The Inaccuracy of the Right Wing/Left Wing Paradigm

The labeling of conservatives as "right wing" in America is a deliberate attempt to attach fascism to the modern American freedom movement.  It is a cynical attempt to affix a swastika to shirts worn by people who have spent lifetimes trying to defeat the tyranny of either a fascist or communist state.  It is the simplistic method through which a freedom warrior like Jordan Peterson, a guy who despises all forms of authoritarian government, can be gleefully mislabeled a fascist.

Don't accept it. 

As American (or western) conservatives, that is, as people who yearn for a small republican state answerable to the very people who give it its limited powers, we find ourselves in direct conflict with both ends of the European right wing/left wing paradigm.  Even though we despise all forms of socialism whether it is administered by totalitarian communists or authoritarian fascists, we get thrown in with evil tyrants like Hitler and Goebbels and that little dweeb from Italy.

The right wing/left wing pole in European history places communism on the extreme left and fascism on the extreme right.  This is a natural comparison in that for most of the past 100 years on that continent (and beyond) there has been a brutal battle between these two authoritarian models.  The communists want control of means of production through government or collectivist means while the fascists want the means of production to be controlled top-down through a government/corporate partnership. 

In either of these brutal movements the individual is sacrificed to groups of ever greater power with ever shrinking accountability.

But, while that conflict is also present in America where the KKK might clash with antifa, the KKK is not an American conservative movement, and as such is not a legitimate member of the right wing outside of a European comparison.

But where on this European right wing/left wing yardstick can you place someone who believes in a small republican government?  You cannot.  Its like trying to place a mammal somewhere on the amphibian scale between frog and salamander.

While most conservatives know this distinction, many on the left are so progressively indoctrinated that they have never even considered that there is a difference and many others actually believe that right wing conservatives are the same fascists of old, hunkered down in their bunkers beneath the bombed ruins of Berlin.

We are not.  We never have been.  We will never be. 

We believe in small government.  We believe that by the virtue of our natural being we are provided with natural rights that are not bestowed on us by a benevolent state.  We believe in private property rights and that the individual is sovereign.  None of these notions, notions that are at the very core of our belief system, are considered legitimate by authoritarian governments whether they are of fascist or communist or any other top down socialist ideology.

Point this out the next time some intersectional postmodernist calls you a right winger and hints that deep inside you is a latent fascist waiting to put on jack boots and a brown shirt.  Point out that you do not accept this narrative.

If they insist they will expose themselves for the liars and hopeless losers that they are.  And lets be honest, it is not the first time you have witnessed them acting foolishly.

Before There was a Green New Deal, Detroit had its Own Green New Deal

Ten years ago, long before there was a Green New Deal on the tongues and in the minds of impertinent school kids who would later accost Dianne Feinstein in her Senate office, there was a celebration of sorts in Detroit over the city's success in limiting its own carbon footprint.

A study that I wrote about at the time by the Brooking's Institute indicated that Detroit rated 37th best among America's largest cities in green house gas emissions.  It was a small silver lining behind a large rain cloud. 

The Detroit area did surprisingly well in a 100-city comparison of global warming gases, although it's not clear how much of that standing reflects economic doldrums and an increasingly older mix of residents in a place where the population is not growing. By most measures, including the degree of sprawl and lack of mass transit, metro Detroit hardly seems like a candidate for a city with a lighter carbon footprint than most.

It did "surprisingly well." I think a walk down memory lane might be useful here. 

In 2008 Detroit was not a vibrant place to do business.   Many large employers had already left the city and a few of those remaining were on the brink of exodus.   Factories closed, the epicenter of American automobile manufacturing had shifted southward and, while the Detroit Lions and Detroit Tigers had made major investments in the midtown area, most major area commerce, as a general rule, took place outside of Detroit in counties to the north and west. 

And the population of Detroit in particular and Michigan as a whole was shrinking.  According to the US Census Bureau the city lost over 200,000 residents in the years 2000-10.   Most of these folks wound up in suburbia but the state over the same time period lost over 50,000 residents, the only recorded decade of population loss in Michigan's history.  (Around here we like to call this the Jennifer Granholm effect.)

Detroit city schools were crumbling both physically and academically.  Parents, not wanting to see their children raised in the octagon, grabbed their kids and took them across 8 Mile.  (If you want to see a city's population shrink make sure a cornerstone of your strategy includes exposing the children to the dangers of violence, drugs and a disruptive learning environment.)  A child who entered the first grade in Detroit in the year 1996 had approximately a 30 percent chance of graduating in 2008, and those that did graduate were most likely in need of jump start courses if interested in college.

So people left.  They left in cars and in moving vans. For sale signs first dotted and then dominated the landscapes.  Houses went feral.  Sidewalks and side streets crumbled.  Street lights went dark.

The good news, we were told in 2008, was the smaller carbon footprint.

But maybe this is not so surprising after all. 

Carbon footprints are to a great degree a measurement of economic activity.  Fossil fuels, the major culprit in global climate change, is still inarguably the least expensive and most efficient energy source on the planet.  Wherever people live, wherever they congregate, wherever they travel, and wherever they produce, they consume energy and today that means they create carbon emissions.

The Green New Deal largely tries to combat these emissions by shifting away from fossil fuels and by choking off energy usage that benevolent (and all-knowing) bureaucrats feel is unnecessary. So, shut down the coal plant, erect some windmills and get granny to turn her thermostat down to 63 degrees. 

