Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Global warming is to Democrats as Global terrorism is to...

Read an interesting article over at New Majority, which brought up some interesting points regarding the cap & trade bill, Democrats & Republicans, and the tendancy of Politicians to fling baseless accusations along the lines of "treason."

In a phone interview with MSNBC, Representative Henry Waxman, D-CA, accused the Republican party of being unamerican in voting against the cap & trade, stimulus, and budget measure. Waxman used some surprisingly familiar rhetoric when he said that the GOP has been "rooting against the country" by voting no on the Democrats' bills.

In the article, the author first gives part of Rep. Waxman's accusations:

So far, this Congress -- since Obama became President -- the Republicans have said no to an economic stimulus bill, they’re saying no to a global warming bill... They want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Democrats. They're rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming. I wish they were playing a more constructive role. Some Republicans doubt the whole science of global warming, even though the consensus is overwhelming. They don’t want to believe it.

The author then points out the similarities in the rhetoric from the left on global warming, and the rhetoric from just a few years ago from the right on global terrorism. He takes Waxman's quote, and replaces "global warming" with phrases about the war on terror and Iraq:

So far, this Congress -- since they became the majority -- the Democrats have said no to the troop surge, they’re saying no to a war funding bill... They want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Republicans. They're rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global terrorism. I wish they were playing a more constructive role. Some Democrats doubt the whole success of the surge, even though the consensus is overwhelming. They don’t want to believe it.

Hmm. Interesting. Never thought about it that way. The similarities are striking.

Don't believe it? Here's Paul Krugman from the NY Times:
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Whoa.

The author of the article points out that both sides are looking for "snakes in the garden," being vigilant against those they view as trying to ruin the country. But, he points out, "his accusation was both wrongly directed and poorly applied."

That happens on both sides of the aisle. It really should stop. I like how he ends the article:

...In Waxman's recent episode, legitimate concern was mistaken for callous sedition, quite possibly because he (like Krugman and others) truly believes global warming is a more deadly threat than radical Islam. In his world, regrettably, basic policy skepticism is “treason” and the largest tax on the middle class in more than a decade, in the words of another Democrat, is “patriotic.”

Funny, you could switch that around as well.

15 comments:

Jennifer said...

Wow, that was a very astute observation. It truly can be said for both sides and that should tell you that we are alike in a lot of ways (not always in a good way) but just on different issues. This blame game has got to stop, I totally agree! The problem is that as soon as a certain side disagrees with a proposal it's automatically just in spite rather than genuine concern.

bluepitbull said...

So you think that national security is equivalent to global warming?

Jennifer and James, I am interested to hear your stance on this.

All others, not so interested.

Jennifer said...

As far as I am concerned, America's security is first and foremost. What good is worrying about global warming if the country isn't safe. I support defending our country wholeheartedly.

I'm not sure all the democrats will agree with me though. Our priorities and views differ and this is just one example of it.

Just because I find it an interesting comparison doesn't mean that I don't prioritize one over the other.

James' Muse said...

National security is more important.

My point is that both sides take their issue to an extreme, and then call the other side "traitors" or "unamerican" if they ask questions, raise concerns, or disagree with their methods.

Under GWB it was "terrorism is everywhere!" which was used to push certain things through which were unconstitutional.

Now the same is happening under Obama and his global warming stuff. Environmental concerns are valid, but it gets taken to a new level with some of the far-left.

There should be discussion on both sides on both issues, and the "un-american" rhetoric really needs to stop.

bluepitbull said...

It's an interesting point.

The big difference is that global warming is a quasi religious ideology that sheep believe in and the governments of the world are using to make more money.

Security, however, is actually anchored solidly in reality.

James' Muse said...

True. And at times, so is National Security. National Security is real, but the right used (and still uses) it to further their own agendas by exaggerating it.

bluepitbull said...

It wasn't exaggerated, James. Don't let your hatred of the Bush family cloud your judgment.

There is alot more to Iraq than came out in the press.

James' Muse said...

I didn't say anything about Iraq. And I don't hate Bush, or his family (in fact, I kinda liked his dad, and I did vote for Bush in '04), I just disagree with some of his later policies.

What I mean is that at times, the right will use National Security to further their own agendas, exaggerating parts in order to push through unconstitutional laws. The Executive Branch is the worst, on both sides, way overreaching what they were originally intended to do. Example from the right: Parts of the PATRIOT Act, the John Yoo Memos, NSA wiretapping scandal.
Examples from the left: cap & trade.

bluepitbull said...

Unconstitutional, like universal health care?

James' Muse said...

Perhaps...but I don't think the constitution says much about it. Plus, they aren't using global warming to justify it.

bluepitbull said...

Lemme tell you something; you try and push an issue through a FISA court and see if there is any relevant information by the time they get their thumbs out of their butts.

The Patriot act isn't as bad as it sounds. And it wasn't used for listening to normal US citizens. If you weren't doing anything wrong, it shouldn't matter.

James' Muse said...

I didn't say ALL of the PATRIOT act...and you're wrong about not listening to ordinary citizens. Just two weeks ago it came out that they were listening to Hilary Clinton, and others.

My point was while even if they weren't using to spy on people, like you say, they were authorized to do so, which is unconstitutional.

Just as some things on the other side are unconstitutional will be done in the name of "global "warming."

Pamela D. Hart said...

James: Hilary isn't an average citizen.

Global warming, in my opinion, is being used to ram things like cap & raid down our throats which is going to kill the poor and move the middle class into the poor category. I realize we need alternative energies, but they've been preaching this since Carter, if not before. What makes Obama the ONE to get it done? If it were so easy, it would've been done already. The other President's who campaigned on it realized it would cost the citizens too much and therefore dropped it. I don't think we should drop it, but we need to seek a way to do it efficiently and in a way that won't cost US our blood.

bluepitbull said...

Prove to me they were listening to Hilary. And if they were, good. She was helping sell secrets to the chinese for personal gain.

James' Muse said...

I'm looking for the article now. Can't find it yet.

But that is beside the point. Point is: The Right used the threat of terrorism to push through an unconstitutional program using warrantless wiretaps. That goes against the 4th amendment.

The Left is going to be pushing through a lot of stuff with global warming.