I want to give props to Cyberhillbilly for pointing me to a story by Jim Geraghty at NRO. In the piece, Geraghty makes the argument that Republicans should take a pragmatic stance on the global warming issue.
I don't buy into the global warming hype. But that doesn't mean I want Republican candidates fighting an uphill battle, trying to convince the public that it's all a hoax. I like a lot of what Jim Manzi says - get past the argument of whether it's happening, and get into the debate over what to do with it, and put GOP support for innovation up against Democratic carbon taxes. (And throw in some mockery of prominent Democrats' blatant hypocrisy on the issue.)
Rush Limbaugh is the King Leonidas of the conservative movement, but I'm struck by how regularly he jokes about the concept of global warming. A lot of his radio talk show brethren are in the same boat, saying day after day, "hey, cold weather today. So much for global warming."
The problem is, they're only preaching skepticism to the converted. The independents and the centrists and the soccer moms and everybody whose vote is needed in the
general election is already convinced that it's happening. Whenever there's a big storm or unusual weather, they buy into it. If you put the finest skeptical scientists and researchers from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and American Enterprise Institute into a room with a couple hundred Americans, and let them talk until they're blue in the face, I'm not sure how much you would move the dials.
In an era where Wal-Mart puts enormous efforts into making the case that it is green, that British Petroleum runs ads about how they're developing alternative fuels, General Electric touts its eco-magination... All of these companies know where public opinion is, and where its customers are. They're all moving as fast as they can, and applying tremendous resources to prove, "we're not part of the problem, we're part of the solution."
Geraghty makes a lot sense with his column. Why should conservatives deny man made global climate change when many centrists believe it exists? Why not just accept it and change the debate towards free market solutions. It seems to make sense.
But what would be the repercussions of such a pragmatic move? It means that conservatives would have ceded huge ground to the environmental socialists. And make no mistake about it. The harbingers of environmental disaster are socialists who want to see the end of capitalism. We would be agreeing to the premise that free market capitalism is destroying our environment.
If that train of thought succeeds then the socialists will have tremendous leverage against capitalism. They will be to logically argue against the need for market solutions. They will be able to claim that market solutions will only exacerbate the problem. How can we trust the greedy capitalists since they are the ones who got us in this mess to begin with?
If conservatives agree to condemn capitalism as destroyers of the environment, they will not be left with a rationale justification for market solutions.
When Roe v Wade was decided a plurality of people then and now think it is a good law. Polls consistently show that a majority support the pro-choice position. Should social conservatives concede the point that it isn't a human life and work to limit the number of abortions? Or should they continue to fight the principled fight? Conservatives have done the latter and it hasn't hurt them at the ballot box.
In my mind the battle over the man made climate change hoax is just as important a battle for fiscal conservatives as abortion is for social conservatives. Like abortion, conservatives must make the principled stance. Besides, I don't believe a principled stand will be as detrimental to conservative election opportunities as Geraghty fears. It just isn't important enough of an issue for most voters.
If Republicans feel the need to embrace green technologies it should be done because it is in the best interest of national security to achieve energy independence. Not because we believe in the man made global warming hoax. Doing otherwise would needlessly undermine the principles of free markets.
