun rising tomorrow. the political partisans who are in the trenches (blogging, bitching) will paint it as an epochal battle. but stepping back, what you see is a rather regular swinging back and forth that averages out as rather progressive political progress.
<
p>eisenhower was supposed to be heralding this great new era of american maturity that rejected the quasi-radicalism of the new deal. kennedy was supposed to be herealding this great new era of young progessivism that rejected dad’s blue suit. nixon was supposed to be heralding the great new era of nativist strength that rejected the naivetĂ© of the dreamers. carter was the avatar of the new more simple america, and on and on.
<
p>and here, you’ll see a rather clear swinging back and forth from ideas/poilicies that could be simplistically labeled ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. it’s a fairly regular consistent pattern.
<
p>it swung to the left for the clinton years. bush/cheney got their swing. and now, obama and the dems will be the beneficeries of this regular historical pattern.
<
p>the underlying engine of all of this, is american’s basic dissatisfaction with our government’s performance in general. we live in a constant cycle of ‘throw the bums out’.
<
p>so before one party starts crowing about their triumph over the corrupt other, just remember that the others got into power because the american people threw you out to put them there.
I admit to skepticism about this project, though it is an honorable one.
<
p>Still if reform can’t succeed now, when the failure of the past is clear and the status quo is in disarray, I doubt it ever can.
about the psychiatrist and the lightbulb:
<
p>Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: One, but it has to want to be changed.
<
p>I think society is the same way. Although there are often apparent or perhaps even real solutions to societal or governmental problems, their solution depends on the right conditions in society. We’ve known, for example, about the problems of the military-industrial complex for 50 years, but nothing has been done. The complex is too powerful and too enmeshed in our economy. If and when conditions change, those problems can be dealt with.
<
p>Change happens. Change will happen. Our job is add the ingredients we think best and stir the pot.
<
p>Mark