And yet, a growing and robust economy jumps existential hurdles as a matter of due course.  The wealth created by charging economies fuels solutions to problems that appeared almost insurmountable to those who previously lived in periods of crises.

A poor world cannot.

A poor world could not cure the plague.  It could not feed the starving.  It could not reliably raise its children into adulthood.  It could not tell the people of Galveston to flee the hurricane, and today's world, as wealthy as it is, cannot currently alter the carbon trajectory of this planet. 

But a more wealthy world, given time and motivation, could. 

And this is where the Green New Deal, for all its rose petals and sprinkles of promise, will fail.  For in its economy crippling efforts to combat a problem for which it cannot solve, it will crush the only mechanism on Earth that could possibly provide a solution in the future, that being the American free market.

The ballpark price tag for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is on the order of $90 trillion dollars over the next ten years.  We don't have that much cabbage.

According to the St. Louis Federal Reserve, the GDP of Michigan in 2017 was approximately $509 billion.  (I made about half of that mowing lawns.)  In order to fund the Green New Deal it would take confiscating every cent of GDP in Michigan that year and then borrowing another 175 times that much from Al Gore.

Which brings me back to Detroit and 2008.

The most effective current way to control carbon emissions is to debilitate a society.  Detroit proved that.  Strip from its people the need to move, to congregate, to recreate and to reproduce.  Close the shutters and lock the doors.  While it was effective it was a pretty big price to pay for a society that for the first time in history had solved existential crises of disease, pestilence, hunger and conflict. 

The Green New Deal authors do not consider that they will separate man from his carbon by also separating him from his wealth.  Their minds are too deeply wrapped around setting up roadblocks and forcing behavior changes than to think about what the effects of these changes will have on the affected.  Then again, those "in charge" never have to suffer as perilously as those who actually live on the front lines of policy.

But today's Detroit is not in 2008.
  
The city is experiencing a stunning rebirth due to new business investment.  While the tendrils of this economic expansion have yet to reach every downtrodden neighborhood, work is now available in the city for nearly anyone who is willing to strap on a hardhat or swing a hammer.  We can predict that carbon emissions will rise with such growth but so will wealth.

The future technologies that a wealthy society can create will answer the daunting questions of today such as climate change and a mousetrap I can depend on, and will provide answers for crises of the future that we cannot yet envision.

Wealth in the hands of inventors and innovators will solve our problems.  The GND will make the ultimate solution impossible. 

The Value of Familial Political Discussions

After the dinner dishes had been cleared the family did what it always does during and after such events, it talked.  And while the poltergeists typically take the night off when we gather as such, on this night there was mischief in the air as images of an orange complected man swirled about the room and hovered for tense moments above that same space that just minutes before had been occupied by pizza and crisp, delicious salads.

We have been warned to avoid such topics for the sake of our mental health, for there is something about that particular orange specter that coaxes out of the best of us the worst of our natures.

Numerous articles are written prior to the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays on how families should either avoid all such discussions or, conversely, can use the holidays as platforms to convince others of their transgressions and thought crimes.  Chapters of psychology books could easily be dedicated to either of these dysfunctions.

And so it was that warnings went unheeded and territory best left unexplored was invaded, first haltingly, and then in a stampede of words and emotions and histrionics that would make the press jealous were it aimed at a staged Windy City hate crime.

I've been thinking about this for the past few days.

I have historically been an advocate of avoiding these conversations altogether but I might become a supporter of these potential food fights even if we could gain something for a a reason other than the convincing of others. 

The importance of these discussions to an unraveling nation is not in the evangelism itself but in the context of that evangelism and that it takes place within the comfort of familiarity and acceptance.  When the dust and spittle settles we should be able to recognize that there are good and decent people on both sides of every argument (except the alt-right and hardened abortion advocates--they suck and should eat outside.)

Where else can we realistically and confidently be exposed to this evidence?

Outside of the family unit and the civil society it is almost impossible because we have to know people with some certainty before we can discern their character. At a distance this is not always possible.  An example is the talking head on television than can portray his decency and wisdom with measured words without any of his dedicated viewers knowing that he has installed a remote locking mechanism on his office door in a scheme to trap potential harassment victims inside the lair.

As such we put too much confidence in unknown professionals with advance degrees in influence and indoctrination while discounting those we know more closely.  It is only after we learn that the kind newsman on the tube is actually a sexual predator that we can give his opinions a worthy trust.

I'm not saying that Aunt Alice is a foreign policy expert or that Cousin Billy III has studied climate science.  What I am saying is that Alice and Billy(3) represent to us people in the flesh who we know to be decent people and whose characters cannot be dismissed or besmirched as evil because of their viewpoint on Al Gore's carbon footprint.

Their history of caring over skinned knees and bruised egos is more important than any political opinion on topics over which they have very little influence or experience. And yet they know at least as much as you or I do. What should shine through is the decency of those we know and love.

In an age where the family unit is ever more attacked and where politics is becoming ever more divisive, the family is ever more important for the glue it provides. The family proves to us that familiarity can transcend the division of politics and that forceful opinions, while often times delivered without the politeness we intend, do not place a value on our souls. 

Prior to the reign of King Donald most families across America were able to scoop peas and mashed potatoes into gaping maws without having to worry overmuch about them being coughed up again in a gale of political indignation and grievance.

Though the age has changed and the atmosphere is less temperate than it used to be, we should try to understand that those with differing political opinions are not by default the Hitlers of old. 

If the family and civil society can not accomplish this than nothing can.  And if nothing can accomplish it there are truly rough waters ahead.