Posted on 10/25/2005 2:24:39 AM PDT by RWR8189
A reader recently sent me an e-mail about a woman he had met and fallen for. Apparently the attraction was mutual -- until one fateful day the subject of the environment came up.
She was absolutely opposed to any drilling for oil in Alaska, on grounds of what harm she said it would do to the environment.
He argued that, since oil was going to be drilled for somewhere in the world anyway, was it not better to drill where there were environmental laws to provide at least some kinds of safeguards, rather than in countries where there were none?
That was the end of a beautiful relationship.
Environmentalist true believers don't think in terms of trade-offs and cost-benefit analysis. There are things that are sacred to them. Trying to get them to compromise on those things would be like trying to convince a Moslem to eat pork, if it was only twice a week.
Compromise and tolerance are not the hallmarks of true believers. What they believe in goes to the heart of what they are. As far as true believers are concerned, you are either one of Us or one of Them.
The man apparently thought that it was just a question of which policy would produce which results. But many issues that look on the surface like they are just about which alternative would best serve the general public are really about being one of Us or one of Them -- and this woman was not about to become one of Them.
Many crusades of the political left have been misunderstood by people who do not understand that these crusades are about establishing the identity and the superiority of the crusaders.
T.S. Eliot understood this more than half a century ago when he wrote: "Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves."
In this case, the man thought he was asking the woman to accept a certain policy as the lesser of two evils, when in fact he was asking her to give up her sense of being one of the morally anointed.
This is not unique to our times or to environmentalists. Back during the 1930s, in the years leading up to World War II, one of the fashionable self-indulgences of the left in Britain was to argue that the British should disarm "as an example to others" in order to serve the interests of peace.
When economist Roy Harrod asked one of his friends whether she thought that disarming Britain would cause Hitler to disarm, her reply was: "Oh, Roy, have you lost all your idealism?"
In other words, it was not really about which policy would produce what results. It was about personal identification with lofty goals and kindred souls.
The ostensible goal of peace was window-dressing. Ultimately it was not a question whether arming or disarming Britain was more likely to deter Hitler. It was a question of which policy would best establish the moral superiority of the anointed and solidify their identification with one another.
"Peace" movements are not judged by the empirical test of how often they actually produce peace or how often their disarmament tempts an aggressor into war. It is not an empirical question. It is an article of faith and a badge of identity.
Yasser Arafat was awarded the Nobel Prize for peace -- not for actually producing peace but for being part of what was called "the peace process," based on fashionable notions that were common bonds among members of what are called "peace movements."
Meanwhile, nobody suggested awarding a Nobel Prize for peace to Ronald Reagan, just because he brought the nuclear dangers of a decades-long cold war to an end. He did it the opposite way from how members of "peace movements" thought it should be done.
Reagan beefed up the military and entered into an "arms race" that he knew would bankrupt the Soviet Union if they didn't back off, even though arms races are anathema to members of "peace movements." The fact that events proved him right was no excuse as far as members of "peace movements" were concerned. As far as they were concerned, he was not one of Us. He was one of Them.
Copyright 2005 Creators Syndicate
Congratulations. Thanks for giving some of us hope of finding a good Conservative that is still available.
Lucky guy. Imagine if he had married her...
In other words, it was not really about which policy would produce what results. It was about personal identification with lofty goals and kindred souls.
Excellent Article. New tag line.
TS nails it. This is precisely how the CANSWER crowd and the Code Pinkos think. 'Pod.
I can believe it, as I used to be one myself. At least I share something with the brilliant professor!
Excellent point in an excellent article.
Actually, it was a he, we were frat brothers, and once best friends. We roomed together to save on rent and utilities, but he could never get over the fact that I was an evil Republican, just like his parents were. We didn't speak for two weeks after the 1994 election, because he was so stunned by the Gingrich takeover, and like I said earlier, we haven't spoken since the Battle of Florida. His own idol, Algore, couldn't steal the election, and it drove him over the edge.
Most of the cute girls I either hung out with or dated in college were already conservative, or I converted them. Once they get out of the comfy confines of school and into the real world, they learned real fast that maybe I wasn't so crazy after all to be warning them about the perils of liberalism. ;^)
maturity is a lot of it....i'm amazed at some who never grow up...or worse, liberalize with age.
congrats.
Political correctness is like this too, with the added motivation of wanting to signal to other people what a fine person you are. Thus we get this sort of race to the bottom to see who in the West can self-loathe the fastest with the mostest. This is the stuff of which piggy banks in Britain are banned, and mass-casualty bombings of civilian targets become the fault of everyone but the bomber.
Great story! As one who has often suffered through the "well, I really liked you until I discovered you were conservative" response, you have my sympathies - but you have given hope to us all!
I assume you're speaking of Miers but I don't see much resemblence myself.
Hmmm, that's being very generous to Steyn.
That is the only place I disagree with you. The Democrat party should go the way of the dinosaur.
I completely agree we need two powerful parties—just make it Republicans and Libertarians...or some other combination of groups who are currently, at least partially, aligned on the right. Make the "smaller government" part fundamental and the argument becomes "how small." The Democrats constantly pull us left, whereas a different set up would pull us right. A matter of degrees.
I'm picking nits, though. How blessed we are, at this particular point in history, with such, um, special opposition. I'm not sure that we'd be up to a much greater task.
ping
We don't get together much any more...
It's worse than that, I'm afraid...I believe libs have defined themselves in opposition. If conservatives say yes, libs say no. Suppose you define yourself as a mirror image of a cariacture?
That's why the left continues off the cliff, and can't stop themselves.
Great piece. Sowell nails it yet again.
Most of the cute girls I either hung out with or dated in college were already conservative, or I converted them.
Well, there's the saying that there's only one good reason for a guy to be a feminist....
: D. It's fun to watch them go.
As long as we are learning valuable lessons in the process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